|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 663 Records
-
2004 (8) TMI 695 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ondoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 694 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the compensation could be awarded in a suit for specific performance without making a claim of compensation either in the original plaint or by amending the plaint during the course of the proceedings?
Whether the Court has the power to award compensation in a suit for Specific Performance, where the plaintif has not specifically prayed for it in the plaint?
-
2004 (8) TMI 693 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... om those of the present case and therefore, in our opinion, the observations made in that decision, would not assist the petitioner company in the present case. 24. In the light of the above discussions, the revision petition requires to be allowed in part. Accordingly, the following ORDER 1. The order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 253/2001 dated 20.7.2002 is set aside except that portion of the order, where the Tribunal has granted relief to the petitioner company and also the direction issued by it to the assessing authority to bring to tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act the turnovers of electrical works and the transformers, which according to it is not part of the wind mill. II. The matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to redo the assessment in the light of the observations made in the course of the Order. III. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (8) TMI 692 - SUPREME COURT
Whether notifications issued by the Food (Health) Authority under Section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by which the manufacture, sale, storage and distribution of pan masala and gutka (pan masala containing tobacco) were banned for different periods valid?
-
2004 (8) TMI 691 - SUPREME COURT
Whether as interest at the rate of 18% has already been paid on the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh (2004 (3) TMI 753 - SUPREME COURT) no refund can be claimed?
-
2004 (8) TMI 690 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... o interfere. The Civil Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 689 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the decree passed by the trial court can be said to be 'null and 'void'?
Whether the decree sought to be executed against the petitioners - respondents herein - as void ab initio?
-
2004 (8) TMI 688 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a mere contract of sale is incapable of creating any right or title in favour of the transferee?
-
2004 (8) TMI 687 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), BANGALORE-I
... ...
... ... ..... the case carefully. The appellants received facilitation charges from their joint venture unit. It was submitted that these charges are reimbursed by the joint venture unit to the appellants for having provided factory building, lab testing facilities, diesel generator expenses, security guard, clearing and house keeping charges etc. These cannot be considered as Management Consultancy Service. In other words, providing certain facilities to the joint venture unit does not mean that the appellant had rendered some consultancy or advice to them. Moreover, the show cause notice has demanded the service tax under Section 68. The adjudicating authority has also confirmed it under Section 68. This is very fatal to the department’s case. Whenever there is escapement of service tax the same can be demanded only under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. In view of these facts, the Order-in-Original deserves to be set aside. ORDER I allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2004 (8) TMI 686 - SUPREME COURT
Whether to the effect of Section 70 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the '1999 Act' or the 'New Act') on the proceedings pending before this Court?
Whether if the proceedings continue to survive unabated for adjudication on merits whether a ground for eviction under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, hereinafter, the '1961 Act' or the 'Old Act'?
-
2004 (8) TMI 685 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is to be restored?
-
2004 (8) TMI 684 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... company and the petitioning creditor. Were the proof of the debt made indisputable, the Court would be compelled to admit the winding up petition. That it has been admitted by the first Court is not because of use of any discretion in this regard; it could be admitted only upon a finding that the debt is indisputable and the defence of the company is bogus, mala fide or moonshine. These words are not used, and the purport of His Lordship's judgment is not exactly, but only nearly the same. For the reasons given above we are, with all due respect, unable to agree with His Lordship. The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The winding up petition shall stand and remain adjourned until the disposal of the suit, i.e., the company's claim and the petitioning creditor's counter-claim. 66. Costs both the Court below and before us will abide by the result of the suit. 67. Authenticated copies of the judgment may issue. Arun Kumar Mitra, J. 68. I agree.
-
2004 (8) TMI 683 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... findings of fact by the Tribunal, we see no reason to interfere. The Civil Appeals are dismissed. These shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 682 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment?
Whether the offences registered against him are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him?
-
2004 (8) TMI 681 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in fact the appellant in its newly established industry manufactures a product which is commercially different from the product manufactured in its pre-existing unit of manufacturing Hot Rolled Product (HRP)?
Held that:- The material produced before the Joint Commissioner was in our opinion sufficient to decide whether the product manufactured by the appellant is CRM or not and the said Joint Commissioner having given a positive finding and that finding having not been interfered with by the Commissioner, we think the High Court erred in remanding the matter for fresh inquiry.
We are convinced that the issue before the High Court was not whether in fact the new unit of the appellant manufactures HRM or CRM. That being the case, the High Court ought not to have raised the issue suo motu and remanded the matter to the Commissioner. Appeal allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. We restore the proposal made by the Joint Commissioner for grant of exemption certificate to the appellant as also the exemption certificates granted consequently.
-
2004 (8) TMI 680 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n Institute of Architects v. Union of India 2002 258 ITR 209 (Mad) and connected matters (judgment dated October 12, 2001, per V.S. Sirpurkar and A. Kulasekaran JJ.) was also cited before us. We respect fully agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court, for upholding the constitutional validity of service tax, so far as practising chartered accountants are concerned. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law we have no hesitation in holding that the aforesaid provisions are not unconstitutional. Though we have held that the provisions are not unconstitutional, we may proceed to state that if there is any other individual grievance relating to any other aspect or spectrum it is open to the petitioner to agitate the same by filing proper show cause before the competent authorities and putting forth such pleas that are available to them. We say so as we have not dwelled upon the said aspects. Accordingly the writ petitions are disposed of without any order as to costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 679 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s and meaning of the expression defined in the dictionaries, we are of the view that in the present case, the revisional authority could not have come to the conclusion that proof machining undertaken by the petitioner-company to remove the forging scales and uneven surface would change the character of the forgings prepared and sold by the petitioner-company. In view of the above conclusion of ours, we cannot sustain the findings of the Tribunal, which has confirmed the findings of the revisional authority. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. Nos. 247 and 248 of 2001, dated October 26, 2002 and the order passed by the revisional authority for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, dated December 8, 2000 are set aside. The orders made by the assessing authority for the assessment year 1990-91, dated May 29, 1992 and for the assessment year 1991-92, dated August 12, 1992 are restored. Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (8) TMI 678 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner has been rejected. Section 25 of the Act clearly postulates that every pending appeal immediately before the constitution of the Appellate Authority shall stand transferred to the said authority on the date on which it is established. It is not in dispute that the appellate authority was established vide notification dated December 3, 2001. Accordingly, Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on March 27, 2002. We are of the view that the petition deserves to succeed. We, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, dated March 27, 2002 (annexure P3) and November 24, 2003 (annexure P4). Since under the statutory provisions the appeal stands automatically transferred to the appellate authority, the petitioner is directed to appear before the appellate authority on September 7, 2004 for further proceedings. The writ petition stands allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 677 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ind from section 14A of the MPGST Act, 1958 that if the registered dealer purchased the goods at concessional rates and used such goods contrary to the declaration or certificate (of self use), he shall be liable to pay the tax on the purchase price of such goods at full rate mentioned in column (3) of Schedule II. Therefore, apparently it cannot be said that the tax paid in excess of 4.5 per cent is paid under section 14A and not under section 6(1) of the MPGST Act, 1958. The effect of section 14A of the MPGST Act, 1958 is that on contravention by the registered dealer, he becomes liable to pay the full rate of tax under section 6(1) plus penalty, under section 14A of the MPGST Act, 1958. Therefore, we are satisfied that the substantial questions of law raised by the applicant arise for consideration. We accordingly allow these applications and direct the Tribunal to refer the aforesaid questions of law under section 70(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994.
-
2004 (8) TMI 676 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Rs. 99,492 demanded in exhibit P1 relates to the period only up to February 9, 1995. It is declared that the petitioner having paid the entire amount demanded in exhibit P1 inclusive of penal interest of Rs. 99,492 strictly as per the instalment facility granted in exhibit P2 Government Order, no interest can be demanded from the petitioner for the period after June 26, 1995. The second respondent will specify the amount of interest due as per the directions issued in this judgment and send an intimation to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter the petitioner has to make payment of such amount in two equal monthly instalments from the date of receipt of the intimation from the second respondent. Petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 8103 of 1996 in O.P. No. 4603 of 1996(W) closed.
........
|
