|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 459 Records
-
2000 (2) TMI 863 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... view of the pronouncement of law on the subject in Anil Hada v. India Acrylic Limited 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent then submitted that there are other contentions which respondent has to raise as against the prosecution. We are not disposed to deal with all those contentions, for, it is open to the respondent to raise such contentions in the trial Court. 5. In the result we set aside the impugned judgment and direct the trial Court to proceed with the trial. 6. The appeals are disposed of.
-
2000 (2) TMI 862 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ice with pendente life future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the above amount till the date the above amount is paid to the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiffs appeal with regard to future interest is allowed awarding pendente lite future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the sum of ₹ 33,725/- and the defendants' Appeal No. 660 of 1997 is allowed modifying the Trial Court decree as under That the plaintiffs suit is and shall be deemed to have been decreed for a sum of ₹ 33,725/- only with interest pendente lite and future from the date of suit till its payment at the rate of 6% p.a. plaintiff is further entitled to decree and is granted decree for sum of ₹ 250/- as charges for notice as well. Both the appeals are disposed of as allowed in part as above. The Trial Court decree shall stand modified in terms of this judgment and decree passed as above by this Court. The suit is decreed as above with costs proportionate to success and failure of two appeals.
-
2000 (2) TMI 860 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... compensation to the appellant but he is free to resort to his remedies under law for that purpose. 9. In spite of the above incurable infirmities in the case of the prosecution on hand, such as same officer being the complainant and the Investigating Officer, even if there are evidence for an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Act (for minimum quantity), in this case a conviction cannot be supported in view of the fact that the appellants has been in custody from 1995, more than 4 years, on account of the verdict rendered by the Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No. 780 of 1998 (stated supra). 10. On account of the above reasons, circumstances and the evidence on record I am of the view that the conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge could not be sustained by this Court. In the result, the appeal stands allowed by acquitting the appellant, Jail authorities are directed to release the appellant provided his judicial custody is not needed in any other case.
-
2000 (2) TMI 859 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bunal and had at no stage before the Tribunal ever contended that it was improperly constituted. Even assuming that it ought to have consisted of three or more members, had that objection been taken at the initial stage of the hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal, that position could have been rectified. Certainly, in circumstances such as these, the High Court ought not to have exercised its discretion in favour of the first respondent. 5. The decision of this Court in Narhari Shivram Shet Narvekar v.Pannalal Umediram squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 6. In the circumstances, the appeal is al lowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition filed by the first respondent is dismissed. The first respondent shall pay to the appellants and respondents No. 2 and 3 the costs of this appeal. 7. It is needless to say, having regard to the passage of time that the appellant must act expeditiously to implement the order of the Tribunal.
-
2000 (2) TMI 858 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en informed by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that during the pendency of these appeals the State Government has stopped collecting any toll tax in respect of the Gai Ghat bridge. Even if that be so, it is necessary to resolve the issues raised, albeit to operate prospectively, as it would not do to allow the principles enunciated in Jiya Lal AIR1981All72 to continue to hold the field. 25. In the circumstances, we dispose of the appeals by setting aside the impugned orders of the High Court but at the same time declaring that the State Government may not hereafter take into account for the purpose of levying any toll under the notification in respect of a road or bridge constructed by it, stationery cost (unless incurred in realisation of the toll), interest on stationery cost and maintenance, and interest on the interest payable on account of the actual expenditure incurred in the construction of the road or bridge. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (2) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in law. We may refer to the next ground on which appeal has to be allowed. It is settled position of law that in an appeal the parties cannot urge new facts. From the pleadings of the respondent before the State Commission it is found that respondent pleaded that the property damaged wa.s not covered under the insurance policy. This plea was given a go by before the National Commission and a new plea was taken up in the grounds of appeal that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated by the appellant by using used kiln furniture. The National Commission accepteu this new ground and allowed the appeal, which in our opinion is not sustainable in law. For the reasons stated above we hold that the present appeal has merits. In the result, appeal is allowed. The judgment of the National Commission is set aside and the judgment of the State Commission is restored. Considering the fects and circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their own cost.
-
2000 (2) TMI 856 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGLORE
... ...
... ... ..... interest amounts are not included in the income of the assessee until actually received if the conditions of the circular are satisfied. The circular of October, 9, 1984 also serves another practical purpose of laying down a uniform test for the assessing authority to decide whether the interest income which is transferred to the suspense account is, in fact arising in respect of a doubtful or ‘sticky’ loan. This is done by providing that non-receipt of interest for the first three years the payment of interest is not received, from the four year onwards it will be treated as on doubtful loan and will be added to the income only when it is actually received.” In View of the above observations, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no interest accured on loans and finally in deleting the addition of the interest amount of ₹ 87,720/-. Reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
-
2000 (2) TMI 855 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e proper order to be passed, in the circumstances, is to direct the first respondent to open envelope No. 3 submitted by the petitioners and consider their tender for item 2 on the merits along with those of other eligible tenderers and to take an impartial and just decision on the merits with regard to the award for supply of the item bearing in mind the legal principles mentioned above. Reasons for the decisions will be recorded in the file after tabulating the rates of all eligible tenders. This exercise will be completed within a period of three weeks from this date as the period for performance is fast running out. As far as item 1 is concerned also the award will be on the same consideration and following the same procedure though the petitioners will not be considered for award of item 1 as they have not furnished the required Test Certificate before 3-3-1999. The Revision is disposed of with the above modifications to the impugned order and with the above directions.
-
2000 (2) TMI 854 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ement 5. We are not prepared to accept this contention. Sub-section (5) and sub- section (3) of Section 37 are to be read together to find out the period which is liable to be excluded in computing the time prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 6. Admittedly, in the instant case, notice was not issued by the appellant to the respondents for making a reference to arbitration. Thus, reference to arbitration itself was not proper as was held in the earlier proceedings which have become final between the parties and it was on that basis that the suit was held to be beyond time as the period taken by the appellant in pursuing its remedy before the arbitration was not excluded on the ground that the reference to arbitration itself was bad. We approve the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Pandit Daya Shankar v. Sheo Rami which was cited before us by the counsel for the respondents. We find no infirmity in the judgment passed by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 853 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... n balance in the control and management of the company in the interregnum, we give the following directions The petitioner will be taken as a director on the board and as she is a working woman, board meetings will be held on dates, as far as possible, after ascertaining her convenience. Copies of all board minutes will be furnished to her within 15 days of approval of the same. There will be no change in the composition of the board as is existing today including the petitioner. No further shares will be issued without the unanimous approval of all the members of the board. The petitioner will be entitled to all the dividends declared on the 1,171 shares and if any dividend remains unpaid on these shares, the same will be paid to her within 30 days from the date of this order. In case the other two proceedings are decided against the petitioner, then, she will refund all the dividends received by her. 10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (2) TMI 852 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ection 3(A)2 of the Act would not have any provisionality attached to it and was therefore an appellable order. Under these circumstances, we find that there is no bar before us to entertain and consider the said appeal on this ground. In view of the aforesaid analyses and findings, we remand the matter to the original authority after setting aside the order impugned for de novo consideration of the entire matter keeping in view the aforesaid decision in the case of Awadh Alloys (P) Ltd. supra. The Ld. Commissioner shall give opportunity to the present appellants for being heard in the matter before proceeding to pass the order. The Ld. Commissioner shall also keep in mind that once an order is passed fixing the said determination where it is necessary to mention that it is a provisional order or not in terms of the decision of the Tribunal as in the case of Ranjeev Alloys supra. The appeal is allowed by way of remand accordingly. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court).
-
2000 (2) TMI 851 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der section 30 of the Arbitration Act. The learned Single Judge in our opinion was therefore, right in indicating that the Court should approach an award with a desire to support it, if that is reasonably possible, rather than to destroy it by calling it illegal. In case of U.P. Hotels and others v. U.P. State Electricity Board, reported in 1989 S.C.C. 359, it was held that even assuming that there was error of construction of agreement or there was error of law in arriving at a conclusion, such an error is not an error amenable to correction even in a reasoned award under the law. 18. Thus, in the present case no case has been made out by the appellants for interference. The appeals are, therefore, liable to be rejected being devoid of any substance. The same are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. 19. We place our special appreciation on record for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Rustomji while arguing on behalf of the appellants. 20. Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 850 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... fs that the petitioners have sought in the present petition also find a place in the relief portion of the civil suit. The Company Law Board has been taking a consistent stand that to avoid conflicting decisions on common issues, if any proceedings are found to have been initiated prior in time to the filing of the petition before the Company Law Board on issues covered in the petition, the Company Law Board would either stay the proceedings before it or dismiss the petition unless otherwise the earlier proceedings are withdrawn. Since we find that the matters covered in the petition are already before the civil court and since the proceedings are pending and the petitioners have not chosen to withdraw the earlier proceedings, without going into the merits of this case, we stay our proceedings. 8. Petition is stayed. The petitioners are at liberty to revive the petition through an application after the completion of the proceedings in the civil court, if they are so advised.
-
2000 (2) TMI 849 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... provisions of the memorandum of association. Since this is a matter of fact as to whether there is violation of the provisions of memorandum of association or not, the same does not call for any investigation. Another allegation relating to the prayer for investigation is that substantial amount of money has been siphoned off by the 2nd respondent for his personal use. In the absence of any particulars to substantiate this allegation, we are not taking cognizance of the same. Accordingly, the prayer for investigation into the affairs of the company is rejected. In regard to the contempt application filed by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent for not having given inspection in spite of the directions by this Bench, we have already ordered him to pay a sum of ₹ 2,000 to the Legal Aid of Delhi High Court which he had already done and as such, no further order is called for on this application. 13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to cost.
-
2000 (2) TMI 848 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to file objections if any to the aforesaid notices within a period of six weeks. On filing such objections, the assessing officer shall decide those objections after affording the petitioner opportunity to lead any evidence as they want to and the taxation officer shall also be free to bring evidence on record which he wants and decide upon such objections and determine the demand, if any, recoverable from the petitioners within a further period of six months In accordance with the observations made above. During this period, the amount deposited by the assessee shall not be refunded but shall remain as security for the demands proposed to be raised vide the impugned notices, to be adjusted against the amount, if any, that may be found recoverable on the final outcome of the proceedings. The appellants shall further furnish a security to the satisfaction of the Taxation Officer for the balance amount proposed to be assessed against him. There shall be no orders as to costs.
-
2000 (2) TMI 847 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s a second decision decides to the contrary. Then, in the third litigation, the decision in the second one will prevail and not the decision in the first. We may also state that the 19.1.67 decision merely relied upon the 1931 decision without noticing the change in the definition. Hence, the 19.1.67 decision cannot become res judicata. So far as the proceeding initiated in 1965, no plea of res judicata based on it was raised in the lower courts in the present proceedings. Therefore, we hold on point 3 against the appellant. The rejection of the preliminary objection is confirmed. It will now be for the Assistant Charity Commissioner to go into the merits in Inquiry No. as directed by the Joint Commissioner in his orders dated 17.12.73 insofar as the Rozas at Broach and Surat are concerned, in the light of this judgment and the judgment of the Gujrat High Court in Sayed Mohammed vs. Ali Miya 1972 (13) Guj.L.R.285 . The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (2) TMI 846 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... assessee on 16-4-1992 and a certificate was issued by the Architecture on 5-8-1992 that the said house is complete. This also shows that it is concocted exercise of the assessee to come within the preview of section 54F otherwise the house was complete on 8-5-1991 that is much before one year prior to the sale of original asset. In the circumstances, it is observed that as the conditions laid down under section 54F are not fully complied as the assessee has not made the required investment in the new asset within one year prior to the sale of original asset assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 54F. Thus, the CIT(A) was wrong in directing the Assessing Officer to grant exemption to the assessee under section 54F. Thus, order of the Assessing Officer in respect of addition made by him amounting to ₹ 1,30,330 in respect of long term capital gain is maintained and the order of the CIT(A) is set aside. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is admitted.
-
2000 (2) TMI 845 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... gned order is inviolation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. It has been submitted on behalf of the Respondents that this issue is no more open inasmuch as the Tribunal has held in the Final Order No. 1786/99 dt. 21.7.99 in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. reported in 1999 (34) RLT 668 that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply to provisional assessment before the Rule 9B was specifically amended to invoke refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment also within the ambit of unjust enrichment with effect from June 99. 3. It is seen from the above that the bar of unjust enrichment do not apply to the Refund arising from the provisional assessment prior to June 99 since the period involved in the present case is of 1992-93, 93-94 the Respondents were entitled to the refund and the impugned order is in conformity with the law. The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court.
-
2000 (2) TMI 844 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... d on lease. This contention, of course, goes contrary to the earlier stand of the learned counsel for the assessee before us that he was not relying upon the fact that the premises were held on lease. Be that as it may, we find that even in the case considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the premises were held only on lease and they were not owned by the assessee. We also find that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ballimal Naval Kishore (supra) goes against the assessee as in this case extensive repairs to the structure of the building was held not to be of the nature of current repairs or deductible expenditure. 9. In the circumstances, we set aside the order of the CIT (Appeals) and restore that of the Assessing Officer. However, we have to give one consequential relief to the assessee, i.e., that the assessee may be granted depreciation on the capitalised expenditure of ₹ 7,85,866 as per law. Subject to this direction, the appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 843 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... The ground taken is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the assessee’s claim for deduction in respect of rent to the extent of ₹ 7,28,481, the details of which are as under - "Owners of the land Total Rental liability for the year Part payment during the year Unpaid Amount B.P.T. Wadala 3,72,367 89,551 2,82,816 N. Rly. Shakurbasti 4,88,232 42,581 4,45,651 7,28,467 Other 14 Amount disallowed by the Asstt. Commissioner 7,28,481" 13. We have decided this issue against the assessee in the assessee’s appeal in I.T.A. No. 1060/Bom./91 for the assessment year 1987-88. It is not the case of the assessee that the dispute regarding the enhancement has been settled in the year of account either amicably or through adjudication. In the circumstances, we see no reason for allowing the deduction for the amount of ₹ 7,28,481 which has been disallowed by the revenue authorities. 14. The appeal is dismissed.
........
|
