|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 456 Records
-
2001 (5) TMI 946 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... though the appellants were liable to be criminally prosecuted but no such steps have been taken against them. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly submitted that as number of appellants had crossed the upper age limit and number of vacancies are available, without disturbing the already selected candidates, the appellants can be considered for selection on the basis of their placement in the merit list. In our view seeing the conduct of the appellants in making false declaration and applying in more than one district in contravention of the gazette notification, it is not possible to accede to their prayer even on equitable grounds. For the foregoing reasons we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Omana and the High Court was quite justified in upholding the order of rejection of candidature of the appellants by the Commission. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (5) TMI 945 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... cannot include the element of exercise duty and sales-tax. Such interpretation would advance the object to be achieved by the legislature. The meaning given to the word "turnover" in various sales-tax enactments cannot be imported into the provision of section 80HHC as the object of the sales-tax enactments and provision of section 80HHC are entirely different. Therefore, CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the total turnover should include the amount of excise duty and sales-tax." 12. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sudarshan Chemicals Ltd. (supra we will hold that the Departmental authorities were not justified in holding that the total turnover should include the amount of excise duty for the purpose of calculating the deduction under section 80HHC. Accordingly this ground of appeal No. 3 is adjudicated in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 944 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... here are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged against him and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail in view of the provisions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. In my view the provisions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act are applicable in the case of regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. The non obstante clause in Section 37 operates against all provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure including Section 438 which confers power on the High Court and the Court of Sessions to make a direction that in the event of his arrest the person shall be released on bail. Hence, it is not possible to consider an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. ignoring the provisions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. For the reasons stated above the application is dismissed. 17. Application dismissed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 943 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ustifiable reason to entertain this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 942 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... case, we do not find any justification to admit the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
2001 (5) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... discharge till the matter is decided by the Tribunal again in an industrial dispute. Accepting this contention would render the bar contained in section 33(1) irrelevant. In the present case as noted earlier the Tribunal on consideration of the matter held that the employer had failed to establish a prima facie case for dismissal/discharge of the workman, and therefore, dismissed the application filed by the employer on merit. The inevitable consequence of this would be that the employer was duty bound to treat the employee as continuing in service and pay him his wages for the period, even though he may be subsequently placed under suspension and an enquiry initiated against him. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is our view that the High Court committed no illegality in issuing a direction to the appellant for reinstating the respondent and pay him the back wages. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed with costs, which is assessed at ₹ 10,000/-.
-
2001 (5) TMI 940 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Looking to the quantity of heroin recovered in the present case and looking to its price in global market, in my opinion, sentence of 15 years R1 awarded by the learned Special Judge to the accused appellants does not appear to be excessive and hence, on point of sentence also, the accused appellants are not entitled to any leniency. Accordingly, the abovementioned three appeals being No. 182/99 filed by accused appellants Labh Singh, Major Singh, Mangal Singh; No. 145/99 filed by accused appellant Arvinder Singh except that of accused appellant No. 2 Harjeet Singh and No. 158/99 filed by the accused appellant Arshad fail and they are dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 24.2.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 7/96. 97. The record of this case be not weeded out till the appeal of accused appellant No.2 Harjeet Singh in appeal No. 145/99, who has been declared absconder vide order dated 8.3.2000, is decided.
-
2001 (5) TMI 939 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s, are based on appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be treated as perverse or based on no evidence. That being the position, we are of the view that the High Court, after reappreciating the evidence and without finding that the conclusions reached by the lower appellate court were not based on the evidence, reversed the conclusions on facts on the ground that the view taken by it was also a possible view on the facts. The High Court, it is well settled, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot reverse the findings of the lower appellate court on facts merely on the ground that on the facts found by the lower appellate court another view was possible. In this view, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned judgment. Hence the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside and that of the first appellate court are restored. The defendant (respondent herein) shall pay cost of ₹ 5,000/- to the plaintiff (appellants herein).
-
2001 (5) TMI 938 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... concession cannot constitute a just ground for a binding precedent. Therefore, even if the appellants had mistakenly contended in the High Court that the principle of seniority-cum-fitness was to be followed for promotion to the post of Research Officer, the departmental rules clearly show that the promotion was in respect of a 'selection post' and the promotion was to be made on the basis of the inter-se merit of the eligible candidates. In that view of the matter, the respondent was not entitled to get promotion to the post of Research Officer on the strength of her seniority alone. The seniority list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee was not challenged by the respondent on other grounds and we also do not find any ground to assail that select list. Thus, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed by setting aside the orders made therein and in the writ appeal arising therefrom. Therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed, however, without costs.
-
2001 (5) TMI 937 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ontesting respondents were in possession as evidenced by the record of rights, it can not be said that such possession is by a trespasser. The claim of the contesting respondents is in their own right. The decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant are in the context of there being no dispute as to ownership of the land and the possession was admittedly with a stranger and hence temporary injunction is not permissible. Therefore, we are of the view that the Division Bench has very correctly appreciated the matter and come to the conclusion in favour of the respondents. In these circumstances, we dismiss these appeals. We may notice that the time bound directions issued by the Division Bench will have to be adhered to strictly by the parties concerned and the suits should be disposed of at an early date but not later than six months from the date of the communication of this order. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (5) TMI 936 - SUPREME COURT
Review petition against sentence
Held that:- The mandate of the Legislature is clear and unambiguous that no adjournment can be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed upon him. In a case punishable with death or imprisonment for life, there is no difficulty for the court where the sentence proposed to be imposed is alternative sentence of life imprisonment but if it proposes to award the death sentence, it has discretion to adjourn the case in the interests of justice. I have no doubt in holding that despite the bar of third proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 309, the Court, in appropriate cases, can grant adjournment for enabling the accused persons to show cause against the sentence proposed on him particularly if such proposed sentence is sentence of death. We hold that in all cases where a conviction is recorded in cases triable by the Court of Sessions or by Special Courts, the court is enjoined upon to direct the accused convict to be immediately taken into custody, if he is on bail, and kept in jail till such time the question of sentence is decided.
After the sentence is awarded, the convict is to undergo such sentence unless the operation of the sentence awarded is stayed or suspended by a competent court of jurisdiction. Such a course is necessitated under the present circumstances prevalent in the country and is in consonance with the spirit of law. A person granted bail has no right to insist to remain at liberty on the basis of the orders passed in his favour prior to his conviction.
Upon consideration of all relevant circumstances and in view of the settled position of law, I have no doubt in my mind that the present Review Petition is without merit, the grounds mentioned therein have been concocted and carved out for escaping the rigours of law and the sentence imposed upon the accused by well considered judgments of the trial court, High Court and this Court. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 935 - HOUSE OF LORDS
... ...
... ... ..... pt supplies , on the other hand, does include supplies made outside the United Kingdom that would be exempt if made in the United Kingdom (see regulation 29(1)(a)(ii)). Otherwise the paragraph (2)(d) fraction would produce a distorted result. I am, however, not clear how paragraph (2)(d) is intended to apply where the input goods and services have been used in making not only taxable supplies and exempt supplies but also non-business supplies (cf paragraph (2)(c) - used . . . in carrying on any other activity . . . ). Presumably these supplies, too, should be included under all supplies . 40 The present case, however, does not involve non-business supplies. It involves only taxable supplies, exempt supplies and supplies that would have been taxable if made in-country. As to these, in my opinion, the Court of Appeal came to the correct conclusions. I would dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitors Crockers Oswald Hickson Solicitor for the Customs and Excise.
-
2001 (5) TMI 934 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... It has to be noted that in the said judgment reference was made to K.G. Khosla and Co. (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1966 17 STC 473. In the said judgment, the apex Court held that where the dispute relates to different statutes, separate appeals are to be filed. That being the position, in the instant case, two appeals were required to be filed. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in its conclusion that two separate appeals were required to be filed. To that extent, the Tribunal s order cannot be faulted. We, therefore, direct that in case a separate additional appeal in respect of one of the statutes is filed within three weeks from today, the same shall be entertained and the appeal, which has already been held to be non-maintainable and rejected, shall be restored, so that both the appeals can be heard on merits, if otherwise free from defects. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (5) TMI 933 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xercise of power under that section, there must exist circumstances referable to the relevant statutory provisions. Their Lordships also held that an order passed in the printed pro forma do not satisfy the requirement of formation of an objective opinion with reference to the relevant statutory provision. 18.. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that orders, annexures P3, P3/A and P3/B, passed by respondent No. 2 are ultra vires to section 40 of the Act and liable to be quashed as such. Order, annexure P4, passed by the Tribunal is also liable to be quashed on that ground. 19.. In view of the above conclusion, we do not consider it necessary to deal with other grounds of challenge raised by the petitioner. 20.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are declared illegal and quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner in compliance of orders, annexures P3, P3/A and P3/B. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 932 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... e the bona fide of the respondent. So, the two points raised for forming the reasonable belief for effecting the seizure have no legal basis to stand. Thus there had been no material in possession of the respondent whereupon the respondent could have formed reasons to believe that the goods in question have been imported into West Bengal violating the statutory restrictions on the movement of goods and that as such the seizure made must be declared to be invalid and the order seizing the goods is liable to be quashed. 8.. The application thus succeeds, we hold that the seizure of the goods made by respondent No. 1 by order dated December 25, 2000 was illegal and the same as such is quashed. The seized goods have already been ordered to be released on furnishing security. The security so furnished be released forthwith. Parties do bear their respective costs. This order also covers RN11 of 2001 and RN12 of 2001. D. BHATTACHARYA (Technical Member).I agree. Application allowed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 931 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... section 62 imposes a complete bar to the very maintainability of the suit in relation to the powers exercised by the authorities concerned within the provisions of the Act. It cannot be said on the facts and circumstances of the case that the action of the respondent is without jurisdiction or is outside the purview of the statutory provision. The notice and summons issued cannot be termed as illegal or non est, ex facie. 9.. The plaintiff has already filed replies to the show cause notices and it is for the authorities concerned, which are exercising powers under the statute to come to a conclusion in accordance with law. 10.. The learned trial court has rightly applied the ratio of Dhulabhai case 1968 22 STC 416 (SC), in holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the case of the plaintiff fell in none of the exceptions formulated by the honourable apex Court in that case. Resultantly, this revision is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 930 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd the incidence of the tax in aggregate of principal tax and additional tax or charge thereto on the sale transactions in the State Act on the turnover of declared goods to the extent it exceeds the rate of tax stated under section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 would pro tanto stand modified up to the limit stated in section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Any charge in excess thereof in whatever form is not permissible. 26.. As a result, these petitions are partly allowed as aforesaid. The assessments of turnover tax if already made shall stand set aside and the Assessing Officer shall make fresh orders in accordance with the law keeping in view the aforesaid principles and the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read in the light of article 286(3) of the Constitution of India. The circular dated September 12, 2000 issued by the State Government is quashed. 27.. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions partly allowed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 929 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has a binding effect in this matter. 4.. Under the circumstances, rule is made absolute. Interim order, if any, stands confirmed. 5.. Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order is passed as to costs. 6.. Since the matter is related to different periods only but in-between the self-same parties, the matter is re-numbered not separately but in fact the earlier order is reviewed in the similarly placed situation and the order is passed accordingly by following the principles laid down in (1999) 2 Cal LJ 97 (Ashish Kumar Roy v. Union of India). 7.. Let xeroxed certified copy of this dictated order be supplied to the parties by the department within seven days from the date of putting in requisition for drawing up and completion of the order as well as the certified copy thereof. 8.. All parties are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of dictated order upon usual undertaking and as per the satisfaction of the officer of this Court as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (5) TMI 928 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the applicant may submit form III-A before the Tribunal. In case the form III-A is submitted the department shall get an opportunity to submit its objection and submit any evidence in rebuttal. 4.. In view of the above the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated March 14, 2001 is hereby set aside. The Trade Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, shall decide the appeal afresh keeping in view the observations made above. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 927 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ound for refusing the prayers for return simply on the ground of limitation. Thus after having considered all aspects of the case and having regard to the decisions rendered by the apex Court, we are of the view that the prayer of the petitioner is not barred by limitation and, therefore, this revisional application cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, this application is within time and this reference is accordingly disposed of. Since we have not entered into other aspects of the case, all other points are left open to be decided by a Division Bench of this Tribunal fixing July 17, 2001 for further hearing. LATER After we have delivered this order, learned State Representative makes a verbal prayer for stay of operation of this order. Since we are not disposing of the main application and it is only an order in the nature of interlocutory order, the prayer for stay is refused. Application disposed of accordingly.
........
|
