|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 556 Records
-
2007 (6) TMI 559 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s is that the State cannot make any law on lotteries of other States and it's executive power under Article 298 of the Constitution is not extended beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State. As already stated above, the tax on lotteries is the tax on gambling and is no way regulatory in nature and no way interfering with or regulating right of another State to carry on business on lottery. The petitioners have also no case that they are subject to any regulation or control except in regard to levy and recovery of tax in accordance with the Act which applies to all State lotteries including the lottery run by the State Lottery Department of Kerala equally. Since the Supreme Court held that State lottery is also gambling and since State-gambling is not exempted from the scope of levy of tax under Entry 62 of Second List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, State law can authorise tax on State-lottery also. In view of the above findings the W.P. is dismissed.
-
2007 (6) TMI 558 - COMPANY LAW BOARD PRINCIAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... i) of section 237(b) of the Act. To prove this prima facie case of "intent to fraud" and misfeasance on general public and specifically the financial institution, the petitioner bank in this case conducting the business of the company otherwise for a fraudulent and unlawful purpose, I have no hesitation in granting the petitioner’s prayer for ordering investigation under section 237(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 in view of the foregoing. The facts and circumstances of the case compel me to opine that this is a fit case for ordering investigation under section 237(b) of the Act. To do substantial justice between the parties, I hereby order that investigation of the respondent companies be carried out by the Central Government under the provisions of section 237(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 so that the truth can come out about the nature and modus operandi of these transactions. 26. With the above directions, the petition is hereby allowed. No order as to cost.
-
2007 (6) TMI 557 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... short intervals, or that he was subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the application of this section. 13. Order of the trial Court shows that because of abnormal behaviour appellant was under treatment. Mother of the appellant (PW-8) stated that appellant had remained mentally fit for about four years after treatment. During trial also pursuant to Court’s order he was sent for treatment and his conduct was normal thereafter. 14. Considering the principles set out above in the background facts, the present case is not one where the protection under Section 84 IPC can be applied. However, as and when jail authorities feel that the appellant needs treatment, the same should be immediately treated, preferably at Man Singh Medical Hospital, Jaipur, where he was earlier treated or any other mental hospital of repute. 15. Appeal is without any merit and is dismissed.
-
2007 (6) TMI 556 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... in this business, and to do substantial justice between the parties, I hereby order as under i. The R-2 and R-3 are hereby directed to restore the siphoned off funds to the R-I's account forthwith. ii. R-1 is hereby directed to appoint an independent auditor to render proper accounts w.e.f. 1.4.99 till date. iii. The R-3's induction on the Board being illegal, there was only one director from 1st July to 8th July, is hereby declared as null and void. Status quo ante is restored. iv. The P-1 is restored as Director on the Board till he leaves the R-1 on payment of value of his shares to be determined by an independent valuer to be appointed by the parties after siphoned off money is restored to the R-1's account. v. In case of any difficulty in implementing this order, the parties are at liberty to apply. 13. With the above directions, the Company Petition No. 32/2002 stands allowed. All interim orders stand vacated. All CAs stand disposed of. No order as to cost.
-
2007 (6) TMI 555 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... le as provided by Section 29 of the Act. Usually when an opportunity to assail the impugned order in revision or appeal is available, taking recourse under Section 482 of Cr.PC is not required. However, it is observed by the Apex Court in Para 26 in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. 1998CriLJ1 , that sometime for immediate relief Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 may have to be resorted to, for correcting some grave errors that might be committed by the Subordinate Courts. Considering the steps taken by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, this petition has been considered herein. In view of all, as discussed hereinabove, the petition deserves to be partly allowed. Consequently, it is partly allowed. The proceeding against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 is quashed. It is directed that the learned Magistrate will deal the application as provided under the various provisions of the Act and as observed hereinabove.
-
2007 (6) TMI 554 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tax from the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall not obstruct the petitioner if they are carrying on lawful business. However, this order should not be interpreted to mean that any unlawful business can be carried on. The investigation to go on. The petitioners are at liberty to challenge independently the action initiated by the respondents i.e. seizure of computers etc. 4. To be placed alongwith group of matters on 6th July, 2007.
-
2007 (6) TMI 553 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e have already indicated, the revisional authority has initiated proceedings to revise an order passed by the assessing authority dated 26.12.2002 and not the order dated 14.1.1999, since that order has merged with the order passed by the Tribunal dated 20.4.2002. In the instant case, notice has been issued by the revisional authority on 2.8.2004 and, therefore, it is within the time limit prescribed under Section 35(2) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the contention canvassed for the assessee cannot be accepted by us. Keeping in view all these aspects of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. In view of the above, the questions of law framed by the assessee requires to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, the revision petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear own costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
2007 (6) TMI 552 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... leaking during trial run, it could not be run though commissioned. Whereas the present case is a reverse case where there is no evidence for intended revival of business. In the second case the loan when obtained was for the purpose of business and as it was a case of same business the interest was held allowable. Here in this case assessee had stopped the business and there are no indication of its intention to revive that and the requirement for allowing depreciation being user of the plant and machinery as held by Gujarat High Court in Ashima Syntex (supra), these cases therefore do not help the assessee.” Admittedly, the plant and machinery which was being used for manufacturing by the assessee has not been used at all in the assessment year in question. Considering the reasons given by the Tribunal, we see no case for admission of these appeals. No substantial question of law arises in these appeals. The appeals, therefore, stand dismissed at the admission stage.
-
2007 (6) TMI 551 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... duction of P.C. Poles in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) of Valuation Rules, 1975, or Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000, particularly in view of the fact that the appellant was not a profit making organization ? “
-
2007 (6) TMI 550 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he parties. In the light of what is stated herein before, it is not necessary to answer the questions referred to us for opinion, and we decline to answer the same leaving the parties to adduce whatever necessary evidence they may choose to place on record, and direct the Tribunal to decide the issue in accordance with law after taking into consideration further evidence that may be adduced by the parties. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.” Considering the view taken by this Court by following the decision of their Lordship in the case of Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 2003 263 ITR 706, we remand the matter to the authorities concerned to find out the facts in the light of the issue discussed by this Court in the case of Emmerich Jaegar Vs. CIT (supra), and decide the issue afresh whether the benefit of agreement to avoid double taxation can be given to the assessee. The reference stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (6) TMI 549 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sferor company. In fact no employee of the transferor company has appeared before this Court to oppose the scheme of amalgamation. Thus, the interest of the employees of the transferor company is also taken duly care of. The scheme do not contravene any law. The affairs of the transferee company is not conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the share holders and creditors of the company. Under these circumstances, a case for according sanction for the scheme of amalgamation proposed by the petitioner is hereby made out. Hence, I pass the following order (1) The scheme of amalgamation Annexure-A proposed by the petitioner company is hereby sanctioned and it will be binding on the petitioner company, its share holders and creditors. (2) The petitioner shall file the certified copy of the order with the Registrar of Companies within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (3) Office is directed to draw up decree in Form No. 42. (4) No costs.
-
2007 (6) TMI 548 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the said case was reiterated by observing that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judge who has made the record. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. It is not open to the appellants to contend before this Court to the contrary. 5. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the matter. However, we make it clear that if any motion is made before the High Court as to the claim that no concession was made, the same shall be considered in the proper perspective in accordance with law. 6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2007 (6) TMI 547 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Court. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be quashed and set aside. Now, what is the relief which should be granted. In my opinion, since the trial Court has utterly failed to examine the various issues and the material facts and legal position, it would sub-serve the ends of justice if the trial Court is directed to decide the suit afresh. The trial Court shall ignore the pursis (Ex. 56) and proceed to determine the suit. The observations made in this judgment on the issues in the suit shall not influence the trial Court in deciding the suit on all issues. 29. For all the reasons, therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 30-10-1999 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1068 of 1991 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (A) and (B) of the writ petition with costs quantified at ₹ 10,000/- payable by respondents No. 1 to 3 to the petitioners within four weeks from today.
-
2007 (6) TMI 546 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... l of P-8 as Chairman and P-3 as General Manager is hereby set aside. Status quo ante is restored. P-8 is restored as Chairman of R-1 company and P-1 is restored as General Manager of the company, ii. The Board of Directors meeting alleged to have been held on 23.8.1996 and the AGM held on 9.9.1996 are hereby set aside and declared as null and void. Status quo ante is restored, iii. The increase in the share capital from ₹ 50 lakhs to ₹ 65 lakhs is held to be illegal and is hereby set aside.The issue and allotment of 60,000 shares to the R-3's group made by resolution dated 7.8.1998 is hereby set aside and declared as null and void. Status quo ante is restored, iv. The R-1 company is hereby directed to give consequential effects in implementing the directions contained (i) to (iii) above forthwith. 24. With the above directions, the company petition No. 68 of 2001 stands allowed. All interim orders stand vacated. All CAs stand disposed of. No order as to cost.
-
2007 (6) TMI 545 - SUPREME COURT
Acquittal Order passed by HC by setting aside the conviction - non-compliance of mandatory requirement of Section 50 - meaning of the words "search any person" - Offence punishable u/s 17 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 ('Act') - HELD THAT:- This Court has also followed this principle right from the beginning. In Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd.[1955 (3) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT] held that: -"The cardinal rule of construction of statutes is to read the statute literally, that is, by giving to the words used by the legislature their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. If, however, such a reading leads to absurdity and the words are susceptible of another meaning the Court may adopt the same. But if no such alternative construction is possible, the Court must adopt the ordinary rule of literal interpretation."
A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a holdall, a carton, etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head, etc. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word "person" occurring in Section 50 of the Act.
The scope and ambit of Section 50 of the Act was examined in considerable detail by a Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh[1999 (7) TMI 630 - SUPREME COURT] : "12. On its plain reading, Section 50 would come into play only in the case of a search of a person as distinguished from search of any premises etc. However, if the empowered officer, without any prior information as contemplated by Section 42 of the Act makes a search or causes arrest of a person during the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence and on completion of that search, a contraband under the NDPS Act is also recovered, the requirements of Section 50 of the Act are not attracted."
In view of the aforesaid judgment by a three Judge Bench of this Court, the acquittal, as directed by the High Court, is clearly unsustainable. However, we find that other points were urged in support of the appeal before the High Court, but the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused only on the ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. It did not examine the other grounds of challenge. We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court to hear the appeal afresh on grounds other than that of alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act, which, as noted above, has no application to the facts of the case.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
-
2007 (6) TMI 544 - SUPREME COURT
Opium Recovered - Acquittal Order passed by HC by setting aside the conviction - non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 50 - Offence punishable u/s 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act') - HELD THAT:- This Court has also followed this principle right from the beginning. In Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd.[1955 (3) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT] held that: -"The cardinal rule of construction of statutes is to read the statute literally, that is, by giving to the words used by the legislature their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. If, however, such a reading leads to absurdity and the words are susceptible of another meaning the Court may adopt the same. But if no such alternative construction is possible, the Court must adopt the ordinary rule of literal interpretation."
A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a holdall, a carton, etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head, etc. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word "person" occurring in Section 50 of the Act.
The scope and ambit of Section 50 of the Act was examined in considerable detail by a Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh[1999 (7) TMI 630 - SUPREME COURT] : "12. On its plain reading, Section 50 would come into play only in the case of a search of a person as distinguished from search of any premises etc. However, if the empowered officer, without any prior information as contemplated by Section 42 of the Act makes a search or causes arrest of a person during the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence and on completion of that search, a contraband under the NDPS Act is also recovered, the requirements of Section 50 of the Act are not attracted."
In view of the aforesaid judgment by a three Judge Bench of this Court, the acquittal, as directed by the High Court, is clearly unsustainable. However, we find that other points were urged in support of the appeal before the High Court, but the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused only on the ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. It did not examine the other grounds of challenge. We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court to hear the appeal afresh on grounds other than that of alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act, which, as noted above, has no application to the facts of the case.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
-
2007 (6) TMI 543 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
Acts of oppression and mismanagement - removal of director - Increase in the shareholding - company maintaining two sets of Minutes, one signed and other not signed - Petitioner No.1 himself was a wrong doer - HELD THAT:- In the present petition the respondents have succeeded in proving the unclean hands of the petitioner. The petitioner himself being a wrong doer is not entitled to any relief and it is settled law that the CLB may refuse to grant relief where the petitioner does not come to the court with clean hands. Thus, I find that the petition is not maintainable even on the basis of the preliminary objections raised in this case.
I find that the respondents are right in contending that the provisions of Section 80(1A) are not applicable to this case and that the removal of the petitioner as director has been as per the compliance with the law. The petitioner was very much aware of his removal, he was served with the notice of EGM on 13.1.2003. Though the petitioner has denied the receipt of this notice served under Certificate of Posting, the circumstances of assessee make it amply evident that the petitioner was in full knowledge of his removal from 4.1.2003 when the first notice of his removal was received by him. However, even if the petitioner's contention is believed to be true that the last notice sent under Certificate of Posting was not received by him an action in contravention of law may not per se be oppressive. The CLB, however, will have to consider the entire materials on record and the totality of the circumstances of the case. Otherwise too, the directorial complaints cannot be entertained in a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the case and particularly so when the petition already stands dismissed on account of preliminary objections.
Increase in the shareholding, the petitioner had failed to make out a case that the petitioner groups' shareholding has been reduced from 51.40% to 33.33%, that it has been made with merely for an extraneous purpose and not in the interest of the company but to gain control over the affairs of the company. Rather it is a case where the petitioners' had themselves consented, though a tacit consent, to revert back their shareholding to 33.33.% for each of the promoters/directors from 51% immediately after the transfer of land (belonging to AVI trading partnership firm of petitioners) in the name of AVI Sales Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the respondent No.1 company to get over the hassles and to override the provisions of liability of transfer charges. Thus, even this allegation of petitioner fails on account of their consent and acquiescence as this transfer and reduction in share was done on 18.2.2002 and this petition has been filed in Feb. 2005.
As regarding the only other allegation of maintaining two sets of Minute Books of Meetings, the CLB's Bench Officer's report explains it all. The unsigned minutes were basically a computer printout taken in the absence of directors. The petitioners have failed to make out a case even on merits.
Thus, I find no reason to allow the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed. All interim orders stand vacated. All CAs stand disposed off.
-
2007 (6) TMI 542 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the receipt stage in respect of exchange fluctuation ? IV) Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation amounting to ₹ 27,09,294/- in respect of assets of M/s Modern Stramit (I) Limited, a company amalgamated with the appellant company in terms of the order of BIFR ? V) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on the value of assets of the amalgamating company not actually allowed under Section read with Section 43 (6) and Section 72A of the Income-tax Act, 1961? VI) Without prejudice to ground no. (iv) and (v) above whether the Tribunal erred in not allowing the benefit of unabsorbed depreciation despite the fact that provision of section 72A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Sections 18 and 32 (2) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 have been complied with ?” Mr Anand Parchure, learned counsel waives service on behalf of respondent.
-
2007 (6) TMI 541 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... possible on the aspect of relief and the relief has to be granted in the present case to undo the advantage gained by the respondents through their manipulation. To do substantial justice between the parties, I hereby order as under i. P-1 is hereby restored on the Board of Directors of the R-1 company. Status quo ante is restored. ii. The petitioners are entitled to have proportionate representation on the Board of the company in proportion to their shareholding ratio. iii. The respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to restore the amounts siphoned off from the accounts of the R-1 company. The reconstituted Board of Directors shall appoint an independent Auditor forthwith to ascertain the amounts siphoned off by R-2. iv. The respondent No. 1 company is hereby directed to give consequential effects to the directions given in (i) to (iii) above forthwith. 12. With the above directions, I allow this petition vacating all interim orders. All CAs stand disposed. No order as to cost.
-
2007 (6) TMI 540 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cDowell’ Case. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed; "The Court nowhere said that every action or inaction on the part of the tax payer which results in reduction of tax liability to which he may be subjected to in the future, is to be viewed with suspicion and be treated as a device for avoidance of tax irrespective of legitimacy or genuineness of the act". 7. Similarly, in Union of India and Another Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Another, 263 ITR 706 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under "We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perceived by the respondents." 8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do no find any substantial question of law in the above, and the Application stands dismissed.
........
|
