|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 467 Records
-
2002 (7) TMI 818 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... w. The rate of interest on the compensation amount shall be awarded by the Tribunal or the Court depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the relevant guiding factors as observed as above. We make it clear that if the compensation amount is enhanced, interest can be awarded at the discretion of the bench either from the date of the petition or from the date of the award, as the case may be. 87. We answer the reference accordingly. The matters are remitted back to the Division Bench for disposal in accordance with law. 88. It was held in the instant case that the grant of interest is dependant on the facts and circumstances of each case and at the sole discretion of the Tribunal or the Court. But, in the present cases, the High Court on appellate side has not so far gone into the issue whether the compensation awarded is justified. Unless that is gone into, it may not be possible to come to any conclusion at what rate the compensation should carry interest.
-
2002 (7) TMI 817 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... if it was considered to be a provision extinguishing a right. Learned counsel have also relied on some other judgments of the other High Courts. These really would be no aid in answering the issue, which have arisen here. To my mind, considering the judgment of the Apex Court and the law declared, the judgments of the other High Courts need not be gone into. 7. Considering the above and the judgments of the Apex Court, the order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and in the light of that the Review Application stands dismissed. Learned Counsel for the Revision Applicant prays that the orders be stayed. The writ petition is of the year 1993. The suit was filed in the year 1992. The direction was given for disposing of the suit within 2 years. Considering that, to my mind it, would not be proper to stop the proceedings. The court to proceed with the matter but not to pass judgment, for a period of 12 weeks from today. 8. Certified copy expedited.
-
2002 (7) TMI 816 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y the petitioner(accused). Consequently, I see that one of the essential ingredients contemplated under Section 138 of the Act is missing. 7. With regard to the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner also drew my attention by placing reliance on the decision reported in M/s.Kody Elcot Ltd. Madras, by its Director Vs. Down Town Hospital Guwahati (1990 MLJ Crl 178), wherein it has been held that the cause of action arises only when the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. I am fortified with this decision and hold that the essential ingredients namely the absence of the mentioning of non-payment of the amount within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice, which is one of the contingencies required under 138 is missing and hence I have no hesitation to quash the proceedings and the proceedings are accordingly quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P is closed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 815 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... erusal of the above proviso it is impliedly clear that before rejecting the application of the assessee for grant of registration, he ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. From the perusal of the impugned order, it nowhere reveals that the ld. Commissioner has granted such opportunity to the assessee. The learned has passed the order in a proforma. He has not assigned any reason for not condoning the delay in filing the application in Form No. 10A late. We are of the considered opinion that the Commissioner ought to have considered the contention of the assessee before rejecting its application. We would restore this matter to the file of the Commissioner but keeping in view the assessment years and the explanation of the assessee, we quash the order of the Commissioner dated 16th May, 2001 and direct him to grant registration to the assessee with effect from 31-1-1997. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeals are allowed on merits.
-
2002 (7) TMI 814 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r, Suit No. 1084/2000 shall be treated as disposed of and consequently no further orders are required in is Nos. 6989/2000 and 8913/2000, filed for rejection of the plaint and is Nos. 4878/00, 11226/00, 2540/00 and 8678/01, seeking interim reliefs. These applications also stand disposed of accordingly. The next date (15.7.02) fixed in the Suit and IAs stands cancelled. 30. Insofar as OMP No. 60/2000 is concerned, interim orders passed by this court from time to time shall continue till the learned arbitrator makes and publishes his award, subject to the parties seeking modification by the arbitrator of any of the orders passed by this court. Accordingly, the OMP and IAs 6995/00, 6996/00, 7004/00, 8704/00, 12081/00, 9422/00, 9602/00, 9727/00, 11341/01 and 11350/01 stand disposed of. This order shall be communicated to the learned arbitrator by the office directly. Copies of the order may be issued dusty to counsel for the parties for being delivered to the learned arbitrator.
-
2002 (7) TMI 813 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, WESTERN REGION MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ly material facts in the Explanatory Statement. The conduct of the respondent in not even raising to propose the resolution for removal of the director on some flimsy grounds even when present at the AGM only demonstrates that his intention to issue notice for removal of Shri Deepak S. Parekh year after year since 1998 is nothing but abuse of the provisions of section 284 of the Act. I consider it to be a fit case to exercise the powers under section 284(4) and accordingly direct that the petitioner-company need not place the proposal to remove Shri. Deepak S. Parekh, Director of the company as contained in the Notice dated 3-5-2002 of the respondent before the AGM of the petitioner-company scheduled to be held on 25-7-2002. Since the petitioner-company has not published the said notice in the newspaper, the petitioner-company Housing Development Corporation of India Ltd. is hereby directed not to circulate the said Notice to Members. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (7) TMI 812 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... laintiff/petitioner will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be adequately compensated by damages. As has been held by this Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden case (supra), ordinarily the relief to be granted to a plaintiff in such a matter is awarding of damages and interim injunction of a mandatory nature is not to be granted. 13. On consideration of the entire matter, we are satisfied that the order passed by the High Court granting the prayer for interim injunction, in the context of facts and circumstances of the case, is unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The order dated 5.12.2000 of the High Court in CMA Nos. 3251 and 3255 of 2000 is set aside and the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A. No.1373 & 1497/2000 in O.S. No. 1139 of 2000 dated 06.11.2000 is restored. It is made clear that the observations made in this judgment will not in any way affect the merit of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no orders for costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 811 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... get grievances redressed without recourse to winding up of the company since such winding up would be prejudicial to the interest of the members. The petitioner cannot on one hand file a petition under section 397/398 and on the other hand seek for a direction to wind up the company. 19. Therefore to conclude, taking into consideration the facts of the case where the company has ceased to do any business since September, 1998 has hardly any assets left and its substratum is lost, where both the promoters who are the only shareholders and directors are admitting a deadlock in running the company and mutual trust and confidence is lost where allegations of oppression and mismanagement have not been found to be proved, we are of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in these proceedings. However if so advised the petitioner can take suitable action for winding up of the company. This petition under section 397/398 is, accordingly, dismissed. Costs on parties.
-
2002 (7) TMI 810 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Elgi Ultra Appliances Ltd. v. CCE 2001 (134) E.L.T. 245 (Tribunal) 1999 (35) RLT 175 has been dismissed, therefore, these appeals are also dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 809 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... rest at the rate of 20 per cent per annum from the date of investment till the date of payment. In case, she desires to have the fair value determined as on 31st March, 2000, the same will be determined on the basis of all the shares that were in existence on that date, since the amount received as consideration for the further shares that were allotted and impugned in the petition had been utilized by the Company for a long period. She should indicate her option before us on 9-8-2002. In case she desires to get her investment back with interest, the same should be paid to her by the second respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of exercising the option. In case, she chooses the second option of having the fair value determined, we shall appoint an independent valuer to value the shares. 13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms, keeping it open only for ascertaining the option of the petitioner and if necessary for appointment of an independent valuer.
-
2002 (7) TMI 808 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... N. Variava, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 807 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... B.S. Nagabasayanna, and it was held "This is not a case where the cheque was drawn in respect of a debt or liability, which was completely barred from being enforced under law. If for example, the cheque was drawn in respect of a debt or liability payable under a wagering contract, it could have been said that that debt or liability is not legally enforceable as it is a claim, which is prohibited under law. This case is not a case of that type. But we are certain that at this stage of the proceedings, to say that the cheque drawn by the respondent was in respect of a debt or liability, which was not legally enforceable, was clearly illegal and erroneous." (emphasis supplied) 11. In view of the settled proposition of law, this contention also stands rejected. No other point was argued. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merits in the petition and the same is dismissed. Trial court record be sent back forthwith and trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
-
2002 (7) TMI 806 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... em in accordance with law. List the case for further orders on 13 August 2002. It goes without saying that in case the petitioners are willing to get their consignment of spare parts released, they may do so by paying the customs duty as demanded, of course under protest and subject to orders in this petition. Respondent No.3 may file reply affidavit within ten days. Rejoinder affidavit, if necessary, may be filed before the next date. Copy of the order be issued dasti to counsel for the parties.
-
2002 (7) TMI 805 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... primarily a question of fact and we are satisfied that the Tribunal in arriving at the finding in the instant case has correctly understood and applied the legal principles for determining the character of expenditure to find out whether it is revenue or capital, to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, our answer to question No.2 is in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. Coming to question No.3, our attention is invited to the decisions of this Court in Ambica Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 583 and also in CIT vs. Ambica Mills Ltd.(1999) 236 ITR 921. In the aforesaid decisions, this Court has explained the Scheme of the provisions of Section 40(c) and Section 40A(5) of the Act. Following the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, our answer to question No.3 is in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 6. The Reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 804 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the appellants are owning agricultural land though the extent and fertility of the same is not available. It is also seen that they own a tractor and a trolly which we can assume are normally owned by farmers having large extent of land. We also notice that they own a Maruti car which also indicates that appellant are reasonably affluent. On this basis, we think it is reasonable to conclude that the appellants are capable of paying at least ₹ 1 lac per head as compensation. Therefore, we modify the order of the High Court by reducing the compensation payable from ₹ 2 lakhs each to ₹ 1 lakh each and direct the appellants to pay the said sum, totalling ₹ 2 lakhs, as directed by the High Court. With this modification the substantive appeal of the appellants in regard to their conviction and sentence is dismissed and their challenge to the grant of compensation is accepted partly and the compensation granted by the High Court is modified, as stated above.
-
2002 (7) TMI 803 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ned to entertain reference application in a case, which involved an amount of ₹ 13,700. The appeal preferred against the said order of the Court by the Revenue before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. 3. CBDT’s circular is there against making reference of a dispute involving less than ₹ 50,000, which is now raised to ₹ 1,00,000. 4. In this view of the matter, we decline to answer the reference, leaving the questions involved in this reference to be decided in some other appropriate matter. 5. This reference stands disposed of as aforesaid but without any order as to costs. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Tribunal.
-
2002 (7) TMI 802 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ctual cost of the plant and machinery and depreciation worked out thereon and not merely instalments of loan that fell due during the accounting year ?" 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee very fairly states that as for the first question, the matter is covered against the assessee by a decision in Gnanambikai Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 150 CTR (Mad) 673 (1998) 232 ITR 434(Mad) TC S17.1850. The learned senior standing counsel also points out the same. In that view, that question is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 3. As for the second question, it is stated that the matter is covered against the Revenue by a Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Arvind Mills Ltd (1992) 101 CTR (SC) 91 (1992) 193 ITR 255(SC) TC 29R.227 which was later on followed by this Court in Trichy Distrilleries & Chemicals vs. CIT (1999) 235 ITR 194(Mad). In that view, that question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 801 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... authorities. The assessee had written to the C.E. authorities on 27-10-86 about the dutiability of industrial water treatment plants. This letter explained the full facts about the appellant’s activity. The Asstt. Collector of C.E. had also clarified to the appellant vide his letter dt. 3-3-87, that industrial water treatment plants need not suffer excise duty. Thus, when the facts of the case were known to both sides, there is no substance in the allegation that relevant facts were wilfully suppressed by the appellant with the intention to evade payment of duty. 32. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the view that the appeal is required to be allowed. Sd/- (C.N.B. Nair) Member (T) MAJORITY ORDER In terms of majority order, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed both on merits as well as on time-bar with consequential relief, if any, as per law. Sd/- (Jeet Ram Kait) Member (T) Dated 16-7-2002 Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (J) Dated 16-7-2002
-
2002 (7) TMI 800 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The Arbitrator was carried away by the fact that chiselling had to be done in view of the hardness of rock. The Arbitrator at the same time did not choose to give a finding that what was encountered by the contractor was something other than laterite rock which is mentioned in the Agreement. As regards the 3rd item, the Arbitrator again ignored the relevant clauses in the agreement and came to the perverse conclusion that the site became restricted on account of certain security measures enforced in the area. The award of sum vis--vis this item is clearly outside the terms of contract. The High Court, therefore, rightly set aside the award on this aspect. On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs the appeals arising from S.L.P. Nos.10526-27 of 2000 filed by the contractor are allowed in part to the extent noted earlier and the appeals arising from S.L.P. Nos.880-881 of 2001 filed by Union of India & another are dismissed. There will, however, be no order for costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 799 - CEGAT, DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ndamental difference between Notification 217/86 (which was under consideration in the Bajaj Tempo case) and Notification 214/86 (which is relevant in the present case) so as to persuade us to take a view that Bajaj Tempo decision is distinguishable and, therefore, does not require to be followed. On an analysis of the Bajaj Tempo decision, we are of the view that the principle laid down therein would be equally applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence following the ratio of the above decision cited supra, we hold that the appellants are entitled to modvat credit of the amount disallowed, by the adjudicating authority set aside the denial of credit and the imposition of penalty. The unpugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief. 4. In view of above decision of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellants are entitled for consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law. Dictated in Court.
........
|
