|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 555 Records
-
2001 (9) TMI 1187 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... sidered as a single member. On the facts of the said case, the High Court had held that each one of the joint holders would become a member of the company. Similarly, in the case of Jarnail Singh harjit Singh AIR 1960 Punj 455, supra, which arose out of a suit for declaration, the question before the Division bench of the Punjab High Court was whether in the case of a private company, transfer of shares by a shareholder in favour of one out of several joint holders was contravention of Article 8(a) of the articles of association of the said company. In the facts of the said case, it was held that transfer of shares by a shareholder in favour of one of the joint holders was not prohibited. Therefore, the decisions cited above have no application in this case at all. 15. As a result, in view of the reasons stated above, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted, and therefore the petition must fail. The petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to cost.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1186 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... take with respect to the allegations made by the complainant, that stand must be taken in the written statement itself. But once that stand is taken by the management, then the Court will have to work out the proceedings before it, according to the stand taken by the management. It will not be necessary for the Labour Court to call upon the management to lead evidence to substantiate the charges framed against the employees if no such right is reserved by the management in the written statement filed by the management. So in the present case, we find that though the management had reserved its right to lead evidence to substantiate the charges framed against the employees, the Labour Court failed to give that opportunity to the management and from that view the decision given by the Learned single Judge is quite right and it requires no interference. 24. In view of this, the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. In the given circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1185 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lant was given an opportunity to show cause and he did reply to the show cause which was duly considered by the State Government. We are, therefore, of the view that the procedure adopted by the respondent while blacklisting the appellant was in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 3. It was then urged that the impugned order blacklisting the appellant does not contain any reason and, therefore, the order is invalid. We do not find any merit in the submission. The High Court summoned the entire record and found that elaborate reasons were recorded by the State Government while passing the order blacklisting the appellant. The High Court further recorded a positive finding that the State Government has passed the impugned order after recording elaborate reasons and summary of which is contained in the impugned order. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it fails and is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1184 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... one were canvassed before us to be beyond the 'known sources of income' of the appellant and find ample support for this explanation in the prosecution evidence itself. The evidence of PW-19, PW-27, PW-30 and PW31 clearly support the explanation given by the appellant. The appellant had thus, discharged the burden of explaining the sources of those amounts. Their non-mention in the property statement of the appellant would have no consequence because explanation to Section 13(1)(e) is not to be read as an explanation to Section 5(1)(e) of the 1947 Act. 11. Thus, for what awe have said above, we find that judgment of the High Court reversing a well merited order of acquittal recorded by the trial court, cannot be sustained. That judgment is, accordingly, set aside and the order of the trial court is, hereby restored. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. Fine, if paid shall be refunded to the appellant. 12. The appeal is, accordingly allowed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1183 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iya v. R.D.O., 2001(4)ALD73 (D.B.). shall apply in the instant case. 14. The decision in State of A.P. v. K. Ashok Rao, 1997(1)ALT761 (D.B.) cannot be, in our opinion pressed into service at this stage. The questions raised herein, as noticed hereinbefore, being essential questions of fact, whether the principle of estoppel would apply or not would depend on the findings of the competent authority thereon. 15. However, in our opinion, the interest of justice would be subserved if an observation is made to the effect that the authorities under the 1976 Act may dispose of the proceeding at an early date and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. In the event the said proceeding comes to an end and is determined in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1; the appellants must issue the pattedar passbook in his favour without any further delay. 16. This writ appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1182 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of gun shot injuries in the panchanama and their absence in the FIR, the conflict between the statements of eyewitnesses and the medical evidence and major contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the eye-witnesses, we are of the view that the prosecution failed to prove their case against the appellants beyond all shadows of doubt. The appellants are, therefore, held entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. To form an opinion giving the appellants-accused the benefit of doubt we have kept in mind the defence as projected and suggested by them to the witnesses during their cross-examination. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of the High Court convicting the accused persons and sentencing them to various imprisonments including the life imprisonment. We uphold the order of acquittal passed by the trial court in favour of the appellants. The appellants shall be set at liberty at once unless required in some other case.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1181 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... according to the conclusion arrived at, for payment of local cess and local cess surcharge was raised during the assessment year in question. That being the petition in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co Ltd. v. CIT 1971 82ITR363(SC) the amount is deductible in the year in which the demand has arisen. But at the same time if the levy has been held to be unconstitutional, as contended by learned counsel for the revenue, the amount has to be taxed on cessation of liability under section 41 of the Act. According to learned counsel for the assessed, the amount was offered for levy during the assessment year 1990-91 and has been taxed. This aspect can be verified by the Tribunal while giving effect to our order under section 260 of the Act. If, in reality, the amount has been brought to tax under section 41 of the Act, as contended, the deduction pursuant to our decision shall be allowed and otherwise not. The reference stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1180 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... rama Reddi, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1179 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onsidering a different fact situation as regards the preliminary liability of the lessee. 67. For the reasons afore-mentioned we are of the opinion that the document in question constitutes lease in favor of the respondent-grantee and the reference is answered accordingly. Consequently, LPAs 52 to 58 of 1987 and 227 of 1996 are allowed. However, LPA 228/96 is required to be dealt with separately. 68. In this case the tenure of the document is absolutely different. The grantee is merely to pay occupation fee and not the rent. There also does not exist any clause as regards requirement to serve three months' notice for termination of tenancy. As by reasons of such an agreement neither any rent is payable nor any notice is required to be served for the purpose of determination of the tenancy, in our opinion, the grant in favor of the grantee is only a license. We answer the reference accordingly. These Letters Patent Appeals are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1178 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Penalty for concealment is not automatic. It is incumbent on the assessing officer to prove the fact of concealment with reference to the material available. This was not done. As such, in our opinion, the concealment was not proved. We, therefore, exonerate the assessee from the rigour of penalty." 9. Nothing has been placed before the court to show that these findings are contrary to the evidence on record. The Tribunal has taken a possible view. In the absence of positive evidence of concealment, we find no ground to interfere with the finding. Still further, we find that the view expressed by the Karnataka High Court in V. Narashima Prasad's case (supra), as also the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal's case (supra) fully cover the present controversy. 10. Resultantly, we find that no question of law arises, which may require an expression of opinion by this court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1177 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... alia that the cheque in question having been issued by the accused for due which was barred by limitation the penal provision under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is not attracted in the case. On the facts of the case as available on the records and the clear and unambiguous provision in the explanation to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act the judgment of the lower appellate court as confirmed by the High Court is unassailed. Therefore, the special leave petition is dismissed
-
2001 (9) TMI 1176 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Delay condoned. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1175 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... civil appeal is dismissed both on the ground of delay and on merits.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1174 - THE COMPANY LAW BOARD, PRINCIAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... f ₹ 23,43,750 from the respondents as part consideration for transfer of shares as per the MoU, when the investment of the petitioner in shares of the respondent company was about ₹ 9,88,240 only. As a matter of fact, we had also put to the company as it stood at present by buying out the shares of the second respondents group, but the petitioner was not prepared for the same, obviously, because there was nothing left in the respondent company. 15. In view of the above position, we are not inclined to exercise our equitable jurisdiction and to grant any of the prayers sought by the petitioner. However, as the respondent company has not been dissolved or wound up, therefore, we direct the respondents to send all notices of the Board and the general body meetings to the petitioner by registered post atleast three weeks before the said meetings at both the addresses of the petitioner at Delhi and Bangkok. The petition accordingly, stands disposed of. Cost on parties.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1173 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eason to interfere with the impugned Order. The Appeal stand dismissed. We clarify the merits of the case have not been argued before us. We are thus not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 30. As the trial has already been delayed, we direct that now the trial be taken up for hearing on a day to day basis and the same be concluded within a period of 6 months from today. 31. It has been brought to out attention that in a large number of cases stays have been granted by the High Courts in matters under the Prevention of Corruption Act, even though there is a specific bar against the grant of any stay. We therefore direct the Registrars of all the High Courts to list all cases in which such stay is granted before the Court concerned so that appropriate action can be taken by that Court in the light of this decision. The Registrar of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrar of all the High Courts. 32. There shall be no Order as to costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pugned in this appeal has to be set aside. We notice that the second respondent has been running a travel agency in the suit schedule premises for a considerable length of time, and will be put to hardship if the eviction is to be ordered with immediate effect. On taking into consideration this hardship, we direct that the second respondent will not be evicted from the suit premises till 31.3.2002 provided it files a usual undertaking in this Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, further agreeing to pay damages for use and occupation of the building @ ₹ 7,000/- per mensem which is the amount it contends that it was paying to the first respondent as rent for the premises in question. For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The judgment and order dated 10.4.2000 in FMA No.1369/2000 made by the High Court of Calcutta is set aside and the judgment of the executing court is upheld. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1171 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 0, D13238, D13544/2001, D20885/2000, D20999/2000, D2103/2001, D21363/2000, D21364/2000, D21365/2000, D2432/2001, D253/2001, 3442/2001, D4459/2001, D6384/2001, 6388/2001, D6391/2001, D9219/2001, 457/2000, 458/2000, 459/2000, 460/2000, 461/2000, 462/2000, 463/2000, D13434/2001, D13435/2001, D13543/2001, D13838/2001, D13930/2001, D14842/2001, D15311/2001, D15312/2001, D15315/2001, D15314/2001, D13518/2001, D13839/2001, D15313/2001, D13415/2001, D15700/2001, D15548/2001, D15554/2001, D15782/2001, D13864/2001 & D15139/2001 In the light of the order made by us in the above appeals, these writ petitions have become unnecessary as the authorities concerned are bound to bring their orders of cancellation of the allotments made or notices issued to them for cancellation of the allotments in conformity with the order made in the above appeals which we have disposed of just now. Therefore, these writ petitions have become unnecessary and shall stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1170 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... parties. When breach is not admitted, one of the contracting parties cannot arrogate to itself the power to claim compensation for the breach from the other party without there being any adjudication by an outside agency as to whether there was any breach of contract. 6. In view of the aforesaid legal position and also for the reason that the direction in Ext. P4 that the fixation of damages should be with notice to the petitioner stands violated, Ext. P5 order cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. Both parties are directed to work out their remedies through the machinery, if any, contemplated in the contract executed between them or in other appropriate civil proceedings. Pending such adjudication, the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the sum of ₹ 15,231/- claimed by him; nor will the K.S.E.B. be justified in invoking coersive steps for recovering ₹ 50,675/- mentioned as outstanding in Ext. P5. 7. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1169 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... smissed, leaving open the question of law as to Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1168 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is only in related subject of Human Geography and Population Studies that such a test had been conducted. 4. It is brought to our notice that the respondent had in fact appeared in the examination conducted by the Punjab University which had been authorised to conduct such examination for recruitment of lecturers in Geography and she had applied for the same in the year 1995 with roll No. 3316, but she failed in the same. If that was so, the respondent had an obligation to disclose this fact before the High Court. Not having done so and not possessing the relevant qualification and all that she possessed was only a qualification in a related subject which was not sufficient for the purpose of the recruitment, and sufficient to dismiss her petition. in the circumstances, we think the view of the High Court is not justified and same should be set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent should be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is/therefore, allowed.
........
|
