|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1299 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 1202 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not warranted in this case. This Court therefore declines to exercise writ jurisdiction in this case. 19. There is no merit whatsoever in this writ petition. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition as well as the applications are dismissed. 20. Copy of this order be sent to the Company Law Board. The petitioners are also directed to produce copy of this order before the Company Law Board on the next date of hearing fixed in the matter. 21. Copy of this order be sent to the Registrar (Filing) who shall issue appropriate instructions to ensure strict compliance of the judgments of Supreme Court in Savitri Devi (supra) and Fakeerappa (supra) and of this Court in Union Public Service Commission (supra), Sat Prakash Rana (supra), R.K. Saxena (supra); and no matter be listed before the Court unless the name of the judicial officer or body, whose order or judgment is under challenge, is removed from the array of the parties. 22. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1201 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI BENCH NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to start it from scratch. He referred to every paper clipping respondent publishers published in their Magazines. Mr Khosla says these journalists started airing their views as collected from known sources, knowing pretty well they are not supposed to let out opinionated information when matter is sub-judice before this Bench. He says these journalists purposely put up slanted news to influence or to thrust slanted news upon adjudicating bodies, which amounts to criminal contempt under section 15 of Contempt of Court Act. These paper clippings placed before this bench focussing Mr Bhakshi being unfairly treated by McDonald USA, is nothing but interfering in administration of Justice, therefore, he pleads this Bench to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the respondents. Act, therefore, these applications are dismissed giving liberty to the applicants to seek remedy on the same cause of action before appropriate forum. Accordingly, these applications are dismissed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1200 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... w of limitation. In view of this, there was no question of framing an issue as to the limitation for filing a suit for specific performance of contract by holding that it is a mixed question of law and fact, which is required to be proved by permitting the parties to lead evidence to substantiate their rival contentions. In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the amendment changing the nature of suit and course of action, cannot be allowed, that too in defeat of the law of limitation. The application for amendment was, therefore, required to be rejected. 35. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 28-11-2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, allowing the application at Exhibit 68 for amendment of plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, filed in Special Civil Suit No.590 of 2011, is hereby quashed and set aside. The application for amendment at Exhibit 68, is rejected. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1199 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... een rightly concluded by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. We are, thus, of the view that the petitioner has been unnecessarily prolonging the dispute on one pretext or the other and the pleas on which the present writ petition has been filed are completely misconceived. We had made it clear to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the inception itself that we are actually not even required to examine the validity of the assignment in the present proceedings as the issue is one of the alleged violation of the interim orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. As to what would happen to the counter-claim; against whom it would proceed, and the manner of such proceedings are the aspects the petitioner should urge before the appropriate forum, but certainly not in the present proceeding. But our plea was to no avail We, thus, dismiss the writ petition and impose costs quantified at ₹ 50,000/- on the petitioner payable to respondents No. 2 and 3 in equal share.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1198 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ver complicated questions arose on factual aspects then such cases shall be relegated to civil court in as much as this Tribunal normally goes by the affidavits filed by either side, for having this bench decided this application on the reasons above mentioned, this aspect has not been dealt with. 23. The counsel appearing on behalf of R-9 and 10 supported the submissions of the petitioners saying the proceedings under section 397 & 398 are not summary in nature and whenever comparison of signatures is required, courts normally seek an expert opinion rather comparing signatures by invoking section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, here this bench has not dealt with the ratio above, because this bench has already come to a conclusion that this application is liable to be dismissed for the reasons afore discussed. This Bench has not made any comparison. 24. For the reasons given above, this application is dismissed with costs of ₹ 50,000/- to be paid to the respondents 2-5.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1197 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... artly allowed. (b) The judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff is hereby set aside. (c) The plaintiff is declared as the owner of the land acres situated at Srigandada Kaval, Bangalore North Taluk. The plaintiff is also entitled to the lease hold rights in Sy.No.129 (old No.51) measuring roughly about 12 acres excluding the constructions put up in Sy.No.129. (d) The suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to pull down any building structures/ constructions standing in the schedule property and for delivery of possession of the said constructed portion is hereby dismissed. (e) The plaintiff is also entitled for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its office-bearers, agents or its supporters claiming through or under defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties, excluding the constructions. (f) Appeal is allowed with proportionate costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1196 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ’. The aforesaid view was affirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Following the aforesaid parity of reasoning, in our view, in the present case also, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been rightly deleted by the CIT(A), which we hereby affirm. 11. In so far as the levy of penalty with regard to the disallowance of proportionate interest of ₹ 11,901/- was concerned we find no reasons to interfere with the assertion of the CIT(A) that in the assessment order no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been initiated on this aspect. The aforesaid assertion of the CIT(A) has not been controverted by the Revenue before us and accordingly, the same is hereby affirmed. 12. In the result, the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to ₹ 28,48,775/- is hereby affirmed. 13. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1195 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has been filed on record. It appears that excuses are being made for the inefficiency of respondent No. 3 and on the pretext that processing charges are non-refundable, the amount is refused to be handed back. If the loan had been processed as claimed by respondent No. 3-Bank and what was required to be done, was so done, then only would the occasion arise for the amount to be nonrefundable, if the petitioner still did not avail of the loan facilities. However, as noticed aforesaid, the pleas of respondent No. 3 appear to be not supported by any document whatsoever. We are thus of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the amount of processing charges of ₹ 1,79,238/- and the said amount be refunded to the petitioner within 30 days from today. In case of delay, the amount would carry interest 12 P.A. simple interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1194 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of the above discussion, it is held that Section 293 of the Income Tax barred the suit filed by M/s. Bansal Commodities. We are conscious that in the facts of this case, the view taken by this judgment will operate harshly on the plaintiff. The Court, therefore, grants liberty to the said plaintiffs to seek leave to revive the writ petition previously disposed off on 20th May, 2004 W.P.(C) 3738/1994 , through an appropriate application. This course is, in the opinion of this Court, essential because the said order was not made on the merits of the writ petition, but on an assumption that such disputes can indeed be the subject matter of adjudication by the civil courts. If such application is made, we would request the Division Bench to consider expeditious disposal of the same. 32. The appeals are, therefore allowed; however subject to the liberty reserved to the respondents, M/s Bansal Commodities, in terms of the preceding paragraph. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1193 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ral of Civil Aviation for passing an order in terms of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, the D.G.C.A. shall consider the same and pass the order expeditiously without unnecessary delay. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1192 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Sections 11(4) and (4A) of the Act, were not being maintained for the business activities. This does not appear to be correct as the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) has computed and was aware of the total sales made by the pharmacy. He has referred to the gross profit and expenditure. It appears that at the time of argument before the Tribunal, this contention was not specifically argued as this has not been separately addressed in the impugned order of the Tribunal. It is not alleged in the grounds of appeal that the contention was raised but not answered or noticed. As recorded above, full details of the sales made by the pharmacy and also details of the medicines purchased etc. were available. The Director of Income Tax (Exemption) had made calculations. 4. We do not see any reason to re-examine the factual narration and the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the respondent assessee is entitled to registration under Section 12AA. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1191 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... n various decided cases is that if the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner which cause such effects on any member or members which are utterly harsh, burdensome and wrongful to bear with, warranting winding up order against the company, then only the provisions of section 397/398 come into play authorising the CLB to pass appropriate orders as envisaged in section 402 of the Act. In the instant case, these criteria do not stand satisfied to assume justification to pass any appropriate order to mitigate the act of oppression against any minority shareholders caused by majority shareholders or mismanagement of the company. 11. Having regard to the above facts of the case and the questions of law already discussed above, I am not in a position to accept the petition to be maintainable and, therefore, the said petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. All pending applications in the matter hereby stand closed and the interim orders stand vacated.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1190 - ITAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... income but to upgrade the system which enables the profit making structure to work more efficiently, leaving the source of the profit-making structure untouched, would be an expense in the nature of revenue expenditure. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court further observed that this principle is applicable in cases which deal with technology and software application which do not in any manner supplant the source of income or added to the fixed capital of the assessee. 14. The issue under consideration is in our view squarely covered with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above noted authority. Hence respectfully following the same, the deletion made by the ld. CIT(A) on account of software expenses is hereby upheld. 15. In the result the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.3423/M/10 is hereby allowed and the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA No.6948/M/05 and ITA No.4868/M/10 are hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.09.2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1189 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on the seriousness of the breach of duty committed by the defendant in all the circumstances in which the defendant was placed when it occurred. The jury will have to consider whether the extent to which the defendant's conduct departed from the proper standard of care incumbent upon him, involving as it must have done a risk of death to the patient, was such that it should be judged criminal.” 69. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no option but to conclude that though the conduct of the appellant constituted not only professional misconduct for which adequate penalty has been meted out to him by the Medical Council, and the negligence on his part also amounts to actionable wrong in tort, it does not transcend into the criminal liability, and in no case makes him liable for offence under Section 338, IPC as the ingredients of that provision have not been satisfied. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgments of the courts below. No costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1188 - SUPREME COURT
Cheque dishonoured u/s-138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Instruction of 'stop payment' by the Managing Director - respondents offered to make cheque payment - Refusal by Appellant to accept the payment - Quashing of complaint by the High Court - failure to appear without sufficient cause on date - Refusal of High Court to recall that order - appeal against rejection of the recall application - HELD THAT:- these appeals are directed against the order of the High Court wherein it refused to recall the order by which the complaint had been quashed. The appellant could not furnish any sufficient cause for their non-appearance on the date of quashing of complaint and by taking a technical view of the matter, these appeals could have been rejected even on the ground of non-sufficiency of material furnished by the appellant in the High Court against refusal to recall the order.
But considering the fact that the appellant would be deprived of their due amount of dishonoured cheque, Court considered just and appropriate to direct the respondents to make the payment for the sake of substantial justice to the complainant-appellant as also in view of the analogous appeal whereby the High Court had allowed the petition filed by the respondents herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and was pleased to quash the proceedings against them. Therefore, Court thought it appropriate to direct the respondents to make the payment towards the cheque in which stop payment instructions had been issued.
Besides this, the appeal is time barred by 359 days for which also there is no justification. On the one hand, the appellant has sought to impress upon this Court to take a technical view of the matter by urging that the respondents had not made the payment during the 15 days notice period, even though that had been offered at a later stage, but expecting Court to condone the huge delay of 359 days in filing the appeal, which is rejected outright.
The decision on this case NK. WAHI VERSUS SHEKHAR SINGH & ORS [2007 (3) TMI 671 - SUPREME COURT] followed.
In the result, appeal stands dismissed on merit and another appeal for recall of application is dismissed on the ground of delay as also on merits subject to the direction of payment to the appellant by the respondents.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1187 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner to deposit any amount till it's application is heard and decided in accordance with law. We would be justified in directing the petitioner to deposit an amount only after considering it's case on merits, albeit at the prima facie stage. It is, however, for the respondent No.2 in the first instance to do so. 11. In the circumstances, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to consider the petitioner's application for stay afresh. Till then and in the event of the order being adverse to the petitioner, for a period of two weeks after the order is served on the petitioner, the recovery proceedings shall remain stayed. Needless to add respondent No.4 shall pass a fresh reasoned order without being influenced by the impugned orders. Liberty to the parties to make an application before CIT (Appeals) for expediting the hearing of the appeal. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1186 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 1(1)/201(1A) is not justified and deleted the same. Hence these appeals by the department. 4. At the time of hearing learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. On the other hand learned AR submitted that the said amounts have been held to be share application money and the Tribunal has also deleted the deemed dividend by upholding the orders of learned CIT(A). Therefore there is no question of applicability of section 194 of the Act. Above facts have not been disputed by learned Departmental Representative. 5. Considering the facts of the case and in view of the above submissions of learned AR, we hold that there is no infirmity in the orders of learned CIT(A). We uphold his orders for both the assessment years under consideration by rejecting grounds of appeal taken by the department. 6. In the result, both appeals of the department for A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007- 08 are dismissed. Order has been pronounced on 6th Day of September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1185 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Act, the petition was rightly rejected. Admittedly, the issue of the preference shares as being violative to the proviso to Section 11 of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 has not been gone into by the learned CLB on the ground that past and concluded transactions cannot be impugned in a petition under Section 397/398 of the Act." We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In our view, the reasons recorded by the Company Law Board and the learned Single Judge of the High Court for holding that the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act was not maintainable are correct and the order under challenge does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall be free to avail any other remedy which may be available to it under the law of the land.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1184 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners failed to furnish any convincing reason. 60. In my opinion, it is a clear manipulation made by the petitioners and thereafter, the application deserves to be allowed. 61. I, therefore, find force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents and conclude that the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. ORDER (i) CP is dismissed. (ii) CA No.154 of 2013 is allowed. The RoC Mumbai is directed to remove the name of the petitioners as directors of R3-company and to take appropriate steps to undo the effect given in filling DIN 3 by the petitioners. The petitioners are restrained from acting as and/or representing themselves to be the directors of the R3-eompany. (iii) CA No. 204 of 2013 is disposed off in terms of this judgment. (iv) No order as to costs. (v) Let copy of order be communicated to all parties and another copy be forwarded to RoC to do the needful in accordance with law.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1183 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... PW1 was sought to be produced as a proof of authorisation. The Trial Court has observed that the said power of attorney was in respect of civil litigation and there was no specific authority to file a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and that there was no proof of the fact that the said Premanath Guruva was the Executive 197 Director of the company and that he himself had any authority to file a complaint or execute a power of attorney in terms of Exhibit P. 14 in favour of PW 1 and hence held that the complaint filed through the medium of PW1 and sought to be prosecuted through the said Guruva, was not maintainable. Therefore, having regard to the view of the law that is consistently followed by this Court, the reasoning of the Trial Court insofar as the point whether the complaint was brought by an authorised person, has been correctly decided and hence the acquittal of the accused on other grounds, as well, cannot be held to be illegal. The appeal is dismissed.
............
|
