|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 697 Records
-
2001 (8) TMI 1372 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ment of the consideration for the shares, the company will reduce its share capital to the extent of the face value of the shares. In case, the sale of shares in Skycell had not taken place by that time, the consideration for the shares will be made within 30 days of sale of the shares in Skycell. Since we have held that the stand of the company that the petitioners had vacated the office of directors under section 283(1)(g) is not in accordance with that section, we could have declared them to be the directors of the company till their shares are purchased but we only direct that till the consideration is paid, the company should furnish copies of all the Board minutes to the petitioners, so that they are kept in knowledge of the affairs of the company. They will also be entitled to receive notices for all the general meetings of the company till then. 64. With the above directions the petition is disposed of without any order as to cost. All the interim orders are vacated.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1371 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is filed then the Court would have no discretion but to set aside the sale. That does not mean that if the deposit is made after 30 days the Court could not entertain the application. If the deposit is made beyond the period of 30 days, but within the period of 60 days, then it will be within the discretion of the Court whether or not to grant the application. Thus, an application can be made within the period prescribed under Article 127, Limitation Act. As an application can be made within 60 days and, as stated above, no period for making a deposit is prescribed under Order XXI Rule 92(2) the deposit can also be made within 60 days. In our view, therefore, the view expressed in P.K. Unni’s case that Order XXI Rule 92(2) C.P.C. prescribes a period of limitation for making a deposit is not correct. 19. In this view of the matter, we see no merits in the Appeal. We see no infirmity in the impugned Order. The Appeal stands dismissed. There will be no Order as to costs.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1370 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tive Assembly, without getting elected in the meanwhile was improper, undemocratic, invalid and unconstitutional. His reappointment is accordingly set aside though at this point of time, it is of no consequence. We have dealt with the issue because of its importance. The Division Bench of the High Court fell in error in dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant in limine. Since we have held that reappointment of Shri Tej Parkash Singh as a Minister in the State of Punjab with effect from 23.11.1996 was invalid and unconstitutional, we consider it appropriate to observe, with a view to avoid reopening of settled matters, that this judgment shall not render any order made or action taken by Shri Tej Parkash Singh, as a Minister, after his reappointment to the Council of Ministers, as bad or invalid only on account of his reappointment as a Minister having been found to be invalid. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed in the terms indicated above with cost.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1369 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ad risen astronomically in the last few years and it would do injustice to the respondent to compel her to re-convey property at prices fixed in 1978. The argument is specious. Where the Court is considering whether or not to grant a decree for specific performance for the first time, the rise in the price of the land agreed to be conveyed may be a relevant factor in denying the relief of specific performance. See K.S. Vidyanadam and Others V. Vairavan 1997 (3) SCC 1 . But in this case, the decree for specific performance has already been passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the first appellate Court. The only question before us is whether the High Court in second appeal was correct in reversing the decree. Consequently the principle enunciated in K.S. Vidyanadam (supra) will not apply. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. We set aside the judgment of the High Court and uphold the decision of the first appellate Court but there will be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1368 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a Rent Act having only protective right, withdrawal of such protection would not confer on a landlord a vested right to evict a tenant under Rent Act except where sub-clause (c) of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is applicable. In view of these findings we hold landlord has a right under the repealed Rent Act by virtue of Section 6 (c) of the General Clauses Act, which would save the pending proceedings before the Rent Controller, which may continue to be proceeded with as if repealed Act is still in force. In view of our aforesaid findings, since Rent Controller has the jurisdiction over the subject-matter, it will not be right for the landlord to continue with two parallel proceedings; one under the General Law and other before the Rent Controller. Hence we further order that the respondent-landlord to withdraw one of the two proceedings within a period of 6 weeks from today. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeals fail and are dismissed. Costs on the parties.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1367 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... necessary implication prohibited the assessment. We cannot read the words which do not exist into the stay order. The order of stay has to be construed on its own terms. At best, the competent authority should have deferred the assessment proceedings on the ground of pendency of the writ petitions after giving notice to the assessee. But, the assessing authority, should not have taken it for granted that the interim order passed in W.P.Nos. 4734 and 4735 of 1988 created a bar against the assessment. 14.. For the reasons stated above, the impugned deferment order as well as the order of the learned single Judge are set aside and the respondents are restrained from making any assessment at this stage on account of expiry of the period of limitation. However, it is made clear that this judgment shall not in any way absolve the appellant of the liability to pay the admitted tax as per the returns. 15.. Writ appeals are allowed. We make no order as to costs. Writ appeals allowed.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1366 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... nder section 3(4) of the Act is prospective in nature, as prayed for. Nothing was shown that there was any violation of articles 14 or 141 of the Constitution of India in passing the impugned order of assessment dated June 20, 2001. There is absolutely no case to quash the order in TNGST 1880011/98-99 dated June 20, 2001 on any of the grounds urged by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the original petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal against the order of assessment. The time spent in pursuing the matter before this Special Tribunal shall be excluded for the purpose of calculation of limitation to file the statutory appeal. The original petition is disposed of in the above terms. 23.. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. 24.. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on 20th day of August, 2001. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1365 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... correct interpretation of section 5-C and the effect of the two circulars dated April 12, 1996 and October 23, 1999. (f) As the correctness of the orders of assessment/reassessment or revisional orders, is not examined in this order, it is open to such of the petitioners who are aggrieved by any order to file appeals before the appropriate authority as per law, and if such appeals are filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, they shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation. (g) In cases where notices are challenged, petitioners are given four weeks time from the date of receipt of this order to file objections. The concerned authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in the light of this judgment. (h) The circular dated October 23, 1999 will not however enable the assessing authority to reopen the assessments which have attained finality in accordance with law. (i) Parties to bear their respective costs. Petitions allowed in part
-
2001 (8) TMI 1364 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te delay. It is further seen that every year raising the same contentions writ petitions are moved on the very same plea of inter-State sale in order to obtain interim orders to furnish bank guarantee in spite of final orders having been passed in the earlier writ petitions on merits. The petitioners are emboldened to move the second writ petition after the dismissal of the earlier writ petition to take a chance in order to get an interim order only. By this process, they need not pay the 8 per cent tax which runs into several lakhs for the present (the bank guarantee need not be encashed which has to be done after the dismissal of the writ petition). This is nothing but an abuse of the process of this Court. 9.. For the above reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the writ petitions are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 22101 and 22102 of 2001 are closed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1363 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sed ball point pens for long enough to be able to give an authoritative opinion. As we see it, the ball point refill is the substitute for the ink that is filled from time to time in a fountain pen and it provides the ball or nib thereof. While the refill can write, it is not intended to be used, and cannot conveniently be used, for that purpose without being first inserted in the ball point pen. We do not think, therefore, that the High Court was right in overturning the view taken by the Tribunal that the refill fell outside the scope of the said entry. 15.. From the above it is clear that what constitutes the ball point pen is a refill with a cover (ball point pen holder) but not either of the above parts individually. Therefore, the view, which we have already expressed, does not require any modification. 16.. Under the above circumstances, we affirm the order of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1362 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ucknow or pass any appropriate orders in accordance with law. Consequently, the appeals shall be deemed to have been restored before the Tribunal and the interim orders passed in the appeals shall also become effective henceforth. 18.. Since the revision has been decided, no interim order as prayed can be passed but as the judgment and order passed by Member of Trade Tax Tribunal has been set aside, the appeals before the Tribunal shall remain pending and shall be deemed to have been pending with all interim orders which were in existence during pendency of the appeals earlier before this decision, till the same are redecided. The parties shall appear before the Trade Tax Tribunal on 3rd September, 2001. 19.. A copy of this order will be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, on payment of usual charges. 20.. A copy of this order shall also be sent through Registrar of this Court to the President, Trade Tax Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow, for compliance. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1361 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... they did not fall within section 5A(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and did not attract the tax payable. The same was the position regarding the lime shells and the consumed stores which were only used in the maintenance of the kiln and the factory and were not used in the manufacture of the end-product . On the above reasoning, it cannot be possible to say that water is used as a raw material. 7.. In the above view of the matter, we are of the view that it was not proper on the part of the assessing authority to reject the accounts submitted by the petitioner. Hence, the orders passed by the assessing authority and the other authorities are set aside and the assessing authority is directed to make assessment as per the return filed by the assessee. Tax revision cases are disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 2202 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 176 of 2001 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 2199 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 174 of 2001 dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1360 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd hence that should be treated as the starting period. The small-scale industrial units whose turnover is below Rs. 50 lakhs are entitled to reduction in tax from April 1, 1995. But such units may cross sometimes Rs. 50 lakhs. It is stated that for the first year in which Rs. 50 lakhs crosses, higher rate will be applied only for the turnover in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs. Hence, the first year will be the first year with respect to S.R.O. No. 429 of 1995. If that is taken into account, according to us, the assessee will be entitled to the benefit of the explanation. 4.. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and hold that the assessee will be entitled to the benefit of the explanation for the assessment year 1995-96. Since the matter has been remanded to the assessing authority, the assessing authority will take this into account. T.R.C. is allowed. Order on C.M.P. No. 2062 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 156 of 2001 dismissed. Tax revision case allowed.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1359 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tered under the Excise Act for manufacture of LDPE granules and its raw material is also LDPE granules as mentioned in the previous para. We therefore have no hesitation in holding that the appellant s product also falls under entry 186, sub-item (i) and is not liable to tax a second time if the LDPE granules and the additives have already suffered tax within the State. Despite the addition of EVA which is co-polymer, the appellant s product remains organically LDPE which is a homo-polymer covered by sub-item (i) of entry 186 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act. 3.. The reasons stated by the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to record the above factual finding cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence . Therefore, no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal dated April 20, 1998, warranting exercise of the power conferred upon this Court under section 22(1) of the APGST Act. The T.R.Cs. are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1358 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rnment has cabined, controlled or confined their discretion. No other point was raised. 42.. In view of the above, we hold that (i) The purchase of paddy by the petitioners in these cases is not exempt from the levy of tax. The case does not fall within the parameters of sections 5 of the Central Act and 12 of the State Act. (ii) The petitioners have an effective alternative remedy under the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act in so far as the challenge to the orders of assessment, etc., is concerned. They are relegated to the remedy under the statute. (iii) The instructions issued by the authority vide letter dated November 29, 2000 suffer from no infirmity of law so as to call for any interference by this Court. 43.. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed subject to the condition that the petitioners will be entitled to file appeal against the order of assessment. In the circumstances of these cases, we make no order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1357 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that in paragraph 6 of the petition, there is categorical averment that the petitioner had written to the department vide letter dated August 31, 1992 that the amount may be refunded. This averment has not been clearly denied in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents. It has not been stated that the letter was not received. Still further, the petitioner had given a reminder on June 7, 1999. Nothing was done. It is only after the filing of the petition that the amount of Rs. 60,874 was refunded to the petitioner. 10.. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of interest as per the provisions of section 25 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 from the date the refund became due till the date of actual payment, viz., March 23, 2001. The respondents are directed to make the payment within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11.. The petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1356 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... law then prevailing is also not acceptable to us. Should it be noticed at the threshold that the orders made by the Tribunal or the High Court are not final under the Constitution. The order made by the Tribunal is subject to the revisional power of this Court under section 22 of the Act. Similarly the judgments and orders made by this Court are subject to further judicial review by the Supreme Court. If a litigant knowing fully well about this position does not question the order of the Tribunal before this Court or an order of this Court before the Supreme Court and acquiesces to such orders, he cannot be permitted to later reagitate against the order in which he has acquiesced solely on the basis of change of law brought about at the behest of someone else. 22.. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these C.M.Ps., and they are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the tax revision cases also stand dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1355 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ts and circumstances of this case. In that case the Assessing Authority, after rejecting the dealer s application for adjournment, had straightaway framed the assessment to the best of his judgment. The dealer was not confronted with the proposed estimate of turnover. In the present case the Assessing Authority had duly issued the memorandum dated January 25, 1983 (annexure P1) notifying the petitioner that in case it did not avail of the opportunity to produce its accounts and other records on January 31, 1983, he would finalise the assessment at the gross turnover of Rs. 60,00,000. The petitioner neither produced the accounts nor objected to this estimate. In fact, it did not respond to the aforesaid notice at all. Thus no grievance can now be made against the estimate of turnover. 17.. In the result, I find no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1354 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ner was illegal. In this case also, the same question arises. Since already this has been considered by the assessing authority and the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that it was not proper on the part of the Deputy Commissioner to invoke his power under section 35(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. 6.. In the above view of the matter, we are of the view that the question of suppression was considered on the basis of the inspection that was conducted on November 28, 1992. The Commissioner cannot reopen the proceedings on the basis that in the Income-tax proceedings the assessee had disclosed a profit of Rs. 1,50,000. The assessee has only disclosed only on the basis of the inspection that was held on November 28, 1992. Hence, we are of the view that it was not right on the part of the Deputy Commissioner to interfere. Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. T.R.C. is allowed. Order on C.M.P. No. 89 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 8 of 2001 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (8) TMI 1353 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erefore, the original petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under section 17(3) of the Act on exhibit P5 representation. This shall be done within a period of three months from today. While considering exhibit P5 representation, the petitioner will be afforded an opportunity for a hearing and the entire materials produced by the petitioner will be adverted to. Till such time orders are passed on exhibit P5 after the enquiry conducted by the first respondent, further proceedings for sale of the property attached as per exhibits P3 and P4 will be deferred. It is made clear that it will be open to the respondents to proceed against the other partners of the firm or the assets of the partnership firm. 3.. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment as also a copy of the original petition before the first respondent. Order on C.M.P. No. 39727 of 2001 in O.P. No. 24227 of 2001-H dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly.
........
|
