|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 887 Records
-
2009 (8) TMI 1291
... ...
... ... ..... eal. In that view of the matter, the order of the learned appellate authority is hereby set aside in so far as the present appeal is concerned. The order of the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2072 of 2002, is accordingly modified. 15. In the result, L.P.A. No. 793 of 2002, and L.P.A. No. 893 of 2002, are hereby allowed. The order dated 16.1.2002 (Annexure-8), passed by the learned appellate authority is hereby set aside to the extent indicated hereinabove in so far as the two appeals are concerned. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is accordingly modified. The appellants of both the appeals shall be required to pay the royalty at the higher rate as indicated in the notification dated 24.3.2001 (Annexure-2) w.e.f. 26.12.2001 Annexure-4). The appellants shall be entitled for adjustment of the amounts already deposited by them, and shall pay the balance amount if found due against them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1290
... ...
... ... ..... ore academic than realistic. It has to be 'Just Justice'. Justice in the sense of Law and the Constitution and not to the individual mindset of the Court. The said Act and its ramification has to be understood in a wider context. 18. With great respect, these findings do no justice to the observations of this Court in Vishnu Thakur's case as the very specific observations therein have been noticed and ignored by the Division Bench. 19. In the light of what has been held above, Mr. Lalit's second submission as to the expiry of the maximum period of detention of one year based on Uday Mohan Lal Acharya's case (supra), need not detain us more particularly, as the facts are disputed by Mr. Bhattcharjee. We are, therefore, not required to go into this aspect of the matter. 20. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of Special Judge dated 13th February 2008 and High Court dated 5th September, 2008 and direct that the appellant be released on bail.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1289
... ...
... ... ..... r H2K including the names HAYWARDS 2000 and HAYWARDS 5000 Owned by or applied for on behalf of the Assignors or any of their Affiliates from time to time anywhere in the world including those registered trade marks and applications for registered trade marks, details of which are set out in Schedule 1. 36. It is thus clear that all the trade marks which are the subject matter of the Deed of Assignment were not inadvertently assigned by defendant number 2 to Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd. There is no pleading to this effect in any event. It is not open therefore to raise this contention which is a pure question of fact. Had this contention been raised in the pleadings the plaintiff would have had an opportunity of meeting the same. To allow the contention to be raised without a pleading would deprive the plaintiff of this opportunity. The contention is therefore rejected. 37. The petition is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The costs shall be costs in the cause.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1288
... ...
... ... ..... rder for A.Y. 2002-03. In appeal the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. The revenue is aggrieved. 7.2. The learned DR relied upon the assessment order. 7.3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by para nos. 27 to 30 of Tribunal s order dated 9-3-2007 in ITA nos. 5555 and 5571/Del/03 in assessee s own case for A.Y. 1999-2000. 7.4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through Tribunal s order, referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee. The Tribunal has decided identical issue in favour of the assessee. No change in facts and circumstances for the assessment year in question has been pointed out. The order of CIT(A) being in conformity with the abovementioned order of the Tribunal we see no reason to interfere. Ground is rejected. 8. In the result assessee s appeal is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on .
-
2009 (8) TMI 1287
... ...
... ... ..... annot be used at other places in Delhi also in view of paragraph 3 of the notification dated 07.01.2009. The argument that the petitioner's product is porous and that water can pass through the same is of no consequence because that is not the consideration which is to be taken into account while construing the notification dated 07.01.2009. Paragraph 2 of the said notification, as already indicated above, refers to all kinds of plastic bags. Once the petitioner's product falls within the ambit of plastic bags , it is immaterial as to whether it is porous or whether it is a textile. The petitioner's argument that non-woven polypropylene bags are an alternative to plastic bags also does not appeal to us. The non- woven polypropylene bags are plastic bags in themselves and, therefore, they cannot be a substitute for plastic bags as suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 12. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1286
... ...
... ... ..... S. No. 469 of 2004 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Coimbatore is set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration on merits and as per law without in any way being influenced by the observation contained in the present order. It is open to the petitioners to produce a copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 980 of 2009 as a document to be exhibited in I.A. No. 608 of 2008. The civil revision Petition No. 1200 of 2009 is allowed. 38. Similarly the order dated 24.4.2009 in I.A. No. 1041 of 2009 in O.S. No. 980 of 2009 on the file of the learned First Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore is set aside. The learned Judge is directed to consider the interlocutory application on merits and as per law and to dispose of the matter within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition Petition No. 1273 of 2009 is allowed. Consequently the connected Mps are closed. No costs.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1285
... ...
... ... ..... The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit. 28. In the light of the above factual matrix and the legal precedents referred to above, the applicant has not made out any case for entertaining this application. Hence this application stands dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable to the first respondent Bank.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1284
... ...
... ... ..... on is required to be that the accused has commuted the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. (emphasis supplied) 20. In view of the settled legal position, noted above, we are convinced that the trial court was correct in law in coming to the conclusion that a case for framing charge against the appellant had been made out. Similarly, the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 401 of the Code being limited, the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision Petition, preferred by the appellant. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. It goes without saying that nothing said by the High Court or by us hereinabove shall be construed as expression of any opinion on the merits of the case pending trial.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1283
... ...
... ... ..... cumstances, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises once the assessee has furnished, specifically, particulars of the 14 Angarias who have owned up the goods and have confirmed the stand taken by the assessee, namely, that the booked goods belongs to these persons and they had booked the same with the assessee. It is clear that the assessee only acted as a booking agent and the goods in question did not belong to him. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that action, if at all, should have been taken against those 14 Angarias and if the Angarias are not able to give the particulars of the real owners, they can be treated as owners of goods and fastened with the liability if any. Without stating much, in this behalf, insofar as the assessee herein is concerned, undoubtedly he is not responsible for the aforesaid seized goods and therefore, the value of those goods could not have been taxed at his hands. 3. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1282
... ...
... ... ..... ounts that he was made to pay in excess of the contractual rent. That being the position, the amount fixed by the court over and above the contractual monthly rent, ordinarily, should not be directed to be paid to the landlord during the pendency of the appeal/revision. The deposited amount, along with the accrued interest, should only be paid after the final disposal to either side depending upon the result of the case. In case for some reason the Court finds it just and expedient that the amount fixed by it should go to the landlord even while the matter is pending, it must be careful to direct payment to the landlord on terms so that in case the final decision goes in favour of the tenant the payment should be made to him without any undue delay or complications. 49. In light of the discussions made above, we find the order of the High Court just and proper, calling for no interference by this Court. We find no merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1281
... ...
... ... ..... be filed. In absence of any specific details and explanation, this explanation in general terms does not satisfy us. There can be no straight-jacket formula adopted which can be applied uniformly in all matters, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. In absence of any satisfactory explanation coming forth for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that no liberal attitude requires to be adopted; particularly considering the inordinate delay in preferring this Application. Only because the applicant is the State, it cannot be absolved of its responsibility to fulfill the mandate of law. Even if day today explanation is not desired, for a long period after the sanction of Finance department also, nothing emerges on record to indicate due care or diligence to satisfy the requirement of explaining sufficiency of cause. 8. Resultantly, this application for condonation of delay fails and consequently, Tax Appeal Stamp No. 290/2013 stands rejected as well.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1280
... ...
... ... ..... o material on the basis of which it can be alleged that the above parties admitted that the bills raised by them against the assessee were merely accommodation bills. In the above circumstances the disallowance made by the Revenue on the basis of surmises and conjectures without any positive material on record. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the disallowance made is unsustainable. Accordingly, we delete the addition made and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee.” 7. In assessee’s own case similar view was taken by the Tribunal in ITA No. 3589, 3590, 3591/A/2008 for the Assessment Year 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 pronounced on 03-07-2009. 8. Since the Tribunal is constantly taking a view that addition cannot be made merely on the basis of statement of Rohit Panwala, respectfully following the above decisions, we delete the addition. 9. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. This order is pronounced in open Court on Dated 28th August, 2009.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1279
... ...
... ... ..... l Liquidator would not be required to continue with the seals. If such seals are allowed to be continued, the recovery by the bank over the said property may be in jeopardy, though there is no interest of the company in liquidation in the said shop nor said shop appears to be the assets of the Company in liquidation. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the Official Liquidator is directed to remove the seal after drawing the panchanama and inventory once again in presence of the Officers of the applicant bank. Hence, order accordingly. 9. It is also clarified that this Court had examined the matter only for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the company in liquidation is the owner of the shop or not and any observation made qua the ownership of Surendra K. Agrawal may not be treated as conclusive against the rights of any other party, if such parties are claiming interest directly or indirectly in the said shop except the company in liquidation. The application is disposed of.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1278
... ...
... ... ..... e return of undisclosed income in Form No. 2B, is satisfied with the same as reflecting the true state of affairs and no further information or explanation is called for from the assessee but where the assessing officer is not inclined to accept the return of undisclosed income filed by the assessee, the procedure in Section 143(2) has to be followed if an assessment order is passed in such a situation without issuing a notice under Section 143(2), it would be invalid and not merely irregular. 10. In view of the above and specifically in view of the binding nature of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court we allow ground No. 1 of the cross-objection and hold that the order passed under Section 158BC is bad in law. As the order of the assessing officer itself is cancelled, we need not have to look into the grounds raised by the revenue in its appeal. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1277
... ...
... ... ..... hese circumstances are also to be considered by the first appellate Court before whom the appeal is pending and it is to be considered by the said Court only. Apart from that, the oral evidence regarding the issuance of the cheques are also available as produced before the trial Court. 16.In view of the judgment of this Court discussed earlier there would not be any purpose in sending the impugned cheques for examination to ascertain its age of the ink used for filling up its particulars and signatures put up therein. Therefore, the request of the petitioners to send the cheques through an Advocate Commissioner for Expert's opinion as to the age of the ink cannot be ordered since it does not result in any scientific accuracy. The lower Court had not discussed these points but correctly rejected the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the lower Court and accordingly, the Revision fails and the same is dismissed.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1276
... ...
... ... ..... due, then the tax to be paid by 31st March remains same both in pre-amended and post-amended provisions. Drawing strength from the ratio laid down Supreme Court in Zile Singh's case (supra) and Podar Cement (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) which in turn have been relied upon in the case of Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. (supra), we are of the view that the amendment in proviso to Section 234C is clarificatory in nature and the same is to be applied retrospectively. The amendment provided in proviso to Section 234C is to explain the earlier Act of payment of advance tax in instalments and has to be applied retrospectively. The Assessee before us has paid taxes as part of instalments due after the date of sale of asset and as such is not in default as stipulated under Section 234C of the Act. Thus, no interest is chargeable under Section 234C of the Act. Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1275
... ...
... ... ..... ource of the deposits. 5 We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned DR. In our opinion, neither the AO nor the CIT(A) were correct in law in estimating the addition. Onus is on the assessee to prove the source of the deposits made in the bank account. This is an admitted fact that the bank account was not duly disclosed. The assessee had made the deposits in the bank as well as made withdrawals from the said bank account. In our opinion, the whole of the deposits cannot be added as the income of the assessee. It is only the peak credit in the bank account which can be treated to be the income of the assessee. We accordingly set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to work out the peak credit on the basis of various entries of withdrawals and deposits in the bank account of the assessee and the addition should be restricted to the peak credit. 6 In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court today on 28-08-2009.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1274
... ...
... ... ..... r of grounds of appeal before him against the order passed under section 143(3). However, we find, though not extensively argued one of the grounds taken by the learned CIT(A) with reference to section 14A of the Act, whether it is on the same line or so, which is on different ground, we are not aware. At the most, if at all only such grounds that was considered by the learned CIT and remanded, learned CIT(A) could not consider. Refusal of the grounds simply saying that order of the learned CIT under section 263 order is in existence and, therefore, cannot consider the issue at all, is an unacceptable position. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to pass the order on merit except the ground that has been considered by the learned CIT in his revision order under section 263 for both the years. In the result, appeals of the assessee to the extent stated above are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 7th Aug, 2009.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1273
... ...
... ... ..... the order under challenge I am of the view that it is purely interlocutory in character and a revision will not lie against it in view of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Revision petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to move appropriate application under Section 482 of the Code. Registry shall return the copy of order produced along with the revision on application.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1272
... ...
... ... ..... n or their nominees; (iv) The properties of VML, namely, 17.15 acres of land will be conveyed in favour of ORE or its nominee, in the event of any remote need, which may arise in future, on account of non-compliance with the order dated August 13, 2008, by CEPL, C. G. Holdings and KCP; (v) ORE and N. Athappan will deposit the share certificates together with signed transfer forms in respect of their holdings in CEPL, with the Bench Officer within 30 days; (vi) C. G. Holdings and KCP, in case fail to file an affidavit as stipulated in the proviso to paragraph (i) here above, the SBI will release the entire maturity proceeds of the fixed deposit No. 759413 held in the name of CEPL in favour of ORE and N. Athappan in the ratio of 75 4, without reference to any of the parties to the present proceedings; and (vii) All other terms and conditions of the common order dated August 13, 2008, shall remain unchanged. With the above directions all the company applications are disposed of.
........
|
