|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 565 Records
-
2001 (10) TMI 1199 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s in the suit till the Tahasildar/appellate authority disposes of the proceeding under the statute. It is held in that proceeding that the debtor is not entitled to the benefit under the Act then the civil suit may be proceeded with, if on the other hand it is held that the debtor is entitled to the benefits provided in the Act then the suit has to be dismissed under section 4. In no case can it be held that by filing a civil suit for realisation of the mortgage amount the proceeding pending before the Tahsildar or the appellate authority is to be dismissed without adjudication. 24. On the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs the inescapable conclusion is that the judgment of the learned single judge as confirmed by the Division Bench is unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment under challenge is set aside. Hearing fee is assessed at ₹ 10,000/-. 25. We are beholden to Shri S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate for the assistance rendered to us in the case.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1198 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r such material is essential for the just decision of the case. Even a reading of Section 311 of the Code would show that Parliament has studded the said provision lavishly with the word "any" at different places. This would also indicate the widest range of power conferred on the court in that matter. It is so stated by this court in Ram Chander v. State of Haryana 1981CriLJ609. 7. We are of the opinion that the learned single judge of the High Court has improperly interfered with the order passed by the trial court. It is unfortunate that even after his attention was drawn to the decision of this court in Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell 1999CriLJ3529 he has chosen to sideline the dictum contained therein. 8. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. If the accused is desirous of cross-examining the complainant on the basis of the new material produced, it is open to him to make a motion before the court for that purpose.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1197 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... neous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. It has been held by this court that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue-Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT 1968 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT 1973 88 ITR 323 (SC). Since two views are possible on the overriding nature of the provisions of Section 209(3) of the Companies Act, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision clearly applies, and the provisions of Section 263 are not attracted. 12. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 , and restore the assessments made by the Assessing Officer for both the years. 13. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1196 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he criminal proceeding or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly actuated with malafide and has been initiated maliciously with the ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 10. Applying the aforesaid test, it cannot be said that the complaint filed by the appellant did not disclose the commission of an offence or there existed any other circumstance which can be made the basis for quashing the proceedings. In fact allegations made in the complaint required adjudication and the complaint could not have been aborted it the manner it has been done by the High Court vide the impugned order. 11. The impugned judgment being contrary to the settled position of law is thus not sustainable. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside by upholding the order of the Trial Magistrate dated 3.8.1998. The Trial Magistrate shall now proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1195 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... K. Sharma, Adv., Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Adv., Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Adv., Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv., Ms. Indu Malhotra, Adv., Mr. D.N. Mishra, Adv., Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv., Mr. R.P. Wadhwani, Adv., Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy, Adv., Mr. Pravir Choudhary, Adv., Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Adv., Ms. Seema Sharma, Adv., Mr. D.A. Dave, Sr. Adv., Mr. A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vinay Garg, Adv., Mr. Deepam Garg, Adv. For the State of UP Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. A.S. Pundir, Adv. ORDER Permission to place additional documents on record is granted. Interlocutory applications for intervention, impleadment and substitution are dismissed. Interlocutory application for deletion of the name of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 in Civil Appeal Nos.52-54- 56-58, 60-61 and 63 of 1998 is allowed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the court reserved its judgment, except in Writ Petition (C) No. 133 of 1998. Writ Petition (C) No. 133 of 1998 is dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the signed order.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1194 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ting pension are not merely based on the fact that the appellants were punished by Court Martial, as assumed by the High Court. Moreover, by issuing show-cause notices giving opportunity to the respondents to explain the circumstances and their hardship before passing the impugned order, the principles of natural justice were also complied. In the given circumstances when the impugned orders forfeiting pension were passed in the discretion of the authorities exercising the power available under the Regulations, we cannot find fault with them. Thus, the orders passed are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. In this view, we do not find any error or infirmity or illegality in passing the said orders. 26. Having regard to the provisions and position of law, the discussion made and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find merit in these appeals and they deserve to be accepted, Hence, the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside and the appeals are allowed. No costs.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1193 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ORDER Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1192 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion, the petitioners are well within the said definition and, therefore, there cannot be any exemption whatsoever in respect of petitioner No. 1. In my opinion, the question is to see the rendering of the service in what capacity--if it is consulting engineer in my opinion certainly they will attract the said definition whether it is an individual, or a firm or a company and furthermore, where the knowledge of such service based upon knowledge in engineering then automatically they must come within the purview of the said section and it cannot be said that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal and in my opinion the petitioner cannot get any benefit by merely corning within the purview of the Companies Act. Therefore, I specifically hold that the petitioners are rendering service as a consulting engineer within the meaning of Section 65(72)(g) of the Finance Act. Therefore, in my opinion, the application cannot be entertained and is hereby dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1191 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... udge at Pathankot is received." 16. Pursuant to the same, the Sub-Judge submitted a report, which also goes against the appellant. 17. We are unable to say that the concurrent finding recorded by both the Disciplinary Committees against the appellant as to his professional misconduct, is a finding based on no evidence or is based on mere conjuncture and unwarranted inference. Hence the same cannot be disturbed. 18. What remains to be seen whether the punishment imposed on the appellant is grossly disproportionate. Having regard to the nature of misconduct and taking note of the handicap of the appellant, in our opinion, debarring him from practising for all time is too harsh. We consider it just and appropriate to modify the punishment to debar the appellant from practising upto end of December, 2006. Except the modification of punishment as stated above, the impugned order remains undisturbed in all other respects. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1190 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the Court.” 6. We further find that the High Court has issued a direction to the appellants herein to locate the zonal office of the Railways at Bangalore. Apart from the fact that in matters of policy the court will not interfere, such a direction could under no circumstances have been issued. If a case had been made out, and in this case no such case had been made out, that a decision to locate at Hubli was not in accordance with law, then the only direction which could have been issued by the court was to consider as to where the headquarters should be located. It is not the function of the court to decide the location or the situs of the headquarters, it is the function of the Government. On this ground also, the decision of the High Court is incorrect. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside, the result of which would be that the writ petition filed by the respondents would stand dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1189 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ves to be remanded to the Tribunal for examining the controversies before it afresh in light of the observations made in this judgment. 16. Before parting with the matter, it may be recorded, in fairness to Mr Kureshi, learned counsel for the revenue, that the learned counsel had right from the outset submitted that the theory of device which had appealed to the Assessing Officer had not been examined by the Tribunal and, therefore, the matter was required to be remanded to the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority. The concessions attributed by my learned Brother to Mr Kureshi were more in the nature of acknowledgements that the learned counsel had not looked for the answers to the queries being posed to him, because queries pertaining to questions of fact and mixed questions of law and fact may better be first considered and decided by the final fact finding authority viz. the Tribunal. 17. The reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1188 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is aspect in the case of Sakthi Trading Co. v. CIT 2001 250 ITR 871 1. The Court therein noticed the earlier decisions of the Apex Court which had held that the valuation should be on that basis, the decisions so referred to being the cases of A.L.A. Firm v. CIT 1991 189 ITR 2852, Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT 1953 24 ITR 481 and Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT 1953 24 ITR 506 . The Supreme Court in the case of Sakthi Trading Co. (supra) after the review of the law held as under ". . . Even as per the principles laid down in A.L.A. Firm’s case 1991 189 ITR 285 (SC) in such a case the closing stock is to be valued at the cost or market price, whichever is lower. That is an established rule of commercial practice and accountancy. . . ." (p. 878) 4. The answer to the second question as to whether the opening stock of the chicks as also the closing stock should be on the basis of realisable value is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1187 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ct matter of the Award being within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court would have no jurisdiction to hear and decide this petition. 5. Lastly, even otherwise, from the reading of the language of Clause 12 leave has to be sought before the application under Section 47 is made. In the instant case, leave was sought after the application was made. It is settled law in this Court that such application is not maintainable. In the light of that, application for leave must be rejected. Once the application for leave is rejected and once it is held that subject matter of the Award is not within the jurisdiction of this Court, the petition itself before this Court is not maintainable and consequently is liable to be rejected being without jurisdiction. On the petitioners filing zerox copies of the original documents filed before this Court office to return original to the petitioners to enable them to take out appropriate proceedings before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1186 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... l neglect on the part of the assessee. In the case of Devandas Perumal & Co. (supra), the Bombay High Court held that the mere fact that Income-tax Officer proceeded to estimate the net profit at a figure higher than what was disclosed by the assessee would not lead to the conclusion that there was a failure to return the correct income arising out of fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee. Under the circumstances, the decision in the case of Smt. Chandrakanta (supra) has no relevance to the facts of the present case. The third case of Param Anand Builders (P.) Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the DR is on the application of provisions of section 145 of the Act. Hence not relevant to the issue under consideration. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any justification for levying the penalties. The same are therefore deleted. The findings of the learned CIT(Appeals) are therefore reversed. 16. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1185 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ection 304 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. In Yogendra Morarji's this Court has also observed that this was a circumstances which could be taken into account in mitigation of the sentence. For the foregoing reasons Criminal Appeal No. 320/2000 filed by Kashiram, Teekaram, Suresh, Ratna @ Ratanlal and Nanakram is allowed. Criminal Appeal No. 63/2000 filed by accused Ramesh is partly allowed. All the convictions recorded and sentences passed by the High Court are set aside. Instead accused Ramesh is held liable to conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC on two heads. He is convicted accordingly and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment each on the two counts. His conviction and sentence under Section 27 Arms Act is maintained. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Accused Ramesh shall surrender to serve the sentence if not already served out. All the other accused-appellants, i.e. other than Ramesh, are acquitted. Their bail bonds are discharged.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1184 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uit would be maintainable or not, it is stated that plaintiff is always at liberty to move application for amendment of plaint and omit any of the reliefs claimed by her at any stage by making a prayer to the trial Court in this regard. I have no manner of doubt that if such an application is made to the trial Court, it shall allow the plaintiff to amend his plaint and in that eventuality defendants shall also have an opportunity to file written statement to the amended plaint by taking all defences available to them including the one that suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. On completion of the pleadings, trial Court shall frame an issue in regard to sufficiency of court fee leviable on the memorandum of suit and decide the same on merits along with other issues after affording the parties to lead evidence in support of the same. 17. The present civil revisions are disposed of in the terms indicated above. Revisions dismissed of.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1183 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or suffer from the vice of bias or partiality. That is why obligation is cast upon the Arbitrator to assessed and evaluate the claims and counter-claims of the parties after providing them substantially effective and full opportunity to prove them. 9. The foregoing principles and reasons persuade me to allow the objections and set aside the award and remit it to the Arbitrator for re-decision. 10. However it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Arbitrator is no more on the panel of the respondent and, therefore, as per terms of the contract the respondent be given liberty to appoint any other Arbitrator who is on the panel. The request is allowed. The respondent shall appoint the Arbitrator within one month and the parties shall appear before the Arbitrator under intimation to the petitioner on 18th December, 2001 for the aforesaid proceedings. All the records shall be transmitted to the Arbitrator well in time. 11. The suit stands disposed off.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1182 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... les, bye-laws and regulations would not be available to be chosen for defending the officers employees facing enquiries and consequently there is no reason or justification whatsoever to erase the amendment from the Rule book on a mere apprehension that, otherwise, it is likely prejudice and adversely affect the officers facing charges in effectively defending themselves. 8. In our view, the circumstances, which necessitated the amendment on the suggestion emanating from the Government of India in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, appear to be not only genuine and reasonable but the amendment made is also just, proper and necessary in public interest. Consequently, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court that the amendment suffers the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The judgment of the High Court is hereby set aside. The appeals shall stand allowed and the Writ Petitions filed in the High Court shall stand dismissed. No costs.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1180 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ations, we find satisfactory explanation from the respondents. Under these circumstances, in the absence of any other material suggesting that there could be instances of siphoning off of funds requiring investigation, we cannot order investigation. Further, in view of the petitioner having majority on the Board, it can have a special audit carried out and can take further action on the basis of that report. In a similar case, wherein a Government undertaking had majority on the Board and sought for investigation into the affairs of that company as in the present case, this Board declined to consider that prayer A.P. State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Delta Oil Co. Ltd. (1997) 3 Comp LJ 146 (CLB) . From the reply of the respondents, we find that the project could not take off due to causes beyond the control of the respondents. 7. This petition is dismissed for want of proper adequate material to enable us to form an opinion that an order of investigation should be made.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1179 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... and its connected documents. We find no merit in the same which is, accordingly, dismissed.
........
|
