|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 868 Records
-
2009 (4) TMI 1024 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Das,Adv. And Ms. Sarika Singh, Adv. For the Respondent(s) None ORDER Delay condoned. No ground is made out for interfere. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1023 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... rvice is complete in both the cases. File counter affidavit, if any, within four weeks from today, as a last chance. List the matters on 10-7-2009.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1022 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rt on the proposed questions of law (A), (B) and (C) by judgment dated 14.11.2008 passed in ITA No. 1207/2008 and similarly, the proposed questions of law (D) and (E) is covered by judgment dated 30.01.2009 in ITA No. 1152/2008. Both decisions pertain to the same assessee. Appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1021 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and illegal at law. As such liable to be quashed and set aside. 14. Adverting to the contentions that the petitioners had failed to clarify the position and therefore, for default, the impugned order is correct, suffice it to say that the impugned order does not withstand the legal scrutiny. Therefore, merely because the petitioners had committed default in not “clarifying” the position, the impugned order cannot be held to be correct. 15. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The affidavit filed by the petitioners of the witness is directed to be taken on record as an evidence of the said witness. After taking the same on record, the learned Civil Judge shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 16. As the suit appears to be of 1998, the learned trial Judge shall dispose of the same as early as possible, in any case within a period of six months from today. Rule made absolute in above terms. Petition disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1020 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssment years were issued after the expiry of four years from the respective assessment years. Therefore, any notice issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, is illegal and is without jurisdiction. Hence the assessment years completed, are barred by limitation and they are liable to be set aside. 7. In these circumstances, it is clear that the notice has been issued under Section 148 of the Act after expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year, which is illegal and without jurisdiction and clearly barred by limitation and there is no specific finding by the assessing officer that income has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. In these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. 8. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently WPMP No. 43314 of 2003 is closed.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1019 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Delay condoned. The civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1018 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he above, we are of the v iew that the words processed vegetables or fruits appearing in Entry-80 must b e ascribed a fictional meaning to include items which in everyday use may not be vegetable or fruit items. 20. The net result of the above discussions leave no doubt in our mi nd that ’potato chips’ manufactured and sold by the petitioner Company would fal l under Entry 80 of Part A of Schedule II to the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 , as contended by the petitioner and that the said item will not fall under the residuary item contained in Serial No.1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act as clai med by the Revenue. Our above finding, naturally, has to be understood in the c ontext of the provisions of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment to the sc hedule to the Act made w.e.f. 16.10.2008. 21. The revision petition, therefore, is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.9.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner of Taxes, Govt. of Assam is set aside and quashed.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1017 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... nce the final order has been passed by the High Court, obviously all interim orders passed by the High court in the same writ petition cease to exist automatically. Consequently, any direction given in the interim order dated 24.4.2004 also ceases to exist. 6. In view of the final order passed by the High Court, the impugned interim order and any direction therein have ceased to exist. The appeal has become infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed. Contempt Petition (C) No. 164 of 008 in SL P(C) 15019 / 2008 7. In view of the aforesaid decision, Contempt Petition is dismissed.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1016 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... wn above is followed. 8 Subject to what is observed above, impugned order needs modification. Hence, I pass following order i) Impugned order dated 3rd December 2008 passed below applications at Exhibit-45 and 46 is modified. ii) The trial Court shall impound the document at Exhibit-50 and shall forward a true copy thereof to the Collector in accordance with sub-section 3 of section 32-A of the said Act. After adjudication is made by the Collector, it will be open for the respondent to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty and to produce a certificate to that effect before the trial Court. Only after such certificate is produced, the document at Exhibit-50 can be read in evidence provided it is duly proved and is otherwise admissible in evidence. iii)Impugned order stands modified in above terms. iv)It is made clear that no adjudication has been made by this Court as regards the proof and evidentiary value of the said document. v) Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1015 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it is held that the request for transfer need not be considered as per the convenience of the wife on the ground that she got relatives and Advocate friends in Chennai. This Court is also considering the embarrassing situation where the respondent would be in a position to have his matrimonial issues dealt with in Family Court in Chennai where he is practicing as an advocate, in the midst of his advocate friends, colleagues and clients. It is no doubt true that the proceedings will be held in camera,even then coming to the Court and attending to the proceedings would certainly be an embarrassment to him in the considered view of this Court. 12. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I.D.O.P.192 of 2008 pending on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengleput, is withdrawn and transferred to the Court Principal District Court, Tiruvellore, for disposal, according to law. 13. With the above direction the C.R.P is disposed of. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1014 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ions or application of mind is required while exercising the said powers, we are unable to accept the contention of the appellants, that the District Magistrate is a persona designata and that he cannot delegate the powers to other officer. In any case, Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the said Act permits the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to take steps for giving effect to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the said Act. 18. For the reasons recorded above, we are unable to accept the view taken by the Kerala High Court in the matter of "Aseena" (supra). 19. In that view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellants seeks an order for continuation of the interim protection granted earlier to the appellants. We are not inclined to grant the same in view of the decision in the Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, the application is rejected.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1013 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... justified. However, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has to be set aside, in view of the Lok Adalat award passed under Section 20(1)(i)(b), 20(1)(ii) of Legal Services Authorities Act (Act, 39/1987), as the Judicial Magistrate became functus officio and the award is an executable decree in the eye of law, as per Section 21 of the Act. 15. In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, confirming the Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Salem made in C.C. No. 308 of 2006 is set aside. 16. However, it is made clear that as per the award passed by the Lok Adalat, the respondent/complainant is at liberty to file Execution Petition before the appropriate court to get the award amount ₹ 3,75,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and seventy five thousand only) reimbursed with subsequent interest and costs, as per procedure known to law.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1012 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... age of truck and carrying it to the workshop. Taking into account actual expenses incurred and the interest that the complainant had to pay to the bank from which the loan was obtained for that amount, the District Forum awarded a sum of ₹ 1,58,409/- to the complainant and insurance company was directed to make that payment along with interest at the rate of 12 per annum. At the first blush, we had some doubt whether the interest paid by the complainant to the bank could have been awarded, but on deeper scrutiny we found that no such ground has been set up in the appeal. As a matter of fact, this aspect was not even raised before the National Commission. 17. The appeal is devoid of any substance. The insurance company would have been well advised in not spending public money unnecessarily on avoidable and wholly frivolous litigation such as this. 18. The appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed with costs which we quantify at ₹ 15,000/-.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1011 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. 20. In the instant case the evidence of PWs 1, 5 & 6 clearly establish the accusations so far as the accused appellant No. 1 i.e. Satish Kumar is concerned and therefore we find nothing infirm in the judgment of the High Court in upholding the conviction of accused appellant Satish Kumar. The sentence imposed was two years. It is on record that he has undergone sentence of more than 13 months. He has been released on bail pursuant to order dated 9.7.2001. Therefore, while upholding the conviction, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. So far as the appellant Nos. 2 & 3 i.e. Sunil Kumar and Satya Devi are concerned, the prosecution has not been able to establish the accusations so far as they are concerned. Their appeal is accepted and the conviction is set aside. The bail bonds executed by them for giving effect to the order dated 9.7.2001 shall stand discharged. 21. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1010 - SUPREME COURT
Interpretation and/or application of two circulars; one dated 21.9.1987, and the other dated 9.8.2000 - Scheme to Grant monetary compensation and/or Grant of appointment on compassionate ground to the dependents of those who have been killed in the terrorist attacks - Application seeking for appropriate directions - Prospective or Retrospective effect - father of the respondent was not a government servant. He was allegedly killed by extremists - No ex-gratia payment made in favour of the persons who were terrorist/virulent or listed criminal -
On or about 7.5.2003, the Government of Jharkhand, which came into being in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 took a policy decision that the matter relating to the appointment of the dependent of the deceased in the terrorist violence should be given effect to in respect of those persons who had been killed in violence after the date of formation of the State of Jharkhand, i.e., dated 15.10.2000.
In the light of the aforementioned resolution, the representation of the respondent was rejected in the meeting of the District Compassion Committee held on 5.4.2005 -
HELD THAT:- A circular letter providing for appointment on compassionate ground in case of death of a government servant cannot be extended in case of the dependents of the deceased who was not a government servant. A public employment must be offered to a person who is entitled therefor. All recruitments subject to just exceptions must be made in terms of the rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
A circular letter issued by the State cannot be issued de hors the constitutional scheme of making offer of public appointment. [See Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & ors.[2008 (11) TMI 679 - SUPREME COURT] and State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors. [2009 (3) TMI 1064 - SUPREME COURT].
Moreover, a benevolent circular, it is well known, cannot be extended to a case which was not contemplated by the circular itself.
Furthermore, in the matter of construction or application of subordinate legislation the rule of incorporation by reference should not be applied unless a clear case is made out therefor. The circular letter dated 21.9.1987 is an independent one. It operates in its own field. There is no scope of reading both the circulars together. Even if they could be read, the general circulars in regard to the appointment on compassionate ground which were again applicable to the cases of dependents of the deceased employees either for the purpose of consideration of the period during which such appointments were to be made or otherwise could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of benefit to which he was not otherwise entitled to.
Ordinarily, a subordinate legislation should not be construed to be retrospective in operation. The circular letter dated 7.5.2003 was given a prospective effect. The father of the respondent died on 19.5.2000. There is nothing to show that even circular dated 9.8.2000 had been given retrospective effect.
In any view of the matter, as the State of Jharkhand in the circular letter dated 7.5.2003 adopted the earlier circular letters issued by the State of Bihar only in respect of cases where death had occurred after 15.10.2000, i.e., the date from which the State of Jharkhad came into being, the High Court, in our opinion, committed a serious error in giving retrospective effect thereto indirectly which it could not do directly.
Reasons assigned by the High Court, for the reasons aforementioned, are unacceptable.
Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1009 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d a patent yet for the drug Tarceva, which is the Polymorph B form of the substance for which they hold a patent. Secondly, the defendant has raised a credible challenge to the validity of the patent held by the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the public interest in greater public access to a life saving drug will have to outweigh the public interest in granting an injunction to the plaintiffs. 86. For all the aforementioned reasons this Court does not find merit in any of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. It is however made clear that this order will not influence the decision of the learned Single judge in the pending application IA No. 1402 of 2008 and the counter-claim of the defendant in the aforementioned suit. 87. The appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at ₹ 5 lakhs which will be paid by the appellants/plaintiffs to the defendant within a period of four weeks. The interim order stands vacated. The applications are disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1008 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... order bereft of reasons would tantamount to non-application of mind, rendering the exercise of power under the Section, bad in law. Having gone through the order, we are convinced that the aforenoted salutary principles have not been kept in view by the High Court while issuing the impugned directions. The question of summoning of Kalicharan for recording his evidence at this juncture, particularly, when he is stated to have filed an affidavit, refuting the stand of the prosecution, in our view, is a serious issue insofar as criminal jurisprudence is concerned and therefore required deeper consideration, which is missing in the impugned order under challenge. In our opinion, the impugned order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and deserves to be set aside on that short ground only. Consequently, the appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration of the issue regarding additional evidence.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1007 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng in any court or before the Central Registrar or any other authority ..." in Sub-section (6) ought to be construed to include proceedings which were pending at the time of conversion of a society registered under the MCS Act into a multi - State cooperative society and the cancellation of the registration of such a society under the MCS Act and the registration thereof under the Multi - State Act. 25. If my answer to the question that falls for consideration is correct this submission is not well founded. It would follow in that event that the proceedings under the MCS Act remaining unaffected could not fall within the ambit of Section 126. The submission also involves rewriting by adding words to the provision of Section 126(6) which is not permissible. 26. In the circumstances the impugned order dated 14.8.2008 is set-aside ,the revision application is restored to file and respondent No. 3 shall decide the same on merits. There shall however be no order as to costs.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1006 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... land. This does not mean that before a piece of land could be said to be forest land there would have to be a notification by the Government under the Act. 44. In view of the aforesaid conclusions we are of the considered view that the matter needs to be re-considered by the High Court. 45. The High Court while re-hearing the matter shall also consider the effect of the aforesaid observations of this Court, and various aspects highlighted above. 46. In the background of the massiveness of apparent fraud involved, effective and participative role of officials of the State cannot be lost sight of. Without their active and effective participation manipulation of records, tampering with documents could not have been possible. The State would do well to peruse the matter with seriousness to unravel the truth and punish the erring officials and take all permissible actions (including criminal action) against every one involved. 47. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
-
2009 (4) TMI 1005 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... narguable. An objection as to the maintainability of the petition is only to be allowed at an initial stage if there is absolutely no doubt that the petition is not maintainable. It is a general principle that a petition is to be thrown out at an initial stage if it is unarguable on the demurrer. The issue of qualification in the present petition is a mixed question of fact and law, the correct position is required to be ascertained on hearing the parties on merits as well. Furthermore, the company petition alleges oppression on account of reduction of their shareholding to nil. 18. In view of the foregoing, I find no way to throw the petitioners out at the threshold itself from this equitable jurisdiction. C.P. No. 118 of 2006 is maintainable under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act. C. A. No. 379 of 2008 is hereby dismissed, being non-maintainable. The respondents are hereby directed to argue the company petition on merits on May 20, 2009, at 10.30 a. m. No order as to costs.
........
|
