|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1223 Records
-
2013 (7) TMI 1188 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to the principles laid down by this Court in para. 13 of the judgment in Jimesh Jose v. State of Kerala and Others, 2013(1) KHC 49. 30. However, the materials before this Court show that following the last prejudicial act which took place on 23.10.12, Ext. P5 report was made by the sponsoring authority on 30.11.12 and further reports were made by him on 22.1.13 and 8.2.13. It was thereafter that the detention order was passed on 16.2.13. Further the affidavit filed by the 1st respondent shows that it took time for the authority to apply his mind to all relevant aspects of the matter and pass an order. Therefore, we are of the view that the delay, if at all, stands explained in this case and for that reason, this contention does not merit acceptance. 31. In the result, we are unable to accept the case of the petitioner that Ext. P1 order is vitiated on any one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Resultantly, writ petition will stand dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1187 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge. As such, this application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1186 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... appellants to Military Engineering Service is covered by Section 98 of the Finance Act 2012 which gives retrospective exemption for maintenance and repair service provided in respect of defence buildings also. Therefore, appeals filed by the appellant are allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced and dictated in open court)
-
2013 (7) TMI 1185 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eatures and the fundamentals of such essential processual property being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt - that is the conscience of the matter. We also find no illegality in the direction given by the learned Single Judge in permitting the writ petitioner to redeem the house property at Calcutta on payment of fine in lieu of forfeiture in terms of section 9(a) of SAFEMA. Competent Authority shall pass appropriate order in that regard within two months from date. The order of the learned Single Judge is upheld. The appeal (APO No. 297 of 2009) and other connected applications are accordingly dismissed. Arun Mishra, J. I agree.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1184 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous year; or (b) In any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometers, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a), as the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanization of that area and other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette.” Hyderabad Airport Development Authority, is therefore, not a Body within the meaning of Clauses (a) and (b) of the said Section. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has held that the proceeds of sale of agricultural land do not form capital gain, as they do not relate to capital asset. We are of the view that the Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion. There is no element of law involved in this appeal, for which, decision of this Court is required. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 16A of the PFA for not adopting summary procedure. If he had, therefore, commenced the trial and carried it on as a non-summary case, his successor Magistrate had to continue the same. There is nothing in section 16A of the PFA to suggest that even in such a case, the successor Magistrate, if he is otherwise authorized to conduct the summary trial, must either revert back to the summary procedure and restart the trial from the very inception or pass an order after hearing the parties for not adopting summary procedure. Quite apart from no such intention emerging from the statutory provisions, any such view would not be conducive to the interest of justice as the trial would oscillate between summary and non-summary procedure depending on the nature of powers enjoyed by the Magistrate in-charge of the trial. We have, however, not based our conclusions solely on this factor and have given our independent reasons for our conclusions. 32. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1182 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... upon any latter coordinate Bench deciding the same or similar issues. If the latter Bench wants to take a different view than that taken by the earlier Bench, the proper course is for it to refer the matter to a larger Bench. 9. Thus, looking to the fact that coordinate Bench of this Court has consistently held in Kunstocom Electronics (I) Ltd. and Sunder Dev (supra) which has been decided much prior to Pt. Gorelal's case, the decision is binding upon latter coordinate Bench. Considering the facts of the instant case that not only in the pleadings of the complaint, but in the notice as well as in the affidavit filed by the respondent, number of cheque has been mentioned as 332534, in my opinion, the learned Courts below have committed illegality in allowing such amendment. In view of the above analysis, the orders passed by the Courts below are not sustainable. Hence, the petition is allowed and orders passed by the Courts below dated 24.11.2010 and 4.8.2011 are quashed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1181 - SUPREME COURT
Conflict of opinion in the decisions of two Two-Judge Benches and Three-Judge Bench - Powers of the Session Court u/s 209 of Crpc - Court of original jurisdiction - issue of summons u/s 193 - committal order passed by the learned Magistrate - This matter was initially directed to be heard by a Bench of Three-Judges in view of the conflict of opinion in the decisions of two Two-Judge Benches, When the matter was taken up for consideration by the Three-Judge Bench, it was brought to the notice of the court that two other decisions had a direct bearing on the question sought to be determined. Ranjit Singh's case disapproved the observations made in Kishun Singh's case, which was to the effect that the Session Court has power under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code to take cognizance of an offence and summon other persons whose complicity in the commission of the trial could prima facie be gathered from the materials available on record. According to the decision in Kishun Singh's case, the Session Court has such power under Section 193 of the Code. On the other hand, in Ranjit Singh's case, it was held that from the stage of committal till the Session Court reached the stage indicated in Section 230 of the Code, that Court could deal only with the accused referred to in Section 209 of the Code and there is no intermediary stage till then enabling the Session Court to add any other person to the array of the accused.
HELD THAT:- the Session Courts has jurisdiction on committal of a case to it, to take cognizance of the offences of the persons not named as offenders but whose complicity in the case would be evident from the materials available on record. Hence, even without recording evidence, upon committal under Section 209, the Session Judge may summon those persons shown in column 2 of the police report to stand trial along with those already named therein. Consequent upon our aforesaid decision, the view taken by the Referring Court is accepted and it is held that the decision in the case of Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar [1993 (1) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT] and not the decision in Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab [1998 (9) TMI 696 - SUPREME COURT]and lays down the law correctly in respect of the powers of the Session Court after committal of the case to it by the learned Magistrate under Section 209 Crpc.
The matter is remitted to the Three-Judge Bench to dispose of the pending Criminal Appeals in accordance with the views expressed by the court in this judgment.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1180 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... al and above machines, if some outstanding amount is left due at the end of financial year, which is confirmed by the creditors, therefore, nothing is left unexplained liability. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances and remand report of the AO rightly held that most of the creditors balances are verified and confirmed. It is a departmental appeal and nothing is produced before us to contradict the finding of fact recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in favour of the assessee. The ld. DR merely relied upon the order of AO without pointing out any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the absence of any evidence or material in favour of the Revenue, we do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in favour of the assessee. Ground No. 2 of appeal of the Revenue is also dismissed. 7. In the result, the departmental appeal fails and is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1179 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e petitioners without any authority of law and have also demonstrated an attitude of extreme tenacity by clinging to stand which has no legs to stand on. The impugned notices (Annexure P-1) are hereby quashed as they are without any authority of law and sans any justification. Since the respondents have forced the petitioners who are retirees to come to the Court without any logical reason and have continuously persisted with their stand despite reasons being shown to them during the course of proceedings, I am of the considered opinion that this has resulted in not only inconvenience to the petitioners in terms of financial implications but has also resulted in sheer wastage of the time of the Court. The respondents are thus burdened with costs of ₹ 1 lakh which shall be deposited before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court within a period of two months from today. The costs shall be recovered from the personal pay of all the respondents proportionately.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1178 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Respondent turned hostile under coercion of accused person, can seek an application for re- examination U/s 313 Crpc after five months of his examination in trial court - The trial Court disallowed the applications of the Respondents filed u/s 311 of the Crpc, to re-examine PW-9, the informant. The High Court directed the trial Court to allow the 2nd Respondent to examine himself as a witness on a specified date by its order dated 9.12.2010. HELD THAT:- The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The order impugned dated 9.12.2010, passed by the High Court is set aside. The order of the trial Court stands restored. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial. The stay granted by this Court in the order dated 7.3.2011, stands vacated. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial from the stage it was left and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
The permission of the Court u/s 311 Code of Crpc for his re-examination by merely alleging that on the earlier occasion he turned hostile under coercion and threat meted out to him at the instance of the Appellant and other accused. It was quite apparent that the complaint, which emanated at the instance of the Appellant based on the subsequent incident, which resulted in the registration of the FIR, seem to have weighed with the second Respondent to come forward with the present application u/s 311 Crpc, by way of an afterthought. If really there was a threat to his life at the instance of the Appellant and the other accused, as rightly noted by the Court below, it was not known as to why there was no immediate reference to such coercion and undue influence meted out against him at the instance of the Appellant, when he had every opportunity to mention the same to the learned trial Judge or to the police officers or to any prosecution agency.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1177 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... by the assessee to claim deduction under proviso to Explanation u/s 24 of the Act. (ii) However, during the course of hearing before us, as already mentioned, the assessee sought permission to produce additional evidence in the form of Certificates from the Bank in respect of interest paid for the loan(s) availed for construction purpose. Evidently, as conceded by the assessee that the additional evidence(s) could not be furnished before the authorities below for want of availability etc., the additional evidence sought to be produced was admitted for consideration. Keeping the interests of natural justice and equity in view, this issue is remitted back to the file of the AO with a direction to look into the issue afresh with reference to the proof which will be produced by the assessee-HUF and to take appropriate action as deems fit. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th July, 2013
-
2013 (7) TMI 1176 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... port have been filed. Moreover, once it is held that the plaintiff has no right in the property and was living therein as a licencee of the defendant no. 1 and once it is found that the plaintiff on the date of institution of the suit was not living in the property, mere finding of the goods and articles belonging to the plaintiff in the said premises would not entitle the plaintiff to be put back into possession. Reference in this regard may be made to Section 65 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 which provides the remedy of dispossessed licensee as for compensation only and not for repossession. I have had an occasion to discuss this aspect in detail in a recent judgment in Keventer Agro Limited Vs. Kalyan Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. and need is thus not felt to reiterate the same here. The suit is accordingly dismissed as barred by the provisions of the Benami Act. Resultantly all pending applications are also dismissed; however in the circumstances no costs. Decree sheet be drawn up.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1175 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he original owners are sought to be brought on record in respect of the land of the petitioner. 2. Having regard to the aforesaid, issue notice returnable on 5th August, 2013. By way of ad-interim relief, the respondent revenue authorities shall maintain status quo with regard to revenue entry No.2135 qua the petitioner’s Block No.135 (survey No.165) and the operation of entry No.7071 is hereby stayed. On the returnable date, the respondent No.3 - Mamlatdar shall clarify before this court as to under what circumstances, the order made by the Deputy Collector in respect of land bearing Block No.258 was given effect to in respect of land bearing Block No.135(21). Direct Service is permitted.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1174 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ly distributed to the charitable organizations as is apparent from paper book pages 76 to 87 wherein specimen copies of sanctions of grant in aid to various societies are placed. The recipients of grants are also registered societies as is apparent from paper book pages 52 to 75. Against taxable income determined by Assessing Officer at ₹ 1,1,6,68,688/-, the assessee had advances of ₹ 2,54,42,26550/-as on 31/03/2006 to various charitable institutions from which utilization certificates were not received by 31.3.2006, therefore, in view of CBDT Instruction No. 1132, these payments shown by assessee as advances are in fact a proper utilization of funds of the assessee for charitable purposes. In view of the above, we hold that assessee had utilized the funds for charitable purposes and therefore the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 12. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th day of July, 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1173 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... use the operation of the said order is stayed. The dicta laid down in a judgment cannot be ignored unless the Court, after hearing a particular case, doubts the correctness of the dicta and thinks it appropriate that it should be reconsidered. (N. Rami Reddy AIR 2001 A.P. 226 2001(1) ALD 443 2001(1) ALT 438); K. Yella Reddy V. Registrar APAT 1996(3) ALT 1047). As the law declared in Surendra Raj Jaiswal 2011(6) ALD 198 would bind a coordinate Bench, the impugned proceedings dated 24.06.2011 and 04.03.2013 must be, and are accordingly, set aside. The first respondent shall consider the petitioner's representation for grant of NOC afresh in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations made hereinabove, at the earliest in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... there is anything repugnant in the subject or context so as to come to the conclusion that the plural will not include the singular. We have examined the use of the plural word "persons" from that angle and we do not find that there is anything repugnant in the subject or context so that it may not be read as singular. It is worth mentioning here that Sub-section (b) of Section 43A(1) of the Act has also used the plural expression "leases" and if we accept the reasoning of the High Court, the aforesaid provision shall cover only such cases where there is more than one lease. This, in our opinion, will defeat the very purpose of the Act. 12. Thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court is vulnerable on both the counts and, hence, cannot be sustained. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Tribunal is restored. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1171 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... a), in the present case also I am of the considered view that the decision of the AO in restricting the claim of interest is not correct. Only that portion of interest which is penal in nature can alone be disallowed. The AO, therefore, is directed to allow the claim of the appellant after verification. These grounds of appeal, therefore, are considered allowed for statistical purposes.” 13. The ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim for interest to the assessee on the ground that only that portion of interest which is penal in nature can alone be disallowed. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any payment of penal interest by the assessee. Hence, he fairly conceded that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified. 14. That being so, we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal of the Revenue. 15. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Monday, the 08th of July, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1170 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ve petition does not mean that this Court has affirmed the judgment or the action impugned therein. The order rejecting the special leave petition at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. This submission is, therefore, rejected. 31. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the view that the opinion formed by the Screening Committee in both these cases which is endorsed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Recruitment), Delhi, that both the Respondents are not suitable for being appointed in the Delhi Police Force does not merit any interference. It is legally sustainable. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the order of cancellation of the Respondents' candidature. In the circumstances, the appeals are allowed. The orders of the Delhi High Court impugned in both the appeals are set aside. The cancellation of candidature of the Respondents-Mehar Singh and Shani Kumar is upheld.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1169 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2007 SC 1721. 12. Dr. Nirmal Kumar Gupta (PW.18), deposed that 100% burnt patient can also be in a fit mental and physical condition to give statement. Dr. V.K. Deewan (PW.14), who performed the postmortem of deceased Guddi, deposed that she was completely burnt and the burn injuries were anti-mortem. She had died due to Asphyxia, due to burn injuries, her death was homicidal. In view thereof, both the courts below were of the considered opinion that the Appellant was responsible for causing the death of Guddi, deceased. 13. The defence taken by the Appellant that she had gone out of her house to provide water to the buffalo has been disbelieved by the Court. As the incident occurred in the house of the Appellant, and she was present therein at the relevant time, she could have furnished the explanation as to how and under what circumstances Guddi died. The matter was within her special knowledge. 14. In view of the above, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
........
|
