|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1223 Records
-
2013 (7) TMI 1168 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... een held by the Supreme Court in I.T.C. Limited Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate that merely because issues have been framed, is no reason for the trial to be undertaken, if it is brought to the notice of the Court that the same is not necessary. Similarly, it has been held in Parivar Seva Santhan Vs. Dr. Veena Kalra AIR 2000 Delhi 349, Meera Gupta Vs. Dinesh Chand 94 (2001) DLT 10 & State Trading Corporation of India Vs. Nirmal Gupta that framing of the issues is no bar to consider the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC. 13. In the present case, no trial on the same issues, findings whereon have attained finality, in any case could have been undertaken. 14. No other argument has been urged. 15. It would thus be clear that there is no need to call for the records of the suit or to issue notice to the respondent. The appeal is without any merit and is dismissed; however the same having been dismissed on the very first date, no order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn up.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1167 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ional evidence. There is no doubt that additional evidence has to be allowed only for the specific reason, there cannot be rigid yardstick for sufficiency or otherwise of the reason in a given case. Admittedly, the Revenue did not raise this objection before the Tribunal. Explanation given is that the fact that reasons had not been recorded came to the light only on inspection of record. This cannot held to be a handicap with the Revenue as the record could have been inspected even earlier when the appeal was filed before the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.” 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 20. In the result, the all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Monday, the 01st of July, 2013, at Chennai
-
2013 (7) TMI 1166 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uld have to be granted sans interest. 21.1 What is true for the respondents is true for the petitioner as well. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for interest would require examination of the charge levied against the petitioner that it was responsible for the breach of the contract obtaining between the parties. This is not, an aspect which this court has examined. Hence, the prayer for interest cannot be granted. 22. The third prayer, in view of what is stated above, has now lost its significance. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated 09.07.2010 is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the sum of ₹ 18 Crores to the petitioner within two weeks from today. It is, though made clear that, the respondents would be at liberty to institute an action against the petitioner in accordance with law to claim damages, if they are otherwise entitled to and, if so advised. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1165 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that both the husband and wife are domicile of India and, hence, shall be covered by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As on fact, we have found that both the husband and wife are domicile of India, and the Act will apply to them, other contentions raised on behalf of the parties, are rendered academic and we refrain ourselves to answer those. 29. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly but without any order as to costs. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 487 OF 2007 30. In view of our decision in Civil Appeal No. 4629 of 2005 (Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Rajini) holding that the petition filed by the Appellant for judicial separation and custody of the children is maintainable, we are of the opinion that the writ petition filed by the Respondent for somewhat similar relief is rendered infructuous. On this ground alone, we allow this appeal and dismiss the writ petition filed by the Respondent.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1164 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ortant information. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would make a submission that a lenient view be taken on account of the fact that the result of the Computer Proficiency Test has not been declared and the petitioner be permitted to appear in such test by way of a special chance. Even such prayer cannot be accepted. In every process of selection a certain time frame is stipulated. Such time frame would apply in relation to the various stages of the selection process. It is in the interest of the candidates as also the recruiting agency for such time frame to be strictly adhered to. Accepting the prayer of the petitioner would amount to permitting a deviation from the advertised time frame and would thereby introduce an element of arbitrariness. Accepting such prayer would also mean that a selection process would never be finalized. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1163 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Preponderance of Probabilities - Presumption in favour of Holder u/s 139 of NI Act - Appellant claimed that respondent took loan from him and repaid part of it through cheque, rest of the cheques were dishonoured. Respondent claimed that the cheques were obtained by appellant by force. Respondent was not having balance in account so cheques were dishonoured. Appellant's claims and justifications raised a doubt on the claims of the respondent. - HELD THAT:- Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. Initial presumption favours the complainant. Absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. If the respondent is able to raise a probable defence that creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. But in this case, the respondent couldnot prove his defence thus held liable.
Decision in the case of - SANJAY MISHRA VERSUS KANISHKA KAPOOR AND ORS. [2009 (2) TMI 901 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] was humbly dissented.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1162 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ding availability of the original record or other evidence before the Investigating Agency shows that the delay caused due to inaction on the part of the Respondent. Therefore, in our view, keeping investigation pending for further period will be futile as the Respondent including Directorate for the State Literacy Programme is not sure whether original records can be procured for investigation and to bring home the charges. Considering the fact that delay in the present case is caused by the Respondent, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is thereby violated and as the Appellant has already been exonerated in the departmental proceedings for identical charges, keeping the case pending against the Appellant for investigation, is unwarranted, the FIR deserves to be quashed. 34. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the FIR No. 10/2000 lodged in Police Station, Dausa as against the Appellant is hereby quashed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1161 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... sessee has not written back the liability in question, provisions of Section 41(1) cannot be invoked and hence, we decline to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No.1(d) of the assessment year 2006-07 and ground No.1(c) for assessment year 2007-08 are rejected.” 2.4.2 Since no difference in the fact could be pointed out by the ld. DR. in the present year also, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee by respectfully following the Tribunal order in earlier two years as per the relevant para reproduced above. Accordingly, this ground of the revenue is also rejected.” 10.3 Since, the parties appeared before us have accepted that the facts are identical for the year under consideration, therefore, we hereby uphold the findings of learned CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 11. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. 12. Finally, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as by the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1160 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... 0632). 5. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. In the case of Sak Soft Ltd. (supra), the Special Bench had clearly held that what were excluded from export turnover had to be excluded from total turnover also while applying the formula for computing deduction under Section 10A of the Act. This view has been endorsed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (supra) as well as in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (supra). Learned D.R. was unable to place before us any decision of any higher authority which would require us to take a different view. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in following the decision of Special Bench in the case of Sak Soft Ltd. (supra). We, therefore, do not find any merits in the appeals filed by the Revenue. 6. In the results, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 25th of July, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1159 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... the year 2011. The default is in respect of filing of spare copies of the petition of appeal. Two weeks’ further time is granted, as a last opportunity, to the appellant, failing which, the matter be listed before the bench for appropriate orders.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1158 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s.I to III are insufficient. It is pointed out that similar course was adopted in Anilkumar v Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (2013 (2) KLT 944). 5. I permit the petitioners to move a representation before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from today. The representation if so filed shall be considered by the first respondent within a period of one month therefrom. All the loanees as well as the guarantors shall be put on notice and heard before the orders are passed. It is up to the first respondent to devise whatever method is necessary to conduct sale legally and realise theamount. The first respondent in consultation with respondents two, three and four is free to fix a common venue for the conduct of sale and decide the course for auction sale. 6. The coercive proceedings already initiated shall be put on hold as against the fourth petitioner till orders are passed by the first respondent on the representation as directed above. The Writ Petition is disposed of.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1157 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and the lower Appellate Court have taken into account, Exs. P-1 and P-2, and the entries in the adangals. It is only when the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court are found to be perverse, or not based upon any evidence, that this Court can interfere in a revision. Such a situation does not arise in the instant case. If the petitioners file appeal under the Act, and are successful in getting Exs. P-1 and P-2 set aside, they can certainly seek modification of the order under revision. 7. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed, however, observing that, in case Exs. P-1 and P-2 are set aside by an Appellate Authority under the Act, at the instance of the petitioners, it shall be open to them to file an application under the relevant Rules of Order XXXIX C.P.C., before the trial Court, and the same shall be decided on its own merits. The miscellaneous petition filed in this C.R.P. shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1156 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of any goods on the grounds stated in Sub-section 1 of Section 6A. That amendment was initially introduced with effect from 1/4/1973. Passage of time brought home to the rule making authority, the requirement to insulate other proceedings from what would fall within sub-sections 2 and 1 of Section 6A of the Act. This is the purpose for introducing subsection 3 of Section 6A, which says that nothing contained in sub-section 2 of Section 6A shall preclude re-assessment by the assessing authority on ground of discovery of new facts etc. Remember, Ext.P2 is a notice in relation to determination of escaped assessment to tax. The clear provisions in Sub-rule 7 of Rule 6 of the Rules, have been rightly appreciated and applied by the learned single Judge to say that the impugned notice is far beyond the time limit prescribed. We do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the decision of the learned single Judge. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed in limine.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1155 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ss-examination has made it clear that in spite of his best persuasion, none of them were willing to become a witness. Therefore, he could not examine any independent witness. Section 114 of the Act 1872 gives rise to the presumption that every official act done by the police was regularly performed and such presumption requires rebuttal. The legal maxim omnia praesumuntur rite it dowee probetur in contrarium solenniter esse acta i.e., all the acts are presumed to have been done rightly and regularly, applies. When acts are of official nature and went through the process of scrutiny by official persons, a presumption arises that the said acts have regularly been performed. In view of the above, the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard, are held to be without any substance. 30. In view of the above, the appeal does not present special features warranting any interference by this court. Appeal is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1154 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... red. Averments made in the petition have gone uncontroverted. It is placed on record that the loan amount was received and without justifiable reason it has not been paid. Case for admission is made out. 7. The Company Petition is admitted, returnable on 13 September 2013. 8. The advocate for petitioner undertakes to publish the next date of hearing of the petition in two newspapers, namely, “Free Press Journal” in English language and translation thereof in “Navshakti” in Marathi language both having circulation in Mumbai and also in the “Maharashtra Government Gazette”. 9. The petitioner shall deposit ₹ 10,000/- in respect of the publication charges within two weeks from today with intimation of the same to the Company Registrar failing which the Company petition shall stand dismissed without any further reference to the Court. 10. Office is directed to issue notice to the Company under Rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1153 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... stage. However, any observations made by the High Court shall have no bearing in adjudication of the matter by the authority concerned. The special leave petition stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1152 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Suit for Declaration of Ownership of shares and Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the said shares transfer of shares under trust or against consideration - Benami Transaction or not - Period of limitation for initiating suit - HELD THAT:- The plaintiff has approached the Court with himself being the beneficial owner of the shares, with the shares in the name of Omkam and BGR being transferred in the name of the defendant for consideration paid by the plaintiff and on which plea it should be the plaintiff who should have been entitled to the dividend with respect to the said shares, but the plea of the plaintiff in the plaint is of the defendant having agreed to deposit the said dividend with VIL and in pursuance to the said agreement having deposited ₹ 5,50,000/- out of the dividend received of ₹ 23,97,863/- with VIL. Even if the plaintiff were to be a majority shareholder of VIL, VIL remains a distinct legal entity from its shareholders and the question of the monies owed to the shareholders being paid to the company without any satisfactory explanation therefor, and which has not been given, does not arise. Similar is the plea of the plaintiff of the loan admittedly repayable by VIL to the defendant being squared off against the balance dividend which as per the case built by the plaintiff should have been repayable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The squaring off is sought to be done with VIL paying ₹ 16,50,000/- to the defendant as against ₹ 16,02,137/- which was due. The same is also contrary to all canons of accounting practices particularly corporate accounting which is subject matter of internal and external audits. What follows from such inconsistencies is that the present suit is an abuse of the process of the Court to ward off the claim of the defendant for recovery of the balance loan amount admittedly advanced by the defendant to VIL.
The present suit dismissed as not disclosing a cause of action and / or being thoroughly vexatious and frivolous and in abuse of the process of this Court. Costs of ₹ 20,000/- are also imposed on the plaintiff payable to the defendant.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1151 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... , appeals filed by the revenue in case of G. Saibabu are dismissed and C.Os filed by the assessee G. Saibabu are also dismissed. ITA No. 1047, 1107, 1048 & 1108/H/11 in case of G. Sailaja 18. As the issue raised in these appeals are materially identical to that of the case of G. Saibubabu( supra), following the conclusions drawn therein, we dismiss the appeals filed by the revenue in this case. 19. Since we have dismissed the revenue appeals by upholding the orders of the CIT(A) in the assessment years under consideration, the C.Os filed by the assessee become infructuous, therefore, the same are dismissed as infructuous. 20. In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in case of G. Sailaja are dismissed and C.Os filed by the assessee G. Sailaja are also dismissed. 21. To sum up, appeals filed by the revenue in case of G. Saibabu and G. Sailaja and C.Os. filed by the assessees G. Saibabu and G. Sailaja are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31s t July, 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1150 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... been deleted by the Tribunal. L.d DR has not disputed the above facts. 5. There is no dispute that when the very addition for which the penalty has been levied has been deleted in the quantum appeal, there is no reason survival or sustenance of penalty u/s 271 (1)( c ) of the Act. In this regard, we are supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT V/s Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation (2005) 274 ITR 640 (Raj) and Durga Kamal Rice Mills V/s CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal). 6. In view of above, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) without going into the other aspects as to whether the claim of the assessee was bonafide or issue was debatable or not because the addition has already been deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal. Ground of appeal taken by the department rejected. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced after hearing ld. Representative of the parties in the open court on 18th July, 2013
-
2013 (7) TMI 1149 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... order dated 18.12.2009, penalty cannot be imposed for the year under consideration. 14. On the other hand, the ld. DR has fairly conceded the submissions made by the assessee. 15. We have heard both sides, perused the material on record and gone through orders of authorities below. We have also perused the consolidated order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide order dated 18.12.2009, wherein the Tribunal has held that since the assessee has classified the amount as bad debt in his books of account and as per the provisions of law and the ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly deleted the addition and the Tribunal has upheld the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). In view of the above and the ld. DR has also fairly conceded, we find that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed since the addition stands deleted in quantum appeal. 16. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 26th of July, 2013 at Chennai.
........
|
