|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 473 Records
-
2002 (12) TMI 622 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntiff. The learned Single Judge, who reversed the judgment of the Trial Court, has not recorded any contra finding in regard to possession but only chose to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court on its findings regarding the status of Gopali as the wife and the original plaintiff as the daughter and in the absence of proper proof of adoption of Jagannath. The Division Bench, when it reversed those findings of the learned Single Judge and directed the dismissal of the suit, was not obliged in law, to grant any relief of possession alone when it was not proved by the plaintiff otherwise, dehors title that she had been in actual possession of the property and had wrongfully and forcibly been dispossessed by the first defendant Jagannath. Consequently, no exception could be taken to the dismissal of the suit in its entirety. For all the reasons stated above, we see no merit whatsoever in the above appeal and the same fails and shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 621 - SUPREME COURT
Applicability of Limitation Act 1963 - It is well-settled that by virtue of sub-Section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act the provisions of Section 12 are applicable for computing the period of limitation prescribed by any special or local law.
So far as the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned the power of the Court to extend the prescribed period of limitation on the ground of availability of sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, stands circumscribed by the limitation imposed on the power of the High Court by the proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 25 of the Act.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 620 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y this Court. 8. The learned counsel Mr.Sundareswaran has submitted that in the order of the Special Tribunal, there is a finding to the effect that the Raja Agency is also another bogus dealer and the said finding is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case as it would adversely affect the petitioner in other cases pending before the authorities. The facts in issue in the present case related only to the three agencies viz., Industrial Chemicals, Selva Agency and Many Agency from whom the said purchases were said to have been made by the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the said finding is unnecessary. Hence, the finding is vacated. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that there is absolutely no error apparent on the face of the record in the order of the Special Tribunal so as to interfere with the same in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 619 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... na, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 618 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... provisions of section 37(3A) of the Act ?" 2. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of presenting the gift articles to the subscribers of chit at the time of joining the scheme and at the time of conclusion of the chit would amount to sales promotion expenses. A similar question was considered by this Court for the earlier assessment year in the case of same assessee and this Court by its order in T.C. No. 1216 of 1987 dated 29-4-1999 held that the expenditure would be of sales promotion expenditure and subject to the ceiling under section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act. 3. The learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the above decision covers the facts of this case. Learned counsel for the assessee also submits the same. Accordingly, following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, we answer the common question of law referred to us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 617 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1985-86 to 1989-90. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in his fairness submits that the issue raised in the common questions is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT v. Venu Suresh Sheela Trust 1998 233 ITR 99. We are of the view that it is a case of a Trust and the shares of the beneficiaries are specified and known and therefore, it cannot be assessed as Association of Persons under the provisions of section 161 and 161(1A) of the Income-tax Act. We have also taken a similar view in T.C. Nos. 210 and 211 of 1998 ("The Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu II, Madras v. M/s Mecca Trust") dated 29-10-2002 holding that the assessee was not liable to be assessed in the status of Association of Persons. Following the said decisions, we answer the common question of law referred to us for several assessment years against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 616 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ct of amount of tax payable under the provisions of section 115JA of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the some Tribunal decisions and the judgments of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Kwality Biscuits Ltd. v. CIT 2000 243 ITR 5191. The learned D.R. has relied upon the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 1993 45 ITD 22 (Cal.) and the judgments of various High Courts in Kerala State Coir Corpn. Ltd. v. Union of India 1994 210 ITR 1212 (Ker.), Assam Bengal Carriers Ltd. v. CIT 1999 239 ITR 862 (Gauhati) and Itarsi Oils & Flours (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 2001 250 ITR 686 3 (MP). We find that the preponderance of judicial opinion is in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Respectfully following the view supported by various High Courts’ judgments relied upon by the learned D.R., we reject this ground of appeal of the assessee. 18. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 615 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tions made by it to the banks with whom the goods had been hypothecated for the purpose of obtaining overdraft facilities was deleted by the Tribunal on the ground that though the declarations made to the banks were only rough estimates the correct declarations had been made in the returns submitted to the Textile Commissioner and these tallied with the assessee’s books. In that factual situation, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the addition made on the basis of the declaration made to the bank was not correct. This decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case, for the very reasons stated above. 13. In fine, the order of the Tribunal, for the reasons as stated above is not legally sustainable and liable to be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer has to be restored. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the question in negative against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. However, there is no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 614 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
-
2002 (12) TMI 613 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ,989/- in terms of Rule 49 (1) (A) was preferred on 8.5.2001. In November 2001, the department issued a show cause notice proposing recovery of the above mentioned amount and this notice is stated to be still pending. The impugned order rejecting the remission claim was passed on 5.2.2002. 3. We heard both sides and perused the records and we see substance in the claim of the appellants that the order is bad in law, as it had been passed without any notice to the appellant proposing rejection of the remission claim and without hearing them, and further it has not contained any reason for the rejection. 4. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 5.2.2002 and remand the case to the proper officer for fresh decision after extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The order shall contain reasons therefor. Such orders shall be prior to the adjudication of the notice on 8.11.2002 proposing demand of duty of the same amount. Appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
2002 (12) TMI 612 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e is entitled to maintain the action for eviction under Section 21(1) (p). The plaintiff or petitioner may claim a higher right and may succeed in proving only a smaller right or entitlement to relief but that would not result in disentitling the plaintiff or petitioner from succeeding so long as the smaller right successfully substantiated by him is enough in law to entitle him to a relief against the defendant. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed with costs throughout. The decree for execution shall not be available for execution for a period of four months from today subject to the appellant clearing all the arrears of rent and filing the usual undertaking both within a period of three weeks from today for delivering vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord-respondent on the expiry of the said period of four months and continuing to clear the arrears falling due month by month till then.
-
2002 (12) TMI 611 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... referred to the Committee. The cases referred to the Committee would be considered on receipt of the report. However, the interim order dated 28th August, 2002 would continue to apply to these referred cases till further orders. The said order is further extended to cases where select panel has been published but letters of intent have not been issued. Transferred Case Nos 80, 81 to 88, 90 and 91/2002, all intervention applications therein, I.A. Nos.246-2556 in Transfer Petition (C) Nos.417- 423/2002 and Contempt Petition (C) No.556/2002 in Transferred Petition (C) No.417-423/2002 are disposed of in terms of this decision. A copy of the judgment shall be sent to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts so that the writ petitions, if any, pending in the High Courts on similar questions can be disposed of in terms of this judgment. All matters except Transferred Case Nos.100 to 109 are disposed of. List Transferred Case Nos.100 to 109 of 2002 after receipt of the report.
-
2002 (12) TMI 610 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... es to the suppliers of PVC compound as it was not in accordance with the specifications. The Department contended that the Respondent should not be allowed credit of duty on that part of the assessable value for which debit notes had been issued. The Tribunal did not agree with the Revenue and held that as there is no change in the duty paid by the manufacturer of input, "Credit of duty taken by the respondents herein cannot be varied." The ratio of these decisions is squarely applicable to the present matter before us. The ratio of the decision in TELCO case, relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority is not applicable as in that matter the inputs were reassessed at the suppliers end. The Appellant No. 1 is eligible to take the credit of the duty specified in the duty paying document under which the inputs were received. Accordingly we set aside the impugned orders and allow both the appeals. This also disposes of the stay application filed by M/s. Essar Steel Ltd.
-
2002 (12) TMI 609 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... leged extra-judicial confession made to PW3 but his deposition is liable to be rejected on two counts. The fact of such a confession that was said to have been made in the Forest Office during the detention of the accused was not mentioned in the Report Ex. P1 given by PW1. Since PW1 came to know about the incident from PW3 it is improbable that this crucial fact of extra-judicial confession has not found a place in the Report. Again neither PW4 nor PW5 made any mention about such a confession. Therefore, the finding of the High Court on this aspect of the matter also does not need any reconsideration. The stand of the accused that they had no motive to do away with Neelamma and they were actually in search of her cannot be brushed aside and is consistent with the material on record rather than the version of the prosecution. In that view of the matter, acquittal of the respondents by the High Court does not call for any interference. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
-
2002 (12) TMI 608 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ve carefully considered the rival submissions. M/s. Mafhh Products was the sole proprietary concern of Shri H.A. Sanchawala, who expired on 25.08.86. Therefore, M/s. Mafhh Products creased to exist on and from that date and, therefore, no proceedings can be initiated against the appellants, in the light of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Duru Matai vs. CCE, Mumbai, 2000 (39) RLT 1058. 3. Following the ratio of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2002 (12) TMI 607 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... its file, adopting a liberal and reasonable approach, which would have facilitated an effective adjudication of the rights of parties on either side, avoiding summary rejection of the appeals in entirety. The judgment and decrees passed by the High Court in all these appeals are set aside and appeals are remitted to the High Court to be restored to their original files for being disposed of afresh on merits of the claims of both parties and in accordance with law. These appeals are allowed on the above terms, with no order as to costs. The observations, if any, made in this judgment about the respective claims of parties are merely for the sake of indicating the serious and disputed nature claims between the parties necessitating an effective adjudication on merits and not to be construed as any expression of opinion on any such claims which the High Court shall be at liberty to deal with and dispose of on their own merits, after hearing both parties, in accordance with law.
-
2002 (12) TMI 606 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... udge has duly been empowered by the State Government with the concurrence of Jharkhand High Court by the said Notification dated 17th May, 2002 to try the cases also under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and therefore he was having jurisdiction to take cognizance for the said offences. 8. There cannot be any bar for a criminal trial even if no opinion has been formed in the adjudication proceeding and also for the same the entire criminal proceeding cannot be thrown away when there is no denial about the allegation made in the complaint. Where a Court has jurisdiction to try, it is immaterial whether it has taken cognizance of the offence without even being empowered to do so. 9. Analysing from any angle of the matters, it is evident that the Court below was duly authorized in the matter to proceed with the case. Thus, in my view, the Court below rightly took cognizance of the offences. 10. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application, which is dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 605 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the scheme; However, in respect of such of the employees who despite acceptance of a part of the retirement benefit under the scheme had continued under the orders of the High Court and has retired on attaining the age of superannuation, this order shall not apply; 2. The appeals filed by the State Bank of India are allowed; 3. The appeals arising from the judgments of the Uttaranchal High Court are allowed and the judgments of the said High Court are set aside; 4. The appeals arising from the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in relation to ten writ petitions which were filed by the employees for a direction upon the Bank that the benefits under the scheme be paid to them are set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for consideration thereof afresh on merits and in accordance with law; These appeals are disposed of on the above terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall pay and bear their own costs throughout.
-
2002 (12) TMI 604 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... observed that the amount provided towards warranty is contingent upon being quantified in the subsequent year, whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the provisions made by the assessee as an admissible deduction? 3. Having regard to the fact that the provision made by the assessee towards warranty is a liability on the contingency of the goods becoming defective within the terms of warranty clause, whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions made by the Assessee thereon is an allowable business expenditure?" 2. It is fairly stated by Mrs. Pushya Sitharaman, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue that issue raised in this case is covered against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in T.C. No. 85 of 1997 dated 9-9-2002. 3. Following the said judgment and for the reasons stated therein, we answer the questions of law referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 603 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents made strenuous attempts that this Court itself may enter into merit of the matter. However, having regard to the materials on record, we think that we should not do the same. This Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Nuruddin Mallick and Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 143 , observed as under - " Submission for the respondents was that this Court itself should examine and decide the question in issue based on the material on record to set at rest the long-standing issue. We have no hesitation to decline such a suggestion. The courts can either direct the statutory authorities, where it is not exercising its discretion, by mandamus to exercise its discretion, or when exercised, to see whether it has been validly exercised. It would be inappropriate for the Court to substitute itself for the statutory authorities to decide the matter." The principles enunciated in the aforementioned case would also apply herein.
........
|
