|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 614 Records
-
2001 (7) TMI 1290 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... one month after the undertaking is so furnished. In such an event there will be no further interest on the amount payable, but in the case of any two defaults the whole amount due would become immediately payable. The payments should be made by the 10th day of every calendar month. If no such undertaking is given within a period of two months from today. O. N. G. C. would be entitled to recover the entire amount due and payable as determined by this order and till payment is received the defaulter would be liable to pay interest upon it is the rate specified in the aforesaid clause 5. The amount payable as of today will be intimated by the O. N. G. C. to the industries within two weeks from today. In case there is no dispute with regard to the calculation of the amount demanded the respondents would be at liberty to approach this Court within two weeks of the demand so raised. Securities shall continue till the entire payment is made. I. As. are allowed.Application allowed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1289 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sons, we allow this Appeal and set aside the revisional order made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 4.6.1998. The impugned proceedings shall stand remitted to the respondent with a direction to dispose of the same afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant-assessee to have its say in the matter. It is agreed upon by the parties that the appellate-assessee would file objections to the proposed revision before the end of August 2001. We grant till the end of August 2001 to the appellant/assessee to file its objections, if any, to the proposed revision initiated by the Commissioner vide his show cause notice dated 1.1.1997 as well as 12.1.1998. On such objections being filed, the Commissioner shall consider the same and pass appropriate order after giving opportunity to the appellant-assessee of being heard. In view of the statement made by both sides, there is no need for the respondent to issue fresh show cause notices to the appellant. No costs.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1288 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... assed by the Commissioner, Customs. Having perused the said order we do not think that it will be appropriate to interdict the re-shipment. We are not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. The Special Leave Petition is therefore dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1287 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... y is condoned. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1286 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ought to have classified the disputed goods under Clause 6201 by applying the aforesaid principle. It appears from the record that authorities below did not consider even the existence or the scope of Serial No. 6201 in the Schedule. 31. On consideration of the entire materials on record I am thus of the view that the authorities below did not apply the correct tests and misapplied Serial No. 6203 (C) to ‘necktie’ causing grave injury to the petitioner. I thus set aside the orders impugned and direct the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to proceed afresh as if the disputed consignments of ‘necktie’ come within Heading 6201 of the Drawback Rules. Since the matter is pending for about 5 years, the said authority is directed to pass necessary order on the basis of such classification positively within three months from the date of communication of this order. Writ application thus succeeds. The orders impugned are set aside. No orders as to costs.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1285 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... oned. Appeal is admitted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 4789 of 2000.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1284 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... elay condoned. The civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1283 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed 17th October 1981 and 16th April 1983 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Limited for holding that the assessee was not the dealer, but was only entitled to have commission on such sales. It appears that the High Court ignored the provisions of Section 11 of the Trade Tax Act which confers limited jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Tribunal only on the question of law, that too the said question of law is required to be precisely stated and formulated. Instead of deciding the question of law, the High Court simplicitor reappreciated the evidence and ignored the material documents maintained and produced by the assessee, that is, books of accounts, bills and Form 'C' submitted by it. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside and the orders passed by the Tribunal are restored.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1282 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court upholding the Rules is set aside and Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii) are struck down being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is made clear that this judgment will not affect any appointment made prior to this date under the Rules which have been found to be invalid hereinabove. The High Court would be well advised to take up the process of selection, already started, de novo in accordance with this judgment and will now recommend name of the appellant-Ganga Ram Moolchandani to the Governor of Rajasthan for making appointment to Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service against one of the existing vacancies. Civil Appeal No. 722 of 1999 is allowed, the strictures passed in the impugned judgment against the appellant are expunged and the order, awarding costs upon him, is set aside. Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 1999 is dismissed subject to the observations above. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1281 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quitted. Holding A3 guilty for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of the IPC we convict him for the same. He is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of ₹ 5,000/-. In case of default in the payment of fine, the said accused shall undergo further imprisonment of six months. A5 and A6 are convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 307 read with Sections 120B, 23, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 read with Sections 25(1-B)(a), Section 5 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, Sections 3(2)(I), 3(2)(ii), 3(3), 3(5), 5 and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. and sentenced to life imprisonment for the major offence. We do not award them separate sentences for the other offences. A3, A5 and A6 are directed to surrender to serve the remaining part of their sentences. The judgment of the trial court so far as A1, A2 are concerned, is upheld and their acquittal maintained.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1280 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... DER Delay is condoned. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1279 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal is admitted. No stay.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1278 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the suit, but if there is any other co-sharer who is supporting the plaintiff, may have a cause of action to continue with the suit by getting himself transposed to the category of plaintiff as it is well settled that in a partition suit every defendant is plaintiff, provided he has cause of action for seeking partition. Thus, we do not find any substance in this submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and hold that prayer for leave can be made not only by the person upon whom interest has devolved, but also by the plaintiff or any other party or person interested. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussions, we have no difficulty in holding that the High Court was not justified in allowing objection under Section 47 of the Code. In the result, the appeal is allowed, impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and that by the executing Court restored. In the circumstances of the case, we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1277 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... EREAFTER THE REVIEW PETITIONS COULD BE POSTED FOR DISPOSAL. SO FAR AS THE BATCH OF CASES WHICH ARE PENDING BEFORE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, THOUGH APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 139(A) HAD BEEN FILED FOR GETTING WRIT PETITIONS TRANSFERRED, BUT NO ORDER OF TRANSFER HAD BEEN PASSED AND, AS SUCH, THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE STILL PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRANSFER APPLICATIONS FILED STAND DISPOSED OF WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE HIGH COURT WILL DISPOSE OF THE PENDING WRIT PETITION IN THE LIGHT OF OUR JUDGMENT IN BIHAR CASE. BUT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9917/96 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, DIRECTED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE SAID COURT DATED 10.5.95, STANDS DISPOSED OF. SIMILARLY, REVIEW PETITIONS NOS. 2363, 2364 AND 2365 OF 1998, FILED IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9913 OF 1996, 9912 OF 1996 AND 9905 OF 1996 ALSO STAND DISPOSED OF. ALL THESE APPEALS AND APPLICATIONS STAND DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. THERE WILL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1276 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the Principal Secretary in conferring upon him the exercise of drastic power like removal of President of a Municipality under Section 22 of the Act. To say the least what has been done is not what is expected to be done by a senior official like the Principal Secretary of a wing of the State Government. We leave at that and say no more on this issue. The appeal is allowed. The judgement of the High Court under appeal is set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant stands allowed. The impugned order dated 1.10.1999 removing the appellant from the Presidentship of the Municipal Council, Rajpura under Section 22 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to costs quantified at ₹ 10,000/- from the State of Punjab, respondent No.1, which has contested the appellants case throughout. The appellant shall stand forthwith reinstated in the office of the President of Rajpura Municipality for the rest of his term.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1275 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al vide its order dated 12-4-1999. The revenue has filed the present appeal under section 260A of the Act. 3. Notice of motion was issued. 4. The counsels for the parties have been heard. 5. On behalf of the revenue, no defect in the order has been pointed out. Thus, there is really nothing to consider. However, we have examined the order. It shows that the assessee is a Government Corporation. It had filed its return along with tax audit report on 31-12-1990. Auditors had prepared the report on the basis of the unaudited profit and loss account and balance sheet as on 31-3-1990. Statutory auditors were appointed by the company. They were in the process of audit. The final audit report was completed in March, 1992. In view of these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly took the view that the assessee was not to blame. Thus, the order of penalty was quashed. We find no infirmity in the order so as to call for any interference. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1274 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s Tax, M.P. v. Natural Gas Co. Pvt. Ltd.) in which it has been held that rubber tube connected to gas cylinder would not be a part of gas cylinder. 7.. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the record, we find that PVC pipe cannot be considered to be an accessory to the pumping set. Same is used only for taking water to the ultimate end and this has what has been held by learned single Judge. The impugned order shows that impliedly learned single Judge has also held that this cannot be termed as an accessory to the pumping set. We are in agreement with the finding arrived at by the learned single Judge. Even otherwise the scope of interference in this intra court appeal preferred under clause 10 is limited. Kindly see (1996) MPLJ 1074 (Baddula Lakshmaih v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple). Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. 8.. A copy of this order be retained in connected L.P.A. No. 221 of 2001. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ore concluding that the particular planter or members of the petitioners association is also a dealer in latex or rubber as the case may be while giving liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action and pass orders in respect of individuals requiring them to register themselves as dealers. In the light of the above discussions the proceedings deserve to be quashed. 13.. Even a reading of the communication sent by the respondents would show that there is no legal authority to issue such a circular or notice and the act of the respondents is without authority of law besides it is without a basic fact which may enable the respondents to come to the conclusion that one or more of the members of the association is a dealer. 14.. While reserving the authority of the respondents to take action in individual cases, the present writ petition is allowed and the mandamus is issued. Rule nisi is made absolute. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1272 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... anting exemption. The Tribunal accordingly held that the sale transaction is to be exempted from payment of sales tax. On careful consideration of the submission of the counsel, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal in the matter cannot be faulted with. The aforesaid interpretation stands confirmed by the Government in the Finance Department notification dated February 8, 1999 which reads as follows (iii) after serial No. 29, the following new serials and entries shall be inserted under appropriate columns, namely (1) (2) (3) .................. 29-B Sale of goods to defence service installations located inside the State of Orissa for resale to military installations or personnel. 4.. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the answer to the question Nos. 1 and 2, referred to above, is in favour of the assessee-opposite party. There is no merit in this revision and accordingly the same is dismissed. L. MOHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1271 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ts earlier judgment of nine-Judge Bench in Sea Customs Act (1878), Section 20(2) case 1964 3 SCR 787 and New Delhi Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab (1997) 7 SCC 339, opined that the Customs Department was a dealer within the meaning of definition of that word in the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. We are at a loss to understand how that judgment would have any bearing on the decision-making in this case. The judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Union of India v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1996 103 STC 34 (1996) 23 APSTJ 84 is an authority to state that the Customs Department could be treated as a dealer within the meaning of the definition of that word under section 2(e) of the APGST Act, 1957. Both the judgments cited by the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes do not deal with the precise question that arises for our decision in the instant case. 9.. In the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned notice. No costs. Petition allowed.
........
|
