-
2002 (6) TMI 610
... ... ... ... ..... purpose of the Factories Act and not for all other purposes unless it was otherwise proved that the establishment exercised complete administrative control over the employees serving in the canteen. See also Bharat Fritz Werner Limited v. State of Karnataka, (2001) ILLJ 763 SC. 11. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow the writ appeals and set aside the common order of the learned single Judge dated 27-9-1999 insofar as the appellants are concerned and allow WP Nos. 1866 of 1989, 13628 of 1990, 9596 of 1990....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 609
... ... ... ... ..... Judge and all consequential proceedings. The prosecution would be free to file a fresh charge-sheet, if so advised, after following the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., 1988 (1) SCC 226. It would also be open to the prosecution/Government to consider the feasibility of carrying on with this case in view of the circumstances and in accordance with law. It is prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was admitted to bail, but vir....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 608
... ... ... ... ..... g the respondent to withdraw the suit. It clearly state that considering averment in para 8 of the application for withdrawal, the plaintiff has been allowed to withdraw the suit. The contents of the para 8 of the application disclose that the respondent-plaintiff wants to file a fresh suit for various reliefs on a different cause of action, and by way of abundant caution, the respondent had sought permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. Once the party wants to file a suit on the basis of a cause....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 607
... ... ... ... ..... same cannot be interfered with by this court. 3 . It is to be observed that the Courts are flooded with lakhs of cases and each case consumes considerable time to reach finality. Litigants are eagerly waiting for disposal of their cases. Such being the position of the Courts, allowing a party to prosecute the suit filed by him till it reaches its fag end and thereafter grant of permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action leads to multiplicity of proceedings and the Courts are....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 606
... ... ... ... ..... Vishwasrao Chudaman Patil v. Lok Ayukta, State of Maharashtra, rendered under the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta Act, 1971 was cited, we find that the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. V.C. Komalu and Ors. (supra) has disagreed with the view taken by the Bombay High Court on the ground that the provisions of the two Acts are not pari materia. We, therefore, rest our conclusions and the judgments on the construction of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, and the attendant circumstances to which we have referred. 16........ + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 605
... ... ... ... ..... n or their legitimate due and in the instant case they had in fact filed application before the payment of gratuity authority. The resolution of the Board of Directors also accepted their legitimate dues while making it clear that, it should not create financial burden beyond legal provision on continuity of service. 21. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the deduction claimed by the company would not fall under section 36(1)(v) but would be in the nature of revenue expenditure wholly and exclusively for the pur....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 604
... ... ... ... ..... ants and the idea is to protect those in commerce, who deal with such a partnership firm in business. Such said third parties, who deal with the partners ought to be enabled to know what the names of the partners of the firm before they deal with them in business . It is evident that Section 69 (2) is not attracted to any and every contract. 14. Admittedly, in this case, the suit is not for enforcement of any right arising out of a contract entered into by or on behalf of the Plaintiffs firm with the defendant in the cours....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 603
... ... ... ... ..... part of the guarantors to carry out the obligation, hence the period of limitation could not be said to have commenced running. The limitation would only run from the date of breach under Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Both the accounts which were guaranteed by defendants 2 and 3 by the execution of the guarantee bonds continued to be a live account even after they ceased their business. The plaintiff has issued notices Ex.P4 dated 6.12.1979 and Ex.P5 dated 6.10.1982 invoking the guarantees and filed the suit on 1....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 602
... ... ... ... ..... nce, every person, who was in-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty. But under Section 141(2) of the Act, the presumption would arise against the director, manager, etc., only when it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of those persons. Therefore, mere words that the petitioners-directors are responsible for the failure to make the pa....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 601
... ... ... ... ..... pon by the ld. Advocate are not applicable as facts are different. In DCW Ltd., penalty was held to be not imposable for a mere procedural lapse in taking modvat credit and in absence of intention to evade duty. In the present matter, there is no procedural lapse as appropriate duty of Excise was not paid before the clearance of goods. Similarly, in Singh Traders case, mistake was detected and rectified by the assessee himself which is not so in the present matter. However, taking into consideration all facts and circumsta....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 600
... ... ... ... ..... he AAC rejected the assessee s appeal. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee s appeal and directed the GTO to apply the yield method. 4. At the hearing of this reference, Mr. Tanvish Bhatt for the revenue has invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT 1994 207 ITR 11 in support of his contention that rule 1D providing for valuation of unquoted shares is mandatory in nature. 5. Having perused rule 1D, which was applicable at the relevant period and the aforesa....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 599
... ... ... ... ..... ivil Application No. 164 of 2002 and other cognate matters. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order-in-original, dated 1st January, 2002 at Annexure E to the petition in so far as the order impose penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii), and the matter is remanded to the authorities. The remaining portions of the impugned order are not interfered with, for the simple reason that the petitioners have preferred appeals for challenging the other portions of the orders levying duty and interest........ + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 598
... ... ... ... ..... o the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants,the Respondents have already launched prosecution against the Appellants. As Shri Dada, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents didrightly point out, this Tribunal does not enjoy the inherent powers of High Courts under section 482 of the Cr.PC to issue any order for quashing pending proceedings before any Court of law. For the reasons stated above this Tribunal is of the view that it is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to issue any order setting aside the Responde....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 597
... ... ... ... ..... same. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants, the Respondents have already launched prosecution against the Appellants. As Shri Dada, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent rightly pointed out, this Tribunal does not enjoy the inherent powers of High Courts under section 482 of the Cr.PC to issue any order for quashing pending proceedings before any Court of law. For the reasons stated above this Tribunal is of the view that it is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to issue any order setting as....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 596
... ... ... ... ..... ecovering the Provident Fund dues. Hence, the notices issued vide Exts. P1 and P3, and the orders at Exts. P4, P5(a), P5(b) and P5(c) were perfectly legal and justified. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the learned single Judge and conclusions arrived at on the inter se contest between the provisions of Section 46-B of the S.F.C. Act and Section 11(2) of the E.P.F. M.P. Act. 16. In the result, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge holding that the dues of the Employees Provident Fund have higher pri....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 595
... ... ... ... ..... kers. Such goods are not covered by the provisions relating to affixing of MRP under the Weights and Measures Act. It is a pre-condition for invoking the provision under Section 4A that the goods in question attract the provisions of Weights and Measures Act and Rules thereunder. Since the bulk clearance of Lubricating oils were not covered by provisions of Weights and Measures Act, Section 4A of the Central Excise Act was not attracted for the valuation and assessment. 18. It is also seen that the original assessment of t....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 594
... ... ... ... ..... ion 37(1). On the other hand, it merely clarifies that an expenditure which is otherwise allowable under section 37(1) should not be disallowed merely because it does not fall under section 35D of the Act. For instance, expenditure incurred by a going company for its existing business is not deductible under section 35D and such expenditure is allowable, even after the insertion of section 35D, under section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, it can be seen that the aforecited cases are distinguishable on facts. 16. Upon careful cons....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 593
... ... ... ... ..... d indicated about their source of investments, though the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with their source of investment. In view of these facts we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed off the appeal following the direction of the ITAT and hence, there is no justification in revenue s ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer. In their judgment the Hon ble Supreme Court have held in the case of Stellar Investment Ltd. (supra ) that even if the subscrib....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 592
... ... ... ... ..... hereafter conclusions have to be drawn on the basis of material on record in accordance with law. However, perusal of the impugned orders of the learned Commissioner would go to reveal that he has based his conclusions purely on conjectures and surmises and not on an appreciation of material on record in the right perspective. 20. We, therefore, hold that the orders of the learned Commissioner on both the issues, namely, deduction under section 80-O of the Act as also under section 80HHC of the Act are not sustainable in b....... + More
-
2002 (6) TMI 591
... ... ... ... ..... rication of the items at site. 3. The contention of the respondents is that there is no such allegation in the show cause notice, therefore now the Revenue cannot take a new plea. 4. The reading of show cause notice shows that the duty is being demanded on the disposal' of waste and scrap pertaining to capital goods sold as waste/ scrap. The Tribunal in the case of A.C.C. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal reported in 2001 (46) RLT 745 (CEGAT-Del.) 2001 (133) ELT 375 (Tri.-Del.) and in the case of Diese....... + More
