|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 676 Records
-
2007 (7) TMI 719 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s undisputed that the appellants were not heard before the order dated 20.2.2006 was passed. A specific ground taken in application to recall the order was that even no notice was issued and they were not impleaded as parties. It appears to have been brought to notice of the High Court that the appellants were heard before the trial court when the application in terms of Section 311 of the Code was decided by the trial court. It is true that the High Court has no power to review/recall its order. But in view of the peculiar factual scenario highlighted above, we set aside the order dated 20th February, 2006. The petition filed by the respondent No. 1 shall be heard on merits. 15. It is stated that the appellants have already been impleaded in the application. If that is so, there shall be no need of respondents being impleaded. If it has not been done, the same shall be done. We make it clear that we do not express any opinion on the merits of the case. 16. Appeal is allowed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 718 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appeal to the Division Bench. (e) An appeal can be preferred against an order regard being had to the nature, tenor, effect and impact of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (f) The guidelines given in the cases of Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. (supra), Deoraj (supra), Liverpool London S.P. I. Association Ltd. (supra), Subal Paul (supra) and Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra) are to be kept in view while deciding the maintainability of an appeal. (g) It should be borne in mind that instances given in the aforesaid decisions are not exhaustive but illustrative in nature, because various kinds/categories of orders may be passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (h) The facts in each case, the nature and the character of the order are to be scrutinised to appreciate the trappings of the same. 34. Let the matter be placed before the Division Bench for adjudication.
-
2007 (7) TMI 717 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ike KSRTC is certainly relevant when the Corporation takes a decision as to whether it should implement a recommendation for enhanced emoluments and pension. Since we find from the relevant aspects brought out that the financial position of KSRTC is not sound, we are of the view that the decision taken by the State Government not to implement, here and now, the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission for KSRTC and the decision based on it by KSRTC are fully justified. Certainly, the decision cannot be said to be vitiated by any extraneous consideration or perverse appreciation of the circumstances obtaining. 19. The result of this discussion is to hold that the High Court was in error in its decision and in directing that pension had to be paid in terms of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission. We therefore allow these appeals and setting aside the decisions of the High Court dismiss the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners. We make no order as to costs.
-
2007 (7) TMI 716 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sion compositions can hereafter be valid and can be accepted. I do not find any reason to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this case with the aid of the dictum in Sabu George. It is for the petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant to satisfy the learned Magistrate that the entire compensation amount has been paid and there is no further liability to pay any amount of compensation. The direction was only to pay the compensation and not to deposit the compensation amount. In these circumstances, if a joint submission is made that the entire compensation amount has been paid and that liability has been discharged and nothing remains to be paid, there can be no question of the learned Magistrate executing the default sentence. 4. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. If the liability to pay compensation has been discharged, the petitioner shall be liable only to undergo the substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. 5. Hand over the order.
-
2007 (7) TMI 715 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s clear that the challenge exists and that the said paragraph 1744 forms part of the Indian Railways Commercial Manual, which was issued by the Railway Board at New Delhi. A writ striking down the said paragraph would have to be issued to the Railway Board which is in New Delhi. Therefore, from the standpoint of Article 226(1) of the Constitution, this Court would have jurisdiction inasmuch as the authority to whom the writ is to be issued is located within the normal territorial limits of this Court. It is true that if the case rested only on a challenge to the demands de hors the question of validity of para 1744 then, only Article 226(2) would be applicable and this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction as no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. But, that is not the case. 40. For the reasons stated above, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. A separate order is being passed for proceeding with the petitions on merits.
-
2007 (7) TMI 714 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as been offered by the respondent as to why no prosecution has been launched against the proposed detenu. The withholding of relevant material coupled with the delay in launching prosecution, leads us to hold that the order of detention is passed for extraneous reasons and for a collateral purpose. 11. We need hardly examine each and every ground taken in the writ petition suffice it so say that there is no effective reply on record of the Detaining Authority and must, Therefore, be assumed that the allegations are not controverter. It is not disputed that the detention orders against Ashwani Aggarwal and Vipul Aggarwal have already been struck down in writ petition Nos. 1484 of 2006 and 1485 of 2006 respectively. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention bearing F. No. 673/19/2005-CUS.VIII dated 28.12.2005. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1495 of 2006 is allowed and Rule made absolute. Criminal M.A. No. 6372 of 2006 stands disposed of.
-
2007 (7) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sued to them. Their seniority for all purposes will however be counted only from the date of actual appointment. 12.2) Rajesh Kumar Daria (OBC candidate with 171 marks) was also not selected because of the selection of excess women candidates. He ought to have been selected and appointed in the 2001 selection. We are told that Rajesh Kumar Daria got selected in the subsequent 2005 examination and was appointed in the Rajasthan Judicial Service on 12.2.2005. Considering the above fact, we direct that he should be given his position in the 2001 selection list. Interests of justice would be served if he is placed as the last candidate in the 2001 selection list. As he worked from 12.2.2005, we make it clear that such retrospective seniority will not entitle him to any monetary benefits, but will only be counted for promotions and pensionary benefits. 13. The appeals are allowed accordingly in part and the order of the High Court is set aside insofar as the said three appellants.
-
2007 (7) TMI 712 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tions are calculated to protect the viewers' interest. The second proviso to Regulation 4.1 clarifies that no notice would be required if there is no agreement, written or oral, permitting the distribution of the signals. There is no incongruity between these Regulations once it is understood that the second proviso to Regulation 3.2 would come into play only when the dispute has been adjudicated upon by the appropriate forum. This proviso has the effect of not only imparting reasonableness to the impugned Regulation but it also protects the copyright of the broadcaster. It is for these reasons that we reject the contention put forward on behalf of the Petitioners that Regulation 4, introduced by means of the amendment dated 4.9.2006, suffers from any legal vice. 51. We do not find any merit in the writ petitions which we hereby dismiss. The parties shall, however, bear their respective costs. A copy of this Judgment be placed by the Registry in all the connected matters.
-
2007 (7) TMI 711 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oral and documentary recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff extended the loan which the defendant-petitioner received and was liable to repay the said sum. In addition the Trial Court concluded that the petitioner's cheques for repayment of the said sum, bounced, resulting the suits for recovery as well as criminal prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It may be that the petitioner instituted OS 1631/03 for return of cheques much prior in point of time to the filing of the small cause suits for recovery of money, that by itself and nothing more, cannot be said that the plaintiff is disentitled to recover his monies by instituting the suits. The second contention too must necessarily fail. 14. In my opinion, the judgments and orders impugned in these revision petitions are not shown to suffer from any legal infirmity occasioning grave injustice to the petitioner, calling for interference. Revision petitions are without merit and are accordingly rejected.
-
2007 (7) TMI 710 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ). For all legal and ordinary purposes, each separate flat in a multi-storied building would constitute a separate house or for that matter a separate building under Section 2(3) since each of such flat is separate and there is no nexus with the flat above or below or side by side. There is no common functionality as such. 20. The pre-requisite of the tax under Entry 49 List-II of Seventh Schedule, inter-alia, is that it must be a tax on unit. The tax cannot be taxed on totality i.e. it is not a composite tax and value of all lands and buildings. It is for this reason as well that each flat in a multi-storied building being a house by itself has to be treated as a separate unit and in that sense a separate 'building' under Section 2(3) of the LBT Act and has to be taxed as such. 21. We, thus, find ourselves in agreement with the view of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jaipur. 22. The writ petition, accordingly, has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (7) TMI 709 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... re is any subsequent even, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal is right in its conclusion that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable in the instant case. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 708 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ontended and even reflected from the documents that the said amount was deposited towards the earnest money and security. Merely because the said amount was deposited in the account of respondent No. 1 that itself cannot be the reason to accept the case of the petitioners that there was consideration paid, based on the said MOU. Pending the present petition, the respondents-society has refunded the said amount as the draft MOU could not be settled and/or approved by respondent No. 1 and its members. It was specifically agreed even in the draft MOU that the amount would be adjusted and/or refunded in case the parties unable to proceed with the agreement. 32. In view of this, at this there is no binding agreement However, liberty is granted to their case in detail in Section 11 Arbitration petition. stage, I am between the petitioners convinced the to that parties. submit 33. In view of this, the present petition is dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. No order as to costs.
-
2007 (7) TMI 707 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t aside the foreign arbitral award or sit over the decision concluded by the Tribunal based on the provisions of the Arbitration Act about the existence of the agreement. Sections 45 to 49 of the Arbitration Act-1996 need to consider from the point of view of enforceability of the foreign award and further, where such foreign award is enforceable in India or not. The challenge to the enforceability, no way can be equated to the challenge to the merit of the interim awards passed by the foreign tribunal on the foundation of the existence of valid and binding agreement between the parties. 24. Therefore, taking all this into account, the objection as raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents are rejected. 25. Resultantly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (a). Prayer Clause (a) reads thus (a) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the arbitration award dated 9th October, 2006 enforceable as a decree of this Hon'ble Court. 26. No costs.
-
2007 (7) TMI 706 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the prima facie adjustment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1)(a) could not be sustained. 2. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, learned senor counsel for the assessee at the outset has submitted that the controversy stand settled by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. Punjab Financial Corpn. 2002 254 ITR 61, wherein it has been held that the provisions of section 32AB(5) of the Act are not mandatory and the Assessing Officer has the discretion to entertain the audit report even though the same was not filed with the return by granting benefit of the deduction to the assessee in terms of section 32AB(1) of the Act. 3. Mr. Sanjeev Bansal, learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing feature from the facts of the present case. In view of the above, nothing survives for determination of this Court as the question stand answered against the revenue by the Full Bench of this Court. Accordingly, the reference is disposed of.
-
2007 (7) TMI 705 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 12 and 13 and what part of the evidence are to be ignored, are matters that will depend upon the decision to be rendered by the High Court in the matters pending before it and to be considered by the trial court when it finally disposes of the suit and if its order were to be upheld by the High Court, to be consistent with the order it has already passed. 13. At the same time, we think it necessary to clarify that the trial of the suit will go on and there will be no impediment to it. We find that the High Court has posted the matter on 20.7.2007 and all parties agreed before us that they will be ready to argue the matter that day. We request the High Court to ensure that the writ petitions covering such simple issues, be taken up on 20.7.2007 itself and disposed of in accordance with law immediately. 14. The orders of the High Court are thus slightly modified and the appeals are disposed of with the above direction. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
-
2007 (7) TMI 704 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... position that on 31st March, 1998, it was ready to commence its business activity. Even though it may have had an electric connection and had purchased some raw material, there was no one to take advantage of it. 12. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the facts of the case are rather peculiar but the total effect of all these facts and the law laid down by the Supreme Court point to the conclusion that it is not possible to entirely agree with the views expressed by learned Counsel for the Assessee. The opinion expressed by the Tribunal is a possible view. It is not perverse in the sense that no reasonable person could have reached the conclusion that the Tribunal did in view of the facts of the case, peculiar or not. 13. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The view expressed by the Tribunal may or may not be correct but that by itself does not raise a substantial question of law. 14. Dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 703 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s have been received from the public including the petitioners. But all on a sudden when everybody sought to withdraw the amount, Respondents 6 and 7 had some difficulties in repayment of the amount at once. However, they are taking all efforts to repay the amounts. They also admitted that Ext.P8 agreement was reached between the parties and they have no objection in the petitioners' visiting the office for the purpose of implementation of the terms contained in Ext.P8. 5. In the course of the argument, it was agreed between the parties that Petitioners 1 to 5 representing the depositors will be permitted to visit the office of the 6th respondent for implementation of Ext.P8 agreement and police will not prevent them from making such visit, on every Saturday After Noon for that purpose. However, they shall not cause any law and order situation and the police will interfere only if a situation is created for such interference. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.
-
2007 (7) TMI 702 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... full facts and no order of any investigation can be made as held in Ravi Shankar Taneja v. Motherson Triplex Tools Private Limited and Ors. (Surra). There is no proper material to enable this Bench to form an opinion that an investigation into conduct of the second respondent required to be made and furthermore, the prayer VIII(b) for appointment of an auditor to conduct an investigation into the conduct of the second respondent may result in a conflict of decision. 13. In view of the foregoing conclusions, I am of opinion that the petitioners are unable to make out a case under Section 397/398 and therefore they are not entitled for any relief as held in A. Venkataramana and Anr. v. A.K.R. Minerals Private Limited and Ors. (Supra). The petitioners having failed to meet the requirements prescribed in Section 397(2)(b) the petition cannot be entertained as enunciated in Asoka Betelnut Co. Private Limited v. M.K. Chandrakanth (Supra). Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
2007 (7) TMI 701 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for sustaining the additions, especially when confirmation letter of D.K. Sanghvi was filed in the course of assessment proceedings. Veracity of the said confirmation letter has not been doubted. Moreover, in the present case, receipts as well as repayments have been made by account payee crossed cheques. It is not in dispute that the loans were raised through a broker and the assessee had volunteered to produce the broker and had given the name and income tax number of the broker. 7. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 25,000/- each aggregating to ₹ 50,000/- on the ground that the cash creditors were not assessed to tax. 8. Accordingly, we hold that the additions of ₹ 50,000/- in the hands of the assessee cannot be sustained. Both the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 9. The Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (7) TMI 700 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Dipak Navnitlal Parikh (supra) and Delhi High Court in G. Sagar Suri (supra) is concerned, we are of the view that the facts are totally different in the present case. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has not straightaway issued the arrest warrant. Initially, the process was issued. Thereafter, on four to five occasions, despite an assurance being given to the Court, the petitioners did not remain present. On the date of issuance of arrest warrant, neither the petitioners nor their advocate remained present and hence, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was justified in issuing the arrest warrant and that too, after recording reasons. 30. No case is made out by the petitioners so as to show any indulgence in the matter. Facts and circumstances of the case do not justify to exercise our extraordinary and prerogative writ jurisdiction and to grant discretionary relief under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. Both these petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
........
|
