|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 887 Records
-
2008 (1) TMI 984 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the time begins to to run for seeking the appropriate relief. The plaintiffs had categorically averred that their rights and title was admitted by the defendant no. 1 till the publication of the notice in the Statesman on 22.07.2006, and it was only thereafter that the cause of action for seeking a declaration commenced. I find that none of the cases referred on behalf of the defendant deal with a fact situation where the property in question is alleged to be co- parcenary property and issue/relief is only for declaration of a share by a co- parcener. This matter also therefore cannot be decided without leading of evidence. The plaintiff have already filed a separate suit being CS(OS) No. 1791/2006 to challenge the title of the transferees from defendant No. 1. 32. Consequently, in my view the suit cannot be said to be barred either under the Benami Act or the Limitation Act at this stage without a trial. This application is therefore dismissed with costs of ₹ 20,000/-.
-
2008 (1) TMI 983 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... umber ......... Signature...................... ............................... Designation of the licensing authority Name and designation of their authority who conducted the driving test. 16. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that transport vehicle has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle . A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well. 17. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law. 18. For the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs which we quantify at ₹ 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only).
-
2008 (1) TMI 982 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ision must also be held to be a necessary ingredient for levy of damages and/or the quantum thereof. 24. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, in our opinion, was not wrong in opining that Section 85B provides for an enabling provision. What, however, cannot be appreciated that is such a construction itself would lead to the conclusion that the High Court is entitled to substitute its view in place of the statutory authority. In our considered view, therefore, the matter should be considered afresh for determination of quantum of damages etc. in the light of the observations made hereinbefore. 25. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh in the light of the observations made herein. The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (1) TMI 981 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d the assessment of the evidence by the High Court is accepted by the Supreme Court as final unless, of course, the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record. In view of our discussions made herein above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the High Court, which on consideration of all the materials on record and the evidence adduced by the parties had acquitted the accused/respondents and therefore, no interference is warranted in the exercise of our power under Article 136 of the Constitution. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused/respondents. The appeal is thus dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (1) TMI 980 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... isdiction. It is contended by the appellant that as the defendant is at Dharwad, the court at Hanagal has no jurisdiction. The trial court, in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgement, has in detail, considered this aspect. By looking into Section 16 and 20, C.P.C., the trial court has held that the suit can be instituted where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arose, either wholly or in part. Undisputedly, the present transaction arose at Hanagal and as such, the court at Hanagal was justified in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff at Hanagal was maintainable and in our view, justified. 7. The last contention canvassed is in respect of levy of interest at 18% p.a. Admittedly, this is a commercial transaction and considering the clauses in the agreement, as well as Section 34, C.P.C., the trial court, in our view, was justified in levying interest. 8. Therefore, looking at any angle, we do not see any merit in the appeal and hence, the same is rejected.
-
2008 (1) TMI 979 - SUPREME COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - Non-reasoned order of High Court - completely indefensible - Fixation of seniority list - Power of the Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ('Constitution') - HELD THAT:- The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind.
The attempt to draw an analogy on the power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and the practice of rejecting appeals at the SLP stage invariably without assigning reasons with the one to be exercised while dealing with a writ petition has no meaning and is illogical. First of all, the High Court is not the final court in the hierarchy and its orders are amenable to challenge before this Court, unlike the obvious position that there is no scope for any further appeal from the order made declining to grant special leave to appeal.
It has been on more than one occasion reiterated that Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer any right of appeal in favour of any party as such and it is not that any and every error is envisaged to be corrected in exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are special and extraordinary and the main object is to ensure that there has been no miscarriage of justice. That cannot be said to be the same with a writ petition. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside.
Thus, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh disposal in accordance with law by a reasoned order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
-
2008 (1) TMI 978 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ned trial court was that the accused No. 1 issued a blank cheque and misused by the complainant. Without entering into the merits of the controversy, since that will ultimately be decided by the learned trial court, this fact is being noticed to the limited extent of examining the stand of the petitioner that she was nowhere involved in the issuance of the cheque in question. 11. On a perusal of the records and the complaint in particular, this Court finds that the complaint filed by the complainant does not prima facie make out a case against the petitioner here under Section 138 of the Act. No material has been brought out to substantiate the case under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner. 12. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and the complaint No. 431/1/06 under Section 138 of the Act in so far as the petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed. 13. The petition stands disposed of. 14. A copy of order be given dusty to learned Counsel for the parties.
-
2008 (1) TMI 977 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aper was found by the search party which could reveal that the assessee was doing unaccounted business. It was also noted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that during the course of search, books of account seized by the department, were maintained in regular course of business and in regard to those books of account the returns of income had already been filed by the assessee under Section 139 before conducting the search by the department. On the facts, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer could not bring any evidence on record to justify addition of ₹ 13,37,237. 9. Being in general agreement with the findings recorded by the CIT (Appeals) and learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the present is not a fit case for any interference. Even otherwise, for the reasons noted aforesaid, we can safely say that the present appeal does not deserve any consideration by the High Court/The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2008 (1) TMI 976 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e, in our opinion, the third objection is also devoid of merit. Heard learned counsel. Admit on the following question of law “In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the CESTAT is right in concluding that proviso to Section 11A(1) is applicable to the present case?” The appellant to deposit arrears within the period of limitation within four weeks from today and insofar as balance amount excluding the penalty is concerned to secure respondents by bank guarantee in favour of Respondent No. 1 and to keep the guarantee alive pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal and for a period of eight weeks thereafter. Insofar as penalty is concerned, the recovery is stayed. Respondent No. 1 to compute the amount due within the normal period and intimate the same to the appellant within two weeks from the copy of this order being served by the appellants on Respondent No. 1. Appellant to deposit the amount as earlier set out. Respondent waives service.
-
2008 (1) TMI 975 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGLORE
... ...
... ... ..... able to the statutory bodies. There may be an error committed by the assessee. Therefore we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in giving relief to the assessee. 5. Now, we have to consider if an assessee instead of paying excess tax had paid the deficit tax and such tax is payable by the assessee in the next assessment year. If the case of the revenue is accepted, then the assessee is not expected to show the deficit tax paid by the said assessee in subsequent year. As such the deficit tax was not accrued to the assessee during the said assessment year. If such contention of the revenue is accepted, it will have far reaching consequences. Therefore we are of the opinion that even if the assessee has paid excess tax, the same has to be considered as an expenditure incurred by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, we answer the questions of law framed against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (1) TMI 974 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rials for use in manufacture could be construed as requiring such use for manufacture in Delhi only or it could be done at the assessee’s other units. But in the instant Rule it would appear that there is no restriction has been imposed under the said Rule and that export has to be done from West Bengal or after purchasing the same that as per blended or processed within the territory of West Bengal. Therefore, in our opinion, the petitioner must get that benefit and accordingly, we set aside the order so passed by Learned Tribunal and we hold that the petitioner is entitled to get exemption under Rule 42 of the said Rules and the respondents are directed to issue Form 9 to the petitioner. Bank Guarantee already furnished by the petitioner, also to be discharged. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this application is allowed. Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. I agree.
-
2008 (1) TMI 973 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dance with law. We are mindful that the appellant is a senior citizen and the prayer relates to interest on retiral dues paid to him after four years. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, we request the High Court to give priority to the case and decide it finally as expeditiously as possible, preferably before June 30, 2008. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. 16. Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, one way or the other. As and when the writ petition will be placed before the High Court, it will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made by us hereinabove. Order accordingly.
-
2008 (1) TMI 972 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... in the fact situation of the case. The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2008 (1) TMI 971 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... w of the judgement of Supreme Court in I.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in (2004) 7 SCC 591, wherein Supreme Court has negatived the demand raised by revenue. The Supreme Court has held, the Company (I.T.C. Ltd.) is not liable to pay duty and penalty levied by the department. This Court has held, in view of the order passed by Supreme Court, the very basis of complaint does not survive. Therefore, proceedings against Directors of the Company are quashed. 4. In view of the judgement of Supreme Court reported in (2004) 7 SCC 591 and orders passed by this Court in Criminal petition No. 811/2000 c/w. criminal petition No.1894/1999 dated 13.4.2005, the impugned criminal proceedings against the Company cannot be continued. 5. In view of the above, I pass the followings; ORDER The criminal petition is accepted. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.488/1998 on the file of Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore against petitioner (I.T.C. Ltd.) are quashed.
-
2008 (1) TMI 970 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s in Delhi, it was held that the said decision has no relevance to the facts of the present case. 7. So far as the clause 2 of the terms and conditions of sale is concerned which states that all disputes are subject to Delhi Jurisdiction, it is the settled position of law that Court cannot derive jurisdiction in respect of a matter in respect of which otherwise the said Court does not have jurisdiction merely because the parties have agreed to vest jurisdiction in the said Court See Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. Reported in 85(2000)DLT501 . 8. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Delhi Court will have no jurisdiction. The reasons and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are found to be cogent, just and proper. We find no ground to interfere with the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge. FAO(OS) No. 29/2008 and CM Nos.875-876/2008 have no merit and are accordingly dismissed.
-
2008 (1) TMI 969 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er the law. A combined reading of Section 32, 72 and 138 of the Act would leave no doubt in our mind that the law mandates the cheque to be presented at the bank on which it is drawn if the drawer is to be held criminally liable. Such presentation is necessarily to be made within six months at the bank on which the cheque is drawn, whether presented personally or through another bank, namely, the collecting bank of the payee. 13. Considering the facts of the case, we find no reason to take a different view than what was taken by the learned Single Judge who has given very cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the Delhi Court will have no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. However, it will naturally flow that once it is held that Delhi Court will have no jurisdiction the consequences would be to return the plaint to the appellant and the legal consequences would flow.
-
2008 (1) TMI 968 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e learned Tribunal has come to the right conclusion in deciding the said matter. Hence, no substantial question of law is involved in this matter. Accordingly, this matter being ITA No. 763 of 2007 is dismissed. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertakings. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2008 (1) TMI 967 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... adverse findings summarized in the earlier paragraph, I would not have declared the allotment as null and void, as, while considering a petition under Section 397, this Board has to give utmost importance to the interests of the company. Now that the allotment has been declared as null and void, consequent to which the company would be deprived of funds raised by the impugned allotment, it is now the responsibility of the Board, more particularly that of the petitioners, who have prosecuted this petition and have contended that they would have funded the company if had been sought for, to find ways and means to mobilize funds either by way of subscribing to the shares, if offered or by way of long term loans, or in any other manner, but transparently and in accordance with the Articles to ensure that the company does not suffer for want of funds. Accordingly, I so direct the Board and the petitioners. The petition is disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.
-
2008 (1) TMI 966 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ruitment to the regular post but also failed to attend to her duties for a number of years. Respondent was engaged for a particular purpose, namely - to impart education to the poor children. She failed to carry out her contractual obligations. 14. Only when she came to learn of the fact that a complaint had been made against her, she requested either for her recruitment as a typist or grant her leave on medical ground, which ex-facie appears to be mala fide. 15. We, therefore, are of the opinion that she did not have any legal right to continue in the said post. The direction of the High Court to consider her case in the light of G.O.Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated 16th January, 1991 is eminently unsustainable as the said government order would have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. For the reasons abovementioned the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (1) TMI 965 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... negatives the assessee's contention about the assessee having been in urgent need of the amount of loan/deposit in cash. 6. In our view, apart from the fact that the question as to whether the assessee has been able to prove the reasonable cause within the meaning of s. 271D is a pure question of fact, in the present case, the facts found are glaring, which on the face of it clearly negative the existence of any reasonable cause. 7. That being the position, question No. 1 is required to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, then regarding question Nos. 2 and 3, it cannot be said to be any more res integra, in view of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Asstt. Director of Inspection (Inv.) v. A.B. Shanthi 2002 174 CTR (SC) 513 2002 6 SCC 259 and, therefore, questions Nos. 2 and 3 are also answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We do not find any force in this appeal, and the same, is dismissed.
........
|
