|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 654 Records
-
2007 (11) TMI 692 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... respondent. While orders are not passed in the stay petition, Revenue Recovery proceedings have been initiated by Ext.P8 and it is on account of this, that this writ petition has been filed. 3. From the facts as stated above, it is fairly clear that the fate of Ext.P7 appeal will depend upon the outcome of Ext.P2 appeal and therefore, disposal of Ext.P2 appeal would be necessary for consideration of Ext.P7. Be that as it may, presently I am concerned only with Ext.P8 and question is whether at this stage recovery action should be allowed to be continued. Now since Ext.P2 appeal is pending consideration of the first respondent and Ext.P7 is pending consideration of the third respondent, I am inclined to grant a conditional stay of Ext.P8. 4. Accordingly, it is directed that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 shall be deferred on the petitioner remitting a sum of ₹ 4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs) within a period of one month from today. Writ petition is disposed of as above.
-
2007 (11) TMI 691 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... allegation that he has been removed from the directorship of the respondent company, it is settled law that directorial complaints cannot be a ground in a petition under Sections 397/398 as the complaints in such a petition should be relating to the rights qua a member. It is only in the case of family companies or companies in the nature of partnership, depending on the facts of the case, directorial complaints have been adjudicated by this Board in Sections 397/398 proceedings. In this view of the matter, I find no justification to allow the petitioner's prayer in this regard. Even otherwise in this petition the respondents have been able to prove their case that the petitioner had resigned from directorship of his own and had filed his resignation letter with the banker to get released from his collateral and personal guarantee. 17. The petition is disposed of with the above directions. All interim orders stand vacated. All CAs stand disposed off. No order as to cost.
-
2007 (11) TMI 690 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... removal of the "Polywool waste" in the garb of "Wool Polywaste" i.e., All wool waste during the period from 21/09/1998 to 31/08/2002 under Annexure 'D', the documents were not furnished to them and there was no material to arrive at the classification of the waste under heading 55.05. The mandate is to prove that the polyester fibre pre-dominates in the wastes so cleared. The Commissioner is, therefore, required to re-determine the duty demand under Annexure 'C' and 'D' after supplying the necessary documents and hearing the appellants on all issues, which they may opt to raise before him as regards the issues of duty demand under Annexure 'C' and 'D' to the notice are concerned. 10. Needless to add that the question of penalties would be determined only after the demands, if any, are quantified. The appeals of M/s. IIL are disposed off as partially allowed and partially remanded. (Pronounced in Court on 08/11/2007)
-
2007 (11) TMI 689 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ;, New Delhi in ITA No. 4042/Del/2004 relevant for the Assessment Year 2001-02. The admitted position is that in view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Punjab Stainless Steel ITA No.1460 of 2006 decided on 9th January, 2007 no substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 688 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d have drawn the attention of an ordinary prudent individual to the possibility that his act was capable of causing the kind of serious harmful consequences that the section which creates the offence was intended to prevent, and that the risk of those harmful consequences occurring was not so slight that an ordinary prudent individual would feel justified in treating them as negligible. It is only when this is so that the doer of the act is acting recklessly' if, before doing the act, he either fails to give any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or, having recognized that there was such risk, he nevertheless goes on to do it. 15. Normally, as rightly observed by the High Court charges can be altered at any stage subsequent to the framing of charges. But the case at hand is one where prima facie Section 302 IPC has no application. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The charges stand altered to Section 304A IPC along with Sections 279 and 337 IPC.
-
2007 (11) TMI 687 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... indings of fact, we do not think that the same warrants our interference. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 686 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion nor has this aspect been seriously canvassed before this Court by the learned Counsel for the defendants. Issue No. 6 Relief 31. In view of the aforesaid findings, a decree is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in CS (OS) No. 138/1995 declaring that the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Queen's Division Bench, Commercial Court in case bearing No. 1988, Folio No. 1090 is not conclusive as to the matter between the plaintiff and the defendants, a decree of permanent injunction is passed restraining the defendants from enforcing the said decree. EA(OS) No. 278/94 (Under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC by JD-1), being the objections filed to the execution, must also succeed while the execution petition for enforcement of the decree is liable to be dismissed on account of the decree not meeting the parameters as set out in Clause (b) of Section 13 of the said Code. 32. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 33. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
-
2007 (11) TMI 685 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... utilised his substantial holdings in the low floating stock mid-cap companies to indulge in manipulative trades to benefit the sub-accounts at the cost of the Indian unit holders but this was not the charge against Arora. We cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent. The charges levelled against Arora have been referred to in the earlier part of the order and it is clear that this charge was also levelled against him the finding on which was reversed by this Tribunal. Having gone through the facts of the present case and the impugned order and the order passed in Arora's case, we have no doubt that the issues involved in the two cases were the same and that the appellants have been found guilty only on account of their vicarious liability. 7. For the view that we have taken, it is not necessary for us to decide whether the penalty was properly quantified. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside. There is no order as to costs.
-
2007 (11) TMI 684 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Income Tax Circle, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. 2. All other properties, certified' by a director of Bharti Airtel Limited, which are owned by Bharti Airtel Limited and on which telecom towers are situated as on the effective date. PART II (Illustrative (and not exhaustive) short description of the Leasehold Property comprised in the Transferred Undertaking of Bharti Airtel Limited) 1. All that piece and parcel of land on which telecom tower is situated being No. 3, Quzar (Koikari) Kalimandir Management Committee, Dimoria, No. 3 Quzari Gaon. 2. All that piece and parcel of land on which telecom tower is situated being Shivapuri Pahar (Mandir), Near Oil Mill, Hastinapur, 9th Mile, Khanapara. 3. All other properties, certified by a directors of Bharti Airtel Limited, which are which are owned on leasehold basis by Bharti Airtel Limited and on which telecom towers are situated as on the Effective Date. Part-Ill Illustrative (and not exhaustive) list of all investments comprised.
-
2007 (11) TMI 683 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ction 7 of the Act. 16. Even otherwise also, in our opinion, the assessee is not eligible and entitled to pay tax at the compounded rate in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 30A of the Rules. If for any reason the petitioner intends to avail the benefit of payment of tax at the compounded rate, he ought to have filed an application before the assessing authority/Sales Tax Officer prior to the receipt of the contract amount. In the instant case, such a thing has not been done by the assessee. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not entitled for payment of tax at the compounded rate as provided under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act. 17. In that view of the matter, we affirm the orders passed by the assessing authority and that of the Tribunal on a different count altogether. Therefore, the Tax Revision Case fails and accordingly it is rejected. 18. Consequently I.A. 2550 of 2007 is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
-
2007 (11) TMI 682 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to show that the petitioner has offered to pay the consideration or he had tendered the same, to decide whether non-acceptance of the consideration for the shares could be an act of oppression as contended by Shri Chaudhary. While a stand could be taken that in respect of the additional shares of 8,000 no calls have been made, as I do not find any notice having been issued to the petitioner in this regard, on the 2,000 shares that he had agreed to subscribe as per the memorandum, payment towards consideration became due immediately on incorporation. Section 399 not only specifies that there should not be any pending dues on the calls made, it also provides that no other sum should also be due on the shares. In the present case, the amount on 2,000 shares became due on incorporation of the company which the petitioner has not paid so far. 7. Therefore, the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirements of Section 399 and accordingly I dismiss the petition as not maintainable.
-
2007 (11) TMI 681 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hout a proper instrument. Furthermore, it is noticed that the petitioner has also reiterated that a direction be given to the respondents to return the petitioner's letter of allotment left at the registered office of the company. 24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner's case is such as may be remedied by attracting the provisions of Section 111 of the Act which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue. Since this petition is not maintainable on the ground of non-qualification under Section 399 alone, I do not find it necessary to deal with the other preliminary objections regarding delay and laches in filing of the petition as well as the conduct of the petitioner allegedly of unclean hands seeking relief in this equitable proceeding. Nor do I find it necessary to deal with contentions on merits of this case. 25. The petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. All interim orders stand vacated. All CAs stand disposed of.
-
2007 (11) TMI 680 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uo;), (Delhi Bench A Delhi) in ITA Nos. 2793/Delhi/2001 relevant for the Financial Year 1997-1998. The admitted position is that in view of decision of this Court in respect of the same Assessee, which is reported in 2007 291 ITR 331(Delhi), no substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 679 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... olicy decision was taken. There was, thus, no reason not to offer any appointment in his favour. Why the select panel was ignored has not been explained. Even the purported policy decision was not in their contemplation. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 19. Furthermore, the respondent is an ex-serviceman. He in ordinary case should have been offered appointment particularly when three posts were vacant. The decision to abolish posts was not taken at a point of time when he had filed the writ petition. It was expected that on 16.06.2005 when the third candidate refused to join the post, he should have been offered the same. 20. The policy decision to abolish the posts as also contracting out the security services was taken by the appellant much thereafter, viz., on or about 29.12.2005. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is not a fit case where we should interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
2007 (11) TMI 678 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... racting the confessional statement to lead some evidence as to why the confessional statement has to be rejected. No evidence on that count was led. Coupled with the confessional statement wherein some facts were recorded which was personal to the appellant alone, there were other documentary evidence coupled with the attendant circumstantial as noted by the tribunal to demonstrate and prove the charges against the appellant. In other words, there was material to support the confessional statement, which was relied upon to hold that the appellant guilty. The tribunal also concurred with the finding that the foreign exchange was obtained on forged import documents and the same was remitted abroad to foreign nationals. We have no reasons to differ or take a different view. 8. In our opinion, these are purely findings of fact. We do not find any perversity in the said findings and consequently, in our opinion there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 677 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... have been denied for subsequent assessment years. The revenue ought to have, therefore, challenged the order passed by the assessing officer for the assessment year 1992-93. The revenue having not done so we are of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned in the present appeal. Since we are dismissing the appeal placing reliance upon the Judgment in CIT vs. Paul Brothers (supra) we do not deem it necessary to go into the issue as to whether the activities carried out by the assessee in dairy division constitute manufacturing activities or not. We also do not deem it necessary to refer to several authorities relied upon by Mr. Parchure in support of the submission that the activities carried out by the assessee are not manufacturing activities. 6. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the present appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 676 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Disallowed deduction u/s 80AI - Activities carried out in dairy division constitute manufacturing activities ? - HELD THAT:- The revenue ought to have been aware that in case deduction was allowed in a particular year same could not have been denied during subsequent assessment years. The revenue ought to have, therefore, challenged the order passed by the assessing officer in the assessment year 1992-93. The revenue having not done so we are of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned in the present appeal.
Since we are dismissing the appeal by placing reliance upon the Judgment in CIT vs. Paul Brothers [1992 (10) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we do not deem it necessary to go into the issue as to whether the activities carried out by the assessee in dairy division constitute manufacturing activities or not. We do not deem it necessary to refer to several authorities relied upon by Mr. Parchure in support of the submission that the activities carried out by the assessee are not manufacturing activities.
Interest on cash credit - HELD THAT:- We find that the Tribunal was justified in relying upon its own order by which addition made by the assessing officer was held to be unwarranted. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference in appeal under Section 260A of the Act. We also find that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 675 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt by the respondent to the appellant to the notice of the appellant under Section 434 of the Companies Act, would also indicate that the payment of the balance amount is disputed on the ground that the appellant had not carried out the assignments satisfactorily and that none of the engineers of the appellant had visited Renusagar with engineers of the respondent for negotiations. They had stated categorically in their reply that the appellant was not in a position to render any assistance and, Therefore, the respondent company had to intervene and use other resources to do the job assigned to the appellant. Since the aforesaid claim of the appellant is disputed and prima facie on valid grounds, Therefore, such a claim could not have been decided through a petition under Section 434 of the Companies Act, which is required to be decided in a summary manner. 15. We, Therefore, find no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 674 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... chartered accountants, agreeing to buy the shares of other group or to sell its shares to the other group at the said higher price and the group quoting its price higher than the one quoted by the other group shall have first option to buy the shares of the group quoting the lower price, thereafter the CLB shall pass appropriate order directing the group quoting higher price to purchase the shares of other group quoting lower price. 32. In view of disposal of this appeal it is not necessary for us to consider the application I.A. No. 11/07 tiled in this appeal by the second respondent herein seeking several directions against respondent No. 12, the Managing Director of JV Co. including the direction to hold the meeting of BOD and to take all actions as per the decision of BOD. Respondent No. 2 is at liberty to file similar application before the CLB if the circumstances so warrant, and in that event the CLB may consider the same. There is no order as to costs in this appeal.
-
2007 (11) TMI 673 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... inistrative Law 4th Edn. There is no reason why we should hesitate to adopt this rule as a part of our continually expanding administrative law. 23. Had paragraph 3.1 not been in the advertisement of the UPSC it is possible that we may have taken a view in favour of the respondents since in that case it was open to the UPSC to resort to any rational method of short- listing of its choosing (provided it was fair and objective). However, in the present case, a particular manner of short-listing has been prescribed in paragraph 3.1. Hence, it is not open to the UPSC to resort to any other method of short-listing even if such other method can be said to be fair and objective. 24. For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appellant has been working as Deputy Director (Agriculture) since 2001 in pursuance of the judgment of the Tribunal and the interim order of this Court, and we uphold his appointment. No costs.
........
|
