|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 473 Records
-
2000 (1) TMI 991 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der the influence of Air India and the Ministry of Civil Aviation. In a commercial transaction of a complex nature what may appear to be better, on the face of it, may not be considered so when an overall view is taken. In such matters the Court cannot substitute it's decision for the decision of the party awarding the contract. On the basis of the material placed on record we find that CIAL bona fide believed that involving a public sector undertaking and a national carrier would, in the long run, prove to be more beneficial to CIAL For all these reasons it is not possible to agree with the finding of the High Court that CIAL had acted arbitrarily and unreasonably and was also influenced by extraneous considerations during its decision making process 13. We, therefore, allow these two appeals, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 462 of 1999 and confirm the decision of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 25560 of 1998
-
2000 (1) TMI 990 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ance of interest receivable amounting to ₹ 43,630 from Trans Asian Carpets Ltd. sister concern though the Assessing Officer has given a clear finding that in the assessment order for not accepting assessee’s method of accounting of interest from this sister concern." 18. We have heard both the parties. We find that the issue is merely set aside by the CIT(A) to give a proper finding on the subject. The contention of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that the interest accrued to the company but it was not shown in its receipts because the company has been following cash system and such system has been consistently followed and accepted by the Department. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer has not discussed at all on this aspect. He, therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to consider this aspect. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Department.
-
2000 (1) TMI 989 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en to the High Court to record the reasons thereof. The present order of the High Court is one of setting aside the charge without stating any reason. But the direction to the Magistrate to consider the materials once again and then to frame a charge for the same offence (if the Magistrate reaches the opinion that there is ground for presuming the commission of offence) is simply to repeat what the Metropolitan Magistrate had done once at the first instance. To ask him to do the same thing over again is adding an unnecessary extra work on the trial court. Be that as it may, the State has not challenged the order of the High Court. Hence we are not in a position to set aside the impugned order of the High Court. We leave the order as such by making the aforestated observations. We leave it to the Metropolitan Magistrate to exercise his functions under Section 239 or 240 of the Code as he deems Fa in the light of the observations made above. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 988 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to the locus standi of the respondent in laying the claim has not been dealt with by the Commission at all. In the cause title, the respondent is shown to be an individual whereas in the statement of facts, the respondent is described as a company which is registered as a partnership firm engaged in business of exports and in the petition reference is made to the firm or the company and not to the individual. As to how a single individual person could have laid a claim on behalf of a firm is not clear to us at all. Whether he was a partner of the firm or he had the authority of the firm to lay the claim is not clear to us as these facts have not been pleaded. In these circumstances, the Commission had not duly applied its mind to the relevant aspects. Any one of the reasons given above is enough to reject the claim made by the respondent. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the Commission and dismiss the complaint filed by the respondent. No costs.
-
2000 (1) TMI 987 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ay condoned. The appeal is admitted. No Stay.
-
2000 (1) TMI 986 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ional Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (1999) 9 SC 377 this Court observed "It will be thus seen that High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when there is allegation that there is no industrial dispute and none apprehended which could be subject matter of reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. Here it is a question of jurisdiction of the industrial dispute, which could be examined by the High Court fa its writ jurisdiction. It is the existence of the industrial tribunal which would clothe the appropriate Government with power to make the reference and the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate it. If there is no industrial dispute in existence or apprehended appropriate government lacks power to make any reference." We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and restore that of the learned single Judge. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (1) TMI 985 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words "as soon as may be" in Clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest. If there is delay in considering the representation the Court can consider whether the delay was occasioned due to permissible reasons or unavoidable causes. In the present case there is absolutely no explanation for justifying the delay between 9th April, 1999 to 23rd April, 1999 and thereafter till 28th April, 1999. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Detaining Authority requires to be quashed and set aside. 5. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The order of detention is quashed and set aside and the appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case. 6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (1) TMI 984 - ANDHRA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in disposing of the applications are not prohibited factors and materials by the statute. The State Government, in my considered opinion, is entitled to take all such factors into consideration as the one taken in the case and those factors are relevant for the purpose of the disposal of the prospecting licence applications. The petitioner has neither any vested nor statutory right to get a prospecting licence. The statute and the Rules framed there under merely guarantee a fair consideration of the application for granting prospecting licence. That has been done. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been subjected to any unfair or arbitrary treatment by the first respondent-Government. Therefore, it would be safe to conclude that there is no infringement of any legally enforceable right of the petitioner. 53. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (1) TMI 983 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of Kerala State Electronic Corporation (supra) it is not open to the Central Excise Officer at the end of the appellants to reassess duty on the inputs received for the purpose of Modvat credit. It was held in Kerala State Electronic Corporation case that "if the duty paid on the inputs is found to be short or in excess of what is payable under the law, the resort can be had at the suppliers end under the provisions of Section 11A and 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act as the case may be by way of demand by the Authority or refund claimed by the supplier....... So far as taking up of Modvat credit at the time of receipt of the goods is concerned the same is permissible to the extent specified in the duty paying document under which goods have been received." Following the ratio of the decisions, the Modvat credit is available to the Appellants in respect of the duty paid on the packing and forwarding charges and accordingly the appeal filed by them is allowed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 982 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n it be said to be a tautology. We have also seen the Form of permit (Form P.Co. T.), meant in respect of a tourist vehicle, which is issued under Rule 72(l)(ix) and Rule 74(6) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. On seeing the different columns, we are unable to accede to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra, that carrying passengers beyond the number mentioned in Column 5, indicating the seating capacity, would be a violation of the conditions of permit relating to either the route or the area or the purpose for which the permit is granted. In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the impugned judgment and the detention of the vehicles has rightly been held to be unauthorised and consequently, the compensation awarded cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (1) TMI 981 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ice than the prevailing market rate. Further again non-joining of two remaining members to the Purchase Committee cannot be a ground for quashing the charge. After framing the charge and recording the evidence, if Court finds that other members of the Purchase Committee were also involved, it is open to the Court to exercise its power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Not only that, the Court erroneously considered the alleged statement of manufacturing company that quotations given by M/s Allied Medicine Agency, Indore were genuine without there being any cross-examination. The High Court ignored the allegation that many of the items have not been purchased and the amount is paid on bogus vouchers. Hence, there was no justifiable reason for the High Court to quash the charge framed by the trial court. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the High Court require to be quashed and set aside and we do so. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
-
2000 (1) TMI 980 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Delay condoned. The civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 979 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ier occasions, time was granted to learned counsel for the appellants to take instructions. Learned counsel states that no instructions have been received. The appeals are dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 978 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... DER Delay condoned. The civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Satish Chandra, learned senior counsel was in Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh, AIR (1992) SC 1604. This Court held that the High Court in the second appeal is not precluded from recording proper findings if the findings of the courts below were vitiated by non-consideration on relevant evidence or by essen- tially erroneous approach to the matter. In the case in hand nothing has been brought to our notice that the courts below did not consider relevant evidence on record or the approach to the matter was wrong. Therefore, the above decisions are aot applicable to the case in hand. For the reasons stated above we are of the considered opinion that the High Court in the second appeal erred in law by setting aside concur-rent findings of facts of the courts below by re-appreciating the entire evidence on record. In result appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the judgments and decrees of the courts below are restored. Cost on the parties.
-
2000 (1) TMI 976 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... safe to convict them only on the basis oft theConfessions of the co-accused. ' 38. In the result, these appeals are partly allowed. The Judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge, Dasignsted Court, Pune in Terrorist Sessions Case No. 32 of 1993 in favour of respondent Nos. I to 6 (A-1 to A-6) are set aside, Respondent NO. I Narendm Bhoir is convicted under Section -02 I.P.C. and santencad to suffer imprisonment for life. He is also cenvicted under Section 25(l)(a) of the Arms Act. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120-B and Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Respondent Nos. I to 6 are also convicted under Section 3(3) of the TADA Act and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 10 years. All of them are acquitted of other charges. Acquittal of the rest of the respondents 1s- confirmed andappeals against them. ace dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 975 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erred to above as the correct legal position. So the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has rightly set aside, as per the impugned order, the proceedings initiated by the special Court Specified under the Act. But we do not support the directions given by the learned Single Judge in his order that after committal of the case the special Court shall frame charge against the appellants. It is for the Special Court to decide regarding the action to be taken next, after hearing both sides as provided in Section 227 of the Code. No direction can be given to the Special Court at this premature stage as to what the court should adopt then. It is open to the appellants to raise all their contentions at that stage if they wish to make a plea for discharge. We make it clear that if any such plea is made the Judge of the Special Court shall pass appropriate orders untrammeled by the observations made in the impugned order. With the said directions and observations we disposed of this appeal.
-
2000 (1) TMI 974 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thus The High Courts in India are superior courts of record. They have original and appellate jurisdiction. They have inherent and plenary powers. Unless expressly or impliedly barred, and subject to the appellate or discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction." If such power of correcting its own record is denied to the High Court, when it notices the apparent errors its consequence is that the superior status of the High Court will dwindle down, Therefore, it is only proper to think that the plenary powers of the High Court would include the power of review relating to errors apparent on the face of record, In the aforesaid view of the matter we are not disposed to interfere with the impugned order though we are not deciding the question whether the failure to put forth a contention would amount to concession being made by the State counsel as envisaged in Section 8C(2) of the Act, In the result we dismiss this appeal.
-
2000 (1) TMI 973 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... about the taxability of transaction of supplies by the Government department be stayed. 7.. That order makes it succinctly clear that issues on which transfer application was made were debatable issue required consideration by the High Court, and taking a stand on such issue by the concerned assessee that such transactions are not sale transactions and are not exigible to tax is bona fide and not with a view to conceal the particulars of sale. Such a stand cannot be termed as frivolous. 8.. In these circumstances the conclusion reached by the Tribunal the order of the appellate authority that taking a bona fide stand on a debatable issue in the matter of taxability of transaction and acting in accordance with it cannot amount to concealment, and therefore, no penalty is leviable in respect thereof, was fully justified. I am in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Board. 9.. Hence, these revision petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 972 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rt in the case of Sahachari Udhyog Mandir 1986 61 STC 30 whether by the process an altogether different commercial commodity for specific utility had come into existence. 54.. Answer in each case will have to be reached in the light of facts and circumstances of that case depending upon the commodity, the process to which it is put, the use to which the goods in original form and to which in altered form can be put, the relevant scheme of the statute, in whose context the answer is to be found, so on and so forth applying the aforesaid test. In my opinion the process which is applied in the present case to large unspecified stones of all kinds results in altogether different commercial commodity for specific utility, distinct from the commodity that has undergone the process of crushing and grinding. 55. As a result of the aforesaid discussions, I find no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
........
|
