|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 553 Records
-
1999 (9) TMI 986 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ed pertain to the same enactment, an assessee may file a single application for stay. Thus, on a combined reading of the provisions of section 253 r/w rule 35A(1) of Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, it follows that there is no requirement, in so far as stay petitions are concerned for separate application in respect of each appeal or assessment year. A single application can be filed as long as the demands pertain to one and the same enactment. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it would be unreasonable to insist that the assessee should pay the filing fees under section 253(7) not on the basis of number of applications but on the basis of the number of appeals or the number of assessment years involved. We, therefore, order that subject to other requirements and conditions, the assessee may be allowed to file, if he so chooses, a single application for stay of recovery of demand under the same enactment by payment of a fee of ₹ 500 only.
-
1999 (9) TMI 985 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rial Area, Jalandhar in 1986. On retirement of one of the partners, the partnership concern ceased to exist and after a lapse of some period, new partnership concern was formed by Smt. Paramjit Kaur with her daughter and on an application made by them, the name of the new partnership concern was changed in the S.S.I. Certificate. It is also not in dispute that the present appellant has continued the factory at the same address. We find substantial force in the submissions of the ld. Advocate that the requirement of paragraph 4 of the Notification No. 175/86 is that the factory is to be registered as S.S.I. with the Director of Industries and not the manufacturer. Once the factory has been certified as S.S.I. unit, the benefit of small scale notification will continue to be available to the manufacturer working in the same factory. In view of this, we hold that the benefit of Notification 175/86 is available to the appellants and accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 984 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... law laid down in various judicial dicta and judgments of this Board from time to time in respect of the statutory provisions involved in the proceedings against the appellants. In the circumstances, we do not consider it necessary to refer to the case law by express discussion thereof. It should, however, be mentioned that we have kept the legal position as laid down in those decisions, in our view, while examining the charges against the appellants and the findings of the learned Adjudicating Officer thereon. 50. It would be seen from the above discussions that the finding of contravention of section 18(2) against the appellants cannot be sustained on the evidence on record and the findings of contravention of section 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c ) cannot be sustained as these charges cannot be made out either on the allegations or on the evidence. 51. In the result, all the appeals, viz., Nos. 614 to 621 of 1992 are allowed and impugned order set aside as against all the appellants.
-
1999 (9) TMI 983 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his Court is not bound to interfere in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. But in the instant case, as we have already seen above, it is not merely a matter of the defendants' conduct in not filing the Written Statement but the question of law as to what the Court should do in a case where Written Statement is not filed, is involved, and this question has to be decided so as to provide for all the lower courts as to how the court should proceed in a situation of this nature. 49. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 10.2.1997 passed by the Single Judge as also the judgment dated 29.4.1998 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and remand the case back to the Delhi High Court for a fresh decision. We allow the appellants and Respondent No. 2 to file their Written Statement by 15th of October, 1999, with a clear stipulation that if the Written Statement is not filed by that date, the decree passed by the High Court shall stand.
-
1999 (9) TMI 982 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... come will have to be taxed in accordance with law. Income is something which flows from the property. Something received in place of the property will be a capital receipt. The amount of interest received by the company flows from its investments and is its income and is clearly taxable even though the interest amount is earned by utilising borrowed capital. It is true that the company will have to pay interest on the money borrowed by it. But that cannot be a ground for exemption of interest earned by the company by utilising the borrowed funds as its income. Any set off or deduction of any expenditure can only be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This view has been expressed by the Apex Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT 1997 227 ITR 172/ 93 Taxman 502. That being the position, the question referred has to be answered in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (9) TMI 981 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The court shall summon PW-1, PW- 2, and PW-3 to be cross-examined again on behalf of the accused. 2. The evidence already brought on record will remain as part of the evidence in the case. After the defence counsel availing himself of the opportunity to further examine the three witnesses, if prosecution wants to adduce further evidence, it is open to the court to grant permission for the same. Accused shall then be called upon to enter on his defence. 3. After collecting such evidence, if any adduced by the accused, the trial Judge shall dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law and untrammelled by any findings or observations made in the judgment of the trial court or that of the High Court. 10. We make it clear that the accused shall remain in custody till the disposal of the case. It is needless to say that the trial Judge shall recall the witnesses at the earliest, so that, this old case must tie disposed of as expeditiously as possible and on a priority basis.
-
1999 (9) TMI 980 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g for sale, or advertising directly or indirectly, its Mixer grinders for kitchen use under the trade mark MAHARAJA or any other identical or deceptively similar mark. The Defendant, its servants, agents are also permanently injuncted and restrained from selling or advertising directly or indirectly its Mixer-grinders by use of the logo script identical/deceptively similar to that adopted by the plaintiff. 9. I feel that ends of justice would be adequately met if a decree for the recovery of ₹ 3,00,000/- is passed in lieu of rendition of accounts. I further order the Defendant to deliver to the plaintiff for the purposes of destruction and/or obliteration, all those goods, cartons, blocks dies, labels, wrappers, price list, leaflets, literature and any other infringing material bearing the trade mark MAHARAJA/Royal Maharaja. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of this suit which are quantified at ₹ 15,000/-. 10. The decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly.
-
1999 (9) TMI 979 - PUNJAB-HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Even if the civil suit pending before the learned Senior Sub-judge, Chandigarh is decided, it will not operate as res judicata on all the controversies between the parties in the two suits. It may have some repercussions but the recovery suit still have to be continued. Therefore, one is constrained to observe that the question in controversy in the subsequently instituted suit is not substantially the same. Merely because one or two issues may be identical that will not be a ground to stay the subsequently instituted suit. That would be contrary to the plain language of section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. 22. As an off-shoot of these reasons, it is clear that there is no good ground to allow the application because section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code is not attracted. The application filed under section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code is dismissed. List the company petition for statement of the parties before issues and for framing of the issues on November 18, 1999.
-
1999 (9) TMI 978 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t by referring to the averments made in the plaint, would ordinarily determine whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. However, it is apparent that section 9-A is added with a specific object to see that objection with regard to jurisdiction of the Court is decided as a preliminary issue. According to the Legislature, the practice of granting injunctions without going into the question of jurisdiction even though raised, has led to grave abuse. Hence the said section is added to see that issue of jurisdiction is decided as a preliminary issue notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, including Order XIV, Rule 2. Once the issue is to be decided by raising it as a preliminary issue, it is required to be determined after proper adjudication. Adjudication would require giving of opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, if required. 14. Reference stands disposed of accordingly. 15. Issuance of certified copy of this order is expedited.
-
1999 (9) TMI 977 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... g the Central Government and the Securities and Exchange Board of India, as directors on the board of the company for a period of three years from the date of appointment. We also direct that notices for board meetings should be sent to all the directors including the nominees of the petitioner by registered post at least seven days before such meetings along with agenda. We also direct the petitioner, being a public sector undertaking, to ensure that its nominees attend the board meetings without fail and render all assistance to revive the company. The directors appointed by the Central Government and the Securities and Exchange Board of India will submit a joint quarterly report to the Central Government on the affairs of the company. 25. We dispose of this petition in the above terms without any order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Central Government and the Securities and Exchange Board of India drawing their attention to paragraph 24 of the order.
-
1999 (9) TMI 976 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dings. This apart, as we have held that the High Court committed error in the exercise of its jurisdiction in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact on sub-letting and nuisance without formulating and there being any substantial question of law, the same also equally applies so far this third point, namely, the default of the tenant. Once the appellate court recorded the finding that there is no default that became final and if the High Court did not interfere with this finding, we do not find, it committed any such error which require our interference. We do not find any substantial question arising out of the decision on this point. 21. For the aforesaid reasons and the findings recorded by us, we find it to be a fit case to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court dated 15th December, 1995 and uphold the decree passed in favour of the appellant by the two courts below. On the facts and circumstances of the case, costs on the parties.
-
1999 (9) TMI 975 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nvested substantial amount as intercorporate deposits to tide over the financial difficulties of the company, in case the nominee additional directors are not appointed as directors in the next annual general meeting, then, we direct that the petitioners will have the right to have one nominee as a director on the board of the company as long as they hold 18 per cent shares in the company. This nominee will not be liable for retirement by rotation except that the petitioners will have the right to change the nominee. 14. Before we part with the order, we also note the submission of counsel that the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court has appointed an arbitrator on an application made by the respondents in terms of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and that the special leave petition filed by the petitioners against this order, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. 15. We dispose of this petition in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (9) TMI 974 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 14. Now the vehicle in the present case weighed 5,920 kilograms and the driver had the driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle. It is not that, the insurance policy covered a transport vehicle which meant a goods carriage. The whole case of the insurer has been built on a wrong premise. It is itself the case of the insurer that in the case of a light motor vehicle which is a non-transport vehicle, there was no statutory requirement to have specific authorisation on the licence of the driver under Form 6 under the Rules. It has, therefore, to be held that Jadhav was holding effective valid licence on the date of accident to drive light motor vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-28-567. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is set aside and that of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission restored though on different grounds. Appellant would be entitled to costs.
-
1999 (9) TMI 973 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ecree holder. The Supreme Court has held in the decision reported in C. Subbarayudu v. Brahmanandam, 1959 SCA 129 that this Section was introduced in the Code of 1908 with the object of facilitating the exercise of rights by persons in whom they come to be vested by devolution or assignment and that, being a beneficent provision, it should be construed liberally and so as to advance justice, and not in a restricted or technical sense. Therefore, one has to give effect to the object behind enacting Section 146 of the Code. That is what the courts below have done by empowering the assignee decree holder to come on record as a part to the final decree proceeding and passed a final decree consequently. Therefore, I am satisfied that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, there is no order as to cost. The order and decretal order passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 972 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... n this contention because 1 kg of opium was not found from the person of the appellant but it was found from a bag which was being carried by the appellant. Therefore, this cannot be said to be a case where on search of the person of the accused, a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was found. In our opinion, the courts below have correctly held that the appellant is guilty of committing the said offence. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 971 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... deposition of the Manager of the Bank. In this state of the evidence on record, we find no ground to upset the decision of the learned Single Judge on the aspect of grant of future interest at the rate of 6 per annum. 28. Except for the grant of future interest at 6 per annum, for the reasons as aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment and restore that of the trial Court. However, the respondents would be entitled to the benefit of the adjustment of ₹ 1,20,340/- as noticed hereinbefore and to that extent the judgment and decree of the Trial Court shall also stand modified since it grants the decree in favour of the appellant in the sum of ₹ 1,42,395.00. It is understood that whatever payments have been made by the respondents after the decree, due adjustment of the same would be granted to them. 29. The appeal is thus allowed in the above terms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are however left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 970 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is Court by way of pronouncements in various cases, some of which have been noted hereinabove. We are of the view that all the employees recruited in the service under Rule 5(1) are entitled to the benefit of the service on equivalent post in their parent departments. 13. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. The official-respondents are directed to finalise the seniority list of all the employees recruited in the service under Rule 5(1) of the Rules strictly applying the provisions of Sub-rule (2) and its proviso keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove. All orders passed consequent upon the order of the Tribunal impugned herein shall be deemed to be non-est and not given effect to. Fresh seniority list be finalised at the earliest and if possible within a period of three months from today. Till the finalisation of the seniority list, the parties shall be permitted to hold the posts presently held by them. 14. No costs.
-
1999 (9) TMI 968 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... r into a loan transaction and mortgage the property and claim the benefit of the deduction of the repayment of the loan. 13. For the reasons indicated hereinabove, we have to reject the contention of the assessee that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or even the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Act come to the assistance of the assessee for the deductibility of the amount of ₹ 1,37,50,000 in the computation of capital gains. The BIFR Act, to our mind, operates in an altogether different field and it in no way enables the assessee to claim the deduction for the repayment of a mortgage debt in the computation of the capital gains. We cannot see the provisions of the BIFR Act as in any way impeding the working out of the provisions of the Income-tax Act in respect of the computation of capital gains. For the above reasons, we reject the contentions of the assessee and uphold the orders of the revenue authorities. 14. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 967 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... deputation in the service of Nigam. It is apparent that he was absorbed from 19.11.90 because from that date his deputation allowance was also discontinued. If he was to be continued on deputation, there was no reason for non-payment of deputation allowance. So on the basis of statutory rules as well as the policy, appellant stand absorbed in the service of Nigam. In this view of the matter, these appeals are allowed, the impugned order dated 9.4.1997 passed by the High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 19892 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 7640 of 1995 is quashed and set aside. The impugned order dated 11th July, 1995 relieving the appellant from the post which he was holding in the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 1-Nigam is directed to pass order on or before 31st December, 1999 absorbing the appellant at appropriate place and from appropriate date in accordance with the Rules. There will be no order as to costs,
-
1999 (9) TMI 966 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... granted after taking conscious decision on the matters involved. Section 4-A (3) of the Act does not constitute the Commissioner as a revising authority. As is evident, in the present case the State Level Committee had taken a conscious decision that the period of exemption and the date of its commencement shall remain the same as mentioned in the eligibility certificate originally granted. There was in my view neither jurisdiction nor justification for interfering with the said decisions particularly after the lapse of about four years. 11. In view of the above discussions, the Commissioner order under Section 4-A (3) was unjustified and illegal and the Tribunal's order upholding the same is also not legally sustainable. 12. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed and setting aside the Tribunal's order under revision, it is ordered that the aforesaid appeal of the dealer stands allowed and the Commissioner's order dated 22nd February, 1997 stands quashed.
........
|
