|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 365 Records
-
2001 (6) TMI 830 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ciple of criminal law that a penal provision of a statute has to be strictly constructed and if in a wider connotation it will amount disadvantage to the accused, such a wider connotation cannot be accepted. On a reading of section 138 of the N.I. Act it is clearly spelt out that a cheque must be drawn for discharge of the liability of the drawer of the cheque. In other words if he has drawn a cheque for the discharge of the liability of another person without creating any document, it will not and it would not come under section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. In view of this the cheque in question has not drawn for the discharge of the liability of the drawer namely petitioner No. 1 and no offence is made out under section 138 of the N.I. Act. 6. In the result, the Criminal Application is allowed and the Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). In the circumstances, no order as to costs. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order issued by Court Sheristedar.
-
2001 (6) TMI 829 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ract, it could not be treated to be a breach of contract committed by the respondents when the respondents are not found to have committed breach of contract. When the respondents were not guilty of having committed breach of contract, they would not be responsible and liable to compensate the appellate for the alleged loss caused to it when it purchased Item No. 2 from the open market. 55. In above view of the matter the judgment and decree of the trial Court refusing decree of the suit amount In favour of the appellant cannot be treated to be illegal and erroneous and, therefore, the same cannot be set aside, 56. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this appeal is without any merit and hence deserves to be dismissed. This appeal is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court are confirmed. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs so far as this appeal is concerned.
-
2001 (6) TMI 828 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... dered opinion that since the agreement entered into by the petitioner and the respondent does not contain the estimated value of the land described therein, the provision of rule 2 of Order XXXVI has not been fulfilled and as such the Court should not have assumed jurisdiction in view of rule 3 of Order XXXVI and consequently the judgment and decree passed by . the learned Trial Court is without jurisdiction and liable to be interfered in exercise of revisional power under Section 115 of the CPC and as such I am of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court assumed Jurisdiction quite illegally in deciding the reference. 12. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 13 of 1994 so far it relates to the land covered by the agreement entered into between the petitioner Shri Ramdhan Sinha and the respondent Notified Area Authority is hereby quashed/set aside. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 827 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion before this Court is not maintainable one, in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner has already approached the Sessions Court, Gulbarga, for the same relief and the Sessions Court has yet to decide the same. 9. At this stage, learned Counsel submits that he be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach this Court if need be. Permission is granted and the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 10. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner, the Sessions Court is directed to dispose of the application expeditiously within one week from the next date fixed, i.e., 8-6-2001. 11. Before parting with the case, I am very much pained to note the misleading attempt made by the Advocate before the Sessions Court as to the nature of the petition filed before this Court. Such misleading practice is deprecated. With these observations, this petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2001 (6) TMI 826 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ning the records by himself. 16. The above provision clearly shows that these are matters which are to be decided by the authority concerned but the same will not be relating to the dispute between two groups claiming to be in control of the union. In fact this is a civil dispute between the two groups of the same union fighting each other which can only be decided in a civil suit and not by representation particularly when the self same question was once decided pursuant to the decision of this Court. If the petitioner disputes an election in that event he is at liberty to approach the civil Court and thrash out his grievances. It is not necessary to go into the question of suppression of material facts at this stage since I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition on the other two grounds. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. Parties are to act on the xerox signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 825 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is liable to be set aside. On the same analogy, the search, seizure and arrest of the appellant under the provisions of the Customs Act without appraisal of his right to the accused under Section 102 of the Customs Act would become suspect and the conviction based on such search and seizure is liable to be set aside. In these circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant even under the provisions of the Customs Act is liable to be quashed and set aside. 17. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court against the appellant both under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act as well as under the provisions of the Customs Act are quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted and is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The travelling documents of the appellant which are produced on record at Exhibits 9, 10 and 11 are directed to be returned to the appellant forthwith.
-
2001 (6) TMI 824 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nt. There is otherwise nothing to suggest that the lease rent payable from the assessee during the period of first five years was not fair and reasonable. In these circumstances there does not appear to be any justification to coalesce these two agreements into one. As the matter stands, the assessee has claimed deduction of the contractual liability which not only accrued during the relevant previous years but was actually paid by the assessee to the lessor. In these circumstances, merely because in the books of account the assessee wrote off on average basis over a period of 15 years the deduction of lease rent as claimed by the assessee on the strength of accrual of contractual liability as per the agreement cannot be defeated. In this view of the matter, I endorse the decision taken in this respect in the order of the Hon'ble Vice President. 39. In respect of the other ground of appeal for asst. yr. 1996-97, I fully endorse the order of the Hon'ble Vice-President.
-
2001 (6) TMI 823 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... yment and then when there was no reasonable prospects for realisation, they approached the RBI for permission to write off these outstandings as bad debts. The RBI, in turn, advised them to take up this matter with the authorised dealer. The appellant have proposed to the authorised dealer PNB for writing off. The bank did not effect write off pending no objection from the respondents. On the other hand, the learned Adjudicating Officer erred in constituting this as a failure on the part of the appellant when he observed that RBI and the bank did not consider the request of the exporter to write off. This is not the correct perception of the facts as reflected in the records of the case. Nor the learned Adjudicating Officer has dealt with the evidence induced by the appellant indicating the efforts made by them for the realisation of the export proceeds. 7. In the facts and circumstances, and for the reasons stated above, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.
-
2001 (6) TMI 822 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as well as about the rate of interest. 15. We find that the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed with costs. 16. Before parting with this judgment we would like to note that the leaned counsel for respondent had raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the appellant had failed to file certified copy of the judgment under appeal. The appellant has filed an affidavit stating that the certified copy of the judgment dated 7th February, 2000 was applied for on 17th february, 2000 but the same is not yet ready and, Therefore, it has not been made available to the appellant so far. The appellant has annexed with the affidavit photocopy of the receipt issued by the registry of this court for the application for certified copy. The receipt shoes that the next date on which the delivery of the certified copy is likely to be given is 7th June, 2001. Accordingly the preliminary objection is not tenable and is disposed of as such.
-
2001 (6) TMI 821 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... outside the scope of clause 15 of the agreement. The Arbitrator cannot adjudicate upon the rights of third parties over the assets of the said two establishments. The positive stand of the Revision Petitioners themselves is that plaintiff cannot claim to treat the income from the said two concerns as income from English Boot House and mat they have no connection with each other, vide the counter filed in I.A.No.1644 of 1999. A perusal of the counter would disclose that the various defences taken by the Revision Petitioners would be totally outside the scope of reference to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator will have absolutely no jurisdiction to go into those issues and the liability of those two establishments to the plaintiff. 40. Therefore, in the result, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the refusal of the learned Subordinate Judge to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is also dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 820 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... observed by Viscount Simon L.C., in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Johnston 1942 AC 130 The law as to the reversal by a Court of appeal of an order made by a Judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case. 19. Further more, in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Its Mazdoor Sabha, (1980)ILLJ 137 SC it has clearly been held that the Court of Appeal would not interfere with an order when the order is not correct but would interfere only when it is clearly wrong. 20. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that even the factors relating to balance of convenience and inconvenience, lie in favour of maintaining the impugned order. We are further of the opinion that the plaintiff-appellant would not suffer irreparable damage if the order of injunction is not passed in its favour. Hence, the appeals are dismissed. No costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 819 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... to the existing shareholders or to such other party to whom the Board of Directors may agree." 6. A reading of this article would show that the shares under transfer are to be offered at the first instance to the existing shareholders. The reliance of the respondents that the board of directors of the company has the discretion to transfer, the shares 'to such other party to whom the board of directors may agree' would apply only after the shares had been offered at the first instance to the existing shareholders. Since in a private limited company the transfer of shares has to be in accordance with the articles as provided under section 82 of the Act and since the transfer of shares impugned in the petition is in violation of the provisions of article 6. we direct that the register of members be rectified by deleting the names of respondents 3 and 4 and inserting the name of the second respondent. This should be done within a month from the date of this order.
-
2001 (6) TMI 818 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the above discussion is that the impugned judgment of the trial court holding that a civil suit is not maintainable cannot be sustained.The finding of the trial court on the preliminary issue is hereby set aside. It is held that a civil suit to challenge levy and assessment of tax is not barred in view of section 169 of the Act.A civil suit in such cases is maintainable. It is , however, a different matter whether on merits a plaintiff is able to make out a case in its favor in the suit. on question of merits of the controversy in the suit we say nothing.The trial court dismissed the suit on the threshold holding it as not maintainable and, therefore, we have only considered the question of maintain ability of civil suit in this appeal. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the trial court is set aside. The suit is remended back to the trial court for decision in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 817 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner as a shareholder. In case the petitioner is willing to part with his shares, then the company/respondents should purchase the shares on a valuation to be made by an independent valuer. The valuation will be based on the Balance Sheet as on 31-3-1998, being the proximate date of the petition. In case the petitioner desires to continue with its membership, it has the option to apply for proportionate shares in respect of the shares allotted in 1997. Either of the options should be exercised within a period of 3 months of this order. In case it desires to go out of the company, then, on an application made by it, we shall appoint a suitable valuer. In case it desires to continue with the company and opts to acquire proportionate shares, the same will be at par and the respondents should arrange to have the requisite number of shares transferred to the petitioner on receipt of consideration. 34. The petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 816 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e have thoughtfully considered the arguments of learned counsel, but have not felt persuaded to share the apprehension expressed by him that the respondent would decide the matter without even considering the objections raised by the petitioner. We are convinced that the respondent is bound to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and various High Courts and then take a decision on the issue of reassessment and we are not inclined to entertain the petition by assuming that he will necessarily pass order adversely affecting the petitioner. In our opinion, the writ petition is clearly premature and it is liable to be dismissed as such. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as premature but at the same time, we deem it proper to direct that the respondent shall first decide the objections raised by the petitioner and then pass order of reassessment, if he comes to the conclusion that the objections are untenable.
-
2001 (6) TMI 815 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ave filed a memo alongwith Annexure R1 and R2. It is seen from Annexures R1 & R2 the goods seized by respondents has already been sold even before filing of this writ petition. 4. In the circumstances no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Writ petition is rendered infructuous. Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
-
2001 (6) TMI 814 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... h fabric; that the Department had shifted the burden of proof to the applicants which has not been discharged by them. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find substance in the submissions of the ld. DR that the standing order has mentioned only the minimum rates and not the maximum rates and, therefore, prima facie the question of country of origin and the quality becomes not material in the present matters. We are, therefore, of the view that the applicants have not made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of entire amount of Customs duty. Considering the financial hardship pleaded by the ld. Advocate, we direct the applicants to deposit ₹ 1 lakh within eight weeks from today and on complying with this direction, there will be waiver of pre-deposit of remaining amount of duty and the recovery of the same will remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The matter will come up for reporting compliance on 31-8-2001.
-
2001 (6) TMI 813 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ating to capital gains if the transfer of capital assets is by a company to its wholly owned subsidiary company and the holding company as well as the subsidiary company are Indian companies. 21. In view of the above discussion, our answer to question No. 1 is in the negative to the above extent i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Our answer to question No. 2 is in the affirmative to the above extent i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee." 4. In view of the decision referred to hereinabove and as the questions, which have been referred to this court have been finally concluded, we answer question No. 1 in the negative to the extent mentioned hereinabove i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee whereas our answer to question No. 2 is in the affirmative to the limited extent as stated hereinabove i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 812 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... A." 21. In case of ownership, there is a transfer of capital assets. This is a case of lease. The transferee was put in possession and was enjoying the property as a lease holder. There cannot be different criteria for transfer of capital asset. For the purpose of tax even if document, i.e., conveyance is not executed but the transferee exercises all the rights of the true owner, one cannot emphasize for the taxation purpose that unless and until the deed of conveyance transferring the rights in property is executed, the transferee is not liable though did everything which is required for acquiring a property. As pointed out, vendor is not permitted in law to dispossess or question the title of the vendee. 22. Under the circumstances, our answer would be that transfer of immovable property of the value exceeding ₹ 100 can be said to have been effected on the date of execution of the document. In view of this answer, it is not necessary to answer further questions.
-
2001 (6) TMI 811 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... to ₹ 4,79,661. The highest of these three figures is the standard rent as per the Bombay Rent Control Act. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the fair rental value of this property for the assessment year 1989‑90 at ₹ 4,90,875. Similarly, for the assessment year 1993-94, the standard rent under the Bombay Rent Control Act would come to ₹ 2,80,500, the municipal valuation as per Bombay Municipal Corporation would come to ₹ 74,860 whereas the rent receivable during the year would come to ₹ 2,74,092 (Rs. 2,40,000 ₹ 34,092 ₹ 2,74,092). The figure of ₹ 2,80,500 is the highest, therefore, the same has to be adopted as the annual value of the property. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to adopt the fair rental value of the property for the assessment year 1993-94 at ₹ 2,80,500. 6. In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
........
|
