|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 467 Records
-
2002 (7) TMI 839 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . Arijit Pasayat, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 838 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erefore, the police authorities cannot obstruct the writ petitioner-Club from conducting card room where the members and guests of the writ petitioner's cultural centre are allowed to play the game of rummy with stakes/syndicate (thirteen card game). At the same time, we make it clear that the police is always at liberty to enter the premises and check as to whether the cultural centre of the Club is conducting card room where the members and guests of petitioner's cultural centre are playing the game of rummy with stakes/syndicate (thirteen card game) for the purpose of verification. If they receive any intimation, the police may enter the club and verify the same and proceed further if the members and guests of writ petitioner's cultural centre play other than the game of rummy with stakes/syndicate (thirteen card game). The police authorities are also at liberty to proceed with the cases, which are already registered. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (7) TMI 837 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . The learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the department very fairly states that the question is covered against the revenue by the decision in CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. 1992 196 ITR 149 (SC). 3. In this view, the question is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 835 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ivil appeals are dismissed on the ground of delay as also on merits.
-
2002 (7) TMI 834 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The appeal of the Insurance Company challenging the award against the finding of negligence (S.L.P. c 20874/2001) on the part of the driver of the Troller is dismissed. So far the appeal of the claimants (SLP c No. 22304/2001) for applying the conversion rate at Rs. 47 is concerned, it is dismissed and the order passed by the Division Bench for applying conversion rate at Rs. 30 is upheld. The appeal for allowing the deduction on account of receipt of the sums received by the claimants on social security system is dismissed and the order passed by the High Court disallowing any deduction is upheld. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Tis Hazari, Delhi shall calculate the amount of compensation in accordance with the Judgment passed above that is to say it shall take the dependency amount as 226297 and shall apply the multiplier of 10. The conversion rate shall be @ Rs. 30. The amount shall bear interest @ 9% per annum as awarded instead of 12%. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 833 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... discussed earlier, the view taken by the High Court that the interpolation said to have been made by the covenanters in the agreement of sale does not stand scrutiny under law. As observed earlier such alteration, assuming that it was made subsequently, did not bring about any change in the validity and enforceability of the agreement of sale. We are constrained to observe that the finding recorded by the High Court appears to be based on surmise. Therefore, the judgment is clearly unsustainable. 15. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed with costs. The common judgment and decree passed by the High Court on 24th September, 1995 in second Appeal Nos. 1974 of 1978 and 1975 of 1978 is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the First Additional District Judge, Mathura in Appeal Nos. 3-4 of 1975 confirming the judgment and decree in Suit No. 58 of 1969 and 58 of 1971 is restored. The appellants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as hearing fee from the respondents.
-
2002 (7) TMI 832 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... r packings (carton) were same does not go to show that the shoes are of Chinese origin unless and until it is proved that the said packing was also of Chinese origin. We find substance in the submissions of learned Advocate that similar or same packing alone would not prove that the all shoes are of Chinese origin. Similarly issuance of Certificate of Country of origin by Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry does not lead to the conclusion that because 936 pairs of shoes were of Chinese origin, all pairs of shoes are also of Chinese origin. The Department has thus not been successful in proving that whole consignment is of Chinese origin. We, therefore, uphold the confiscation of 936 pairs of shoes only, set aside the confiscation of other pairs of shoes, and consequently reduce the redemption fine to ₹ 45,000/- only. The Anti-dumping duty will be leviable on 936 pairs of shoes only. We also reduce the penalty to ₹ 30,000/-. 5. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 831 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ended to fall within the charging section. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty MANU/SC/0285/1981 1981 128ITR294(SC) . 6. In support of the various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Advocate relied upon decisions of (i) Sotvex Oils and Fertilizers v. Bhandari Cros-Fields (P.) Ltd., 1978 Comp Cas 260; (ii) Pioneer Protective Glass Fibre Pvt. Ltd, v. Fibre Glass Pilkington Ltd., 1986 CompCas 707. Thus, the position in law is that by mere change of name from a Private Limited Company to Limited Company, there is no change of entity as such all actions of the Private Limited Company shall continue against the Public. 7. In light of what is stated hereinbefore, this petition is allowed. Impugned notices dated 13-8-2001 and 16-10-2001 (Annexures - 'A', 'B', 'C' & 'D') are hereby quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 830 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e same Tribunal on the same facts. If the Tribunal wanted to take an opinion different from the one taken by an earlier Bench, it ought to place the matter before the President of the Tribunal so that he could have the case referred to a Bench consisting of three or more members for which there was provision in the Income Tax Act itself." The requisite provision is contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 255 where the President of the Tribunal is authorised to constitute a Special Bench of three or more members. In the instant case also the learned Members of the Indore Bench of the Tribunal instead of reviewing their own earlier judgment, ought to have referred the matter to the larger Bench. For what we have said above, we answer questions No. 1 to 3 in favour of the applicant-assessee and against the Revenue leaving the remaining questions unanswered. The matter shall now go back to the Tribunal for doing the needful in the light of the observations made hereinbefore.
-
2002 (7) TMI 829 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rward against the income liable to assessment for the assessment year 1977-78 ?" 2. None appears for the applicant. We have heard Sri V. Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. In view of the judgment and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 512 (SC), We answer the question referred to in affirmative and decide the reference in favour of assessee and against the revenue. The reference is accordingly answered.
-
2002 (7) TMI 828 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... #39; are sufficient for the purpose of due compliance with Section 138(b) of the N.I.Act. Burden to prove non-tender of the article is on the accused. 10. Under Section 118(a) of the Act there is a presumption that Ext. P1 was issued for consideration and that it was actually issued on 3.9.1996 which is the date mentioned in Ext. P1. Under Section 139 it is to be presumed, in the absence of any contrary evidence, that the complainant received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part, of a debt or other legal liability. In the present case details of the legal liability have been spoken to by PW1 and also pleaded in paragraph 1 of the complaint and as such the acquittal of the accused by the trial court is absolutely unjustified. 11. Point No. 2 - In view of my findings under point No. 1, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for passing fresh judgment bearing in min the legal principles aforementioned and in accordance with law.
-
2002 (7) TMI 827 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... alize the need to generate better employment opportunities to the people of rural backward areas and an affirmative action in this regard is not ruled out, any such action should be within the framework of constitutional provisions relating to equality. Equalising unequals by taking note of their handicaps and limitations is not impermissible under the Constitution provided that it seeks to achieve the goal of promoting overall equality. However, measures taken by the State on considerations of localism are not sanctioned by the Constitutional mandate of equality. As indicated in the judgment, any attempt at giving weightage to the rural candidates should be backed up by scientific study and considerations germane to constitutional guarantee of equality. 58. The appeals arising out of the SLPs are disposed of accordingly. The impugned judgments of the High Court stand modified to that extent. The writ petition mentioned above is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 826 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ble to the case of the assessee." The appellant shall file within three months ten copies of the cyclostyled paper books, containing all documents on which reliance was placed before the Tribunal, including any order/orders, either in the case of the assessee itself or in case of any other assessee, which has been followed by the Tribunal. The appeal be listed for hearing in the regular course.
-
2002 (7) TMI 825 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... l Excise, Nagpur v. Wainganga Sahkari S. Karkhana Ltd. 2002 (142) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) 2002 (5) SCC 415 , therefore we find no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 824 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is Court for the said purpose and they will render such assistance as may be required of them by Chief Justice Mookerjee. 7) We request Chief Justice Mookerjee to accept the honorarium of ₹ 15,000 00 for conducting and supervising AGM of the Club at its registered office on 19th July, 2002. We fix the remuneration of the learned advocates at ₹ 2,500 00 each. All these expenses are to be borne by the Club. 60. We, however, make it clear that whatever decision will be taken in the AGM will be given effect to. But those decisions will abide by the order to be given by the Court below in the injunction petition or in the suit. 61. We dispose of both the appeal as also the stay application as above. There will be no order as to costs. 62. A plain copy of the operative portion of this order may be forwarded to Chief Justice Mookerjee by the Registrar General and a copy may also be sent to each of the concerned learned advocates by the Assistant Registrar of this Court.
-
2002 (7) TMI 823 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h we have adumbrated above. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of a learned single Judge in O.P. No. 3814 of 1988. In somewhat similar circumstances, the learned single Judge therein, was pleased to set aside the order of the State Government on the ground that it was not shown as to how the contract was given to a person who had quoted 25 per cent above the estimate rates in spite of the procedure prescribed. 24. In the result, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 1822 of 1994 and quash and set aside Ext. P-10 order dated 5th January 1994 We also allow O.P. No. 4921 of 1997 and quash and set aside the order dated 12th February 1997, Ext, P-13 therein; 25. Notwithstanding the quashing of all the concerned orders, it shall be open to the State Government to recover the loss, if any, suffered by them by suing the appellant in a court of law, if permissible under law. Appeal and Original Petition are accordingly allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 822 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e and petitioner is also given liberty to raise all objections which are raised herein the writ petition before the ITO and ITO is expected to decide the objections as early as possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. We convert this expectation of the learned Single Judge as a direction by this Court to the ITO. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the ITO has passed the order on 22nd July, 2001, without deciding his representation. We, therefore, also make it clear that unless the petitioner’s objections are decided by a speaking order, there is no question of passing the final order in the matter of assessment on 22nd July, 2002. The ITO, shall first decide the objections/representation of the petitioner with regard to the notice being time-barred and would thereafter pass the assessment order if necessary. This appeal is hereby disposed of in terms as aforesaid.
-
2002 (7) TMI 821 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ular post should be filled up or not is within the domain of the employer. The Court will ordinarily have no say in the matter. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The Tribunal although has been created in terms of the Article 323A of the Constitution of India, its jurisdiction is limited. It must act within the four corners of the Statute. It, Therefore, cannot go beyond the same and assume the jurisdiction of entertaining a lis in the nature of public interest, which is not contemplated under the Administrative Tribunals Act. 36. In the aforementioned situation, that part of the Order whereby and whereunder the respondents have been directed to fill up the post of Director - Professor cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. 37. In the result, C.W.P. No. 2902 of 2001 is allowed and C.W.P. No. 507 of 2001 is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear the costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 820 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the purpose of deciding this application. The question of jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit as against the defendants No. 1 to 52 is kept, open for being decided as an issue in the suit itself. Such issue may be decided either as preliminary issue or along with all other issues or simultaneously or one after the other, as the case may be, according to the discretion of the Court. 21.3 The learned Presiding Officer of DRT shall be free to proceed with the proceeding before it according to its own wisdom and discretion without being influenced by any observation made in this order, except those with regard to the question of jurisdiction so far as the proceedings before the DRT by the defendants No. 53 to 57 are concerned. 21.4 With this observation, this application is disposed of in respect of all the reliefs claimed excepting prayer (d), which may be set down before the appropriate Court. This matter shall not be treated as heard-in-part by this Court any further.
-
2002 (7) TMI 819 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iling the application, and therefore, the party had not to file any application for condonation of delay. It was only when the present appellant took an objection that the application filed under Section 50 is barred by limitation, the Copyright Board had to pass the order under challenge. Therefore, this contention of Mr. Shah also fails. 10. No doubt, Article 137 deals with filing of applications, but then the applications, which are contemplated to be filed, are the applications filed before the Civil Court. The appellant is also not successful in convincing this Court to hold that the 'Copyright Board' is a 'Civil Court'. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal fails. The Court has not found any error in the order under challenge. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 11. In view of the dismissal of the main First Appeal, the Civil Application No. 11134 of 2001 does not survive and the same is disposed of. Notice is discharged.
........
|
