|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 454 Records
-
2002 (5) TMI 894 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he absence of relevant material on record, the assessing officer applied gross profit rate at 1.5 per cent. This rate was found to be on higher side by the Tribunal. The Tribunal correctly held that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessing officer should have applied gross profit rate at 0.9 per cent. The Tribunal while setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), had directed the assessing officer to recalculate the additions after applying the gross profit rate at 0.9 per cent on total sales of the assessed. 4. The order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. No interference is called for. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
2002 (5) TMI 893 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... plaintiff, nor his client has any right to bring his own witness and cross-examine adversely the witness which might be produced by the defendant, as his client has put forward any case by filing written statement. 14. In this case the relevant fact would be whether the decree passed by this Court was obtained practising fraud upon the Court or not and for that matter whether conveyance following the decree is liable to be cancelled or not. I am unable to accept the submission or Mr. Das that because of issue No. 4 it has become necessary for his client to examine the witness of the plaintiff. The aforesaid issue does not relate to the relevant fact in this case, this issue is relatable to the presence of Mr. Das's client for effective adjudication of the suit. No amount of evidence, either oral or documentary, is required to decide the above issue. Under those circumstances, I hold that Mr. Das's client has no right to examine any of the witnesses in this proceeding.
-
2002 (5) TMI 892 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... amined by the D.I.O.S. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of the same advertisement and by the same selection process, selectees of the primary section having been approved by the D.I.O.S. by order dated 20.12.2000, will also be taken into account by the D.I.O.S. It is in the light of these aspects, the matter is to be given fresh thought. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the D.I.O.S. dated 4.4.2001 and 18/22.5.2001, are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the D.I.O.S. for passing fresh order In the light of the observation as made in this judgment. It will be better if the D.I.O.S. will fix a date on which petitioners and the management will be called upon to place their version before him which will facilitate in taking decision. 9. The writ petition thus stands allowed in terms of the direction contained in this judgment. 10. Parties will bear their own cost.
-
2002 (5) TMI 891 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pa Chettiar, MANU/SC/0005/1953 1953 4SCR789 "It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found". 45. To sum up we hold that there was a bona fide dispute as to title raised by the appellants and, therefore, the Rent Controller did not have jurisdiction to hear and finally adjudicate upon the application filed by the respondent before it. However we clarify that this finding is limited to the issue of the Rent Controller's jurisdiction and shall not preclude the respondent from approaching a competent Civil Court for determination of the issue finally and no observations made in this judgment will prejudice the trial of this or any other issue that the respondent may raise on merits. Subject to this observation, for all the reasons stated earlier, we set aside the impugned decision of the High Court and allow the appeal. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (5) TMI 890 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed on bail." 10) In our view these are not grounds on which bail should be granted in a case of such a serious nature. It is to be seen that two witnesses have already retracted their statements. There are still eye witnesses, who have directly connected Respondent No. 2 and assigned a specific role to Respondent No. 2 in the murder of the deceased. So far as the ailment of Respondent No. 2 is concerned, it is not of such a nature as to require him to be released on bail. Respondent No. 2 can always apply to the Jail authorities to see that he gets the required treatment. It is pertinent to note that in the Review Petition it has not been stated that the applicant still needs medical treatment. It is not stated that he has not received proper medical treatment from the Jail authorities. 11) For the reasons aforesaid we set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 29th September, 2000. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (5) TMI 889 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the order below exhibit 8 passed by the learned additional sessions judge was not brought to the notice of the High Court and, therefore, this mistake was committed. In our view, before setting aside the order passed by the sessions court, it was the duty of the High Court to verify the records. It is also apparent that the High Court committed an error apparent in not referring to the provision of Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. which empowers the sessions court to cancel bail in such circumstances. 11. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. The order passed by the Vth additional sessions judge, Kolhapur on 3rd March, 2001 in criminal misc. application No. 14/2001 is restored. Accused to surrender immediately.
-
2002 (5) TMI 888 - CEGAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... vided for flexibility of using the credit of specified duty taken In respect of inputs of a particular final product for paying duty on any other final product manufactured in the same factory. Accordingly, it was held that consequently, credit taken of Additional Excise Duty on tyre cord fabrics (used in the manufacture of tyres) usable for paying basic excise duty on tubes. In other words, it was clearly held that Additional Excise Duty availed on payment of Basic Excise Duty. Since the issue has already been considered in the aforesaid case, following the same, I accept the plea of the party and in the result appeal Is allowed with consequential relief, If any.
-
2002 (5) TMI 887 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sons, the order dated 17th May, 2001, initiating proceedings under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. against petitioner (M/s. Dalmiya Resorts International Pvt. Ltd.) in the complaint No. 529/1, under Section 138 of NI Act is quashed, subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall put in appearance before the trial court within two weeks from today and deposit the cheque amount along with interest in the Court at the rate of 18% from 3rd December, 1997 (date of the cheque), till the date of payment in the name of complainant, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. If the amount is deposited the Court shall release the said amount to the complainant, on such terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper. Or pass such other orders as may be deemed necessary. With these directions, petition stands disposed of. Any observation made herein shall not affect the merits of the case. Registry is directed to segregate the trial court file and to send back the same.
-
2002 (5) TMI 886 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f representation was fatal for detention and so was the unreasonable and unexplained delay in its disposal. But even so, petitioner's allegation in this regard fall short of requirement. 16. We have checked up the official record only to find out that petitioner's representation was duly considered though its communication order does not record reasons for this. His complaint about supply of illegible documents is also believed by official record as he had endorsed under his own signatures that he had received all legible documents including the disputed ones. Apart from that, it is not difficult to gather the substance of the photocopies of alleged illegible documents placed before us. Therefore, it can't be said that these few documents, even if treated illegible, would have come in the way of petitioner in making an effective representation and infringed his right of making such representation. For all this, we find no merit in this petition which is dismissed.
-
2002 (5) TMI 885 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the Court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the ratio laid down in Balakrishnan, (supra) in my view, the facts disclosed therein are justifiable in attracting the ratio decided in the said decision. 8. In the circumstances, the delay is hereby condoned. Let the appeal be registered and be dealt with on merits by the Tribunal in accordance with law. It is expected that the learned Tribunal shall decide the question as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 9. With these observations this writ petition is disposed of. 10. There will be no order as to costs. 11. Let xeroxed plain copies of this order, duty countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be supplied to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
-
2002 (5) TMI 884 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... .N. Variava, JJ. ORDER Appel dismissed.
-
2002 (5) TMI 883 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... .N. Variava, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (5) TMI 882 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... hat the connected matter has been dismissed. Accordingly, this Review Petition is also dismissed.
-
2002 (5) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... may not be in a position to pay the sum of ₹ 40 lakhs. Respective counsel for the parties had quoted the figure of a particular sum which could be paid to the appellant in lieu of avoiding the decree of specific performance. The appellant had not made an offer to pay any additional sum over and above the quoted price to sell by way of compensation. It does not indicate the financial position of the appellant to pay the additional sum of ₹ 40 lakhs. With due respect, in my view, it would be unfair to grant the decree of specific performance by one hand and take it back by the other. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the appellant is sentitled to the specific performance of agreement to sell the flat No. 71 on 7th floor of Divya Prabha Building on the price mentioned in the agreement to sell which would be subject to the terms (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the last paragraph of the judgment of my learned brother. There would be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (5) TMI 880 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... The order under challenge is set aside. The application for recalling the principal order dated 29th August, 1997 is allowed. The principal appeal (No. E-2364/90-A) is restored to the file of the Tribunal at New Delhi to be heard and disposed of on merits. The parties shall appear before the president of the Tribunal on 8th July, 2002 for the fixation of a date of hearing of that main appeal. No order as to costs.
-
2002 (5) TMI 879 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ttled that the Authorities acting under the provisions of 108 of the Act cannot be equated to the police officer in terms of provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Notice dated 22.4.2002 has been sent to the petitioner to explain his position with regard to goods exported by him, as noticed above, which power is vested in the Authority as is clearly made out from the provisions of Section 108 of the Act. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner has not appeared before the Superintendent (Anti- Smuggling) Customs Commissionerate, Amritsar, on the date fixed. He has also admitted that another notice dated 17.5.2002 was also received by the petitioner whereby he was called upon to appear on 20.5.2002 but in pursuance to that he has not put in appearance. The totality of the circumstances on record noticed above do not warrant concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
-
2002 (5) TMI 878 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... espondent. But inspite of the same no adverse inference was drawn against the respondent. This Court in the case of Kalu Ram v. Sita Ram 1980 RLR (Note) 44 observed that service of notice having been admitted without reservation and that having not been replied in that eventuality adverse inference should be drawn because he kept quite over the notice and did not send any reply. Observations of Kalu Ram's case (Supra) apply on all force to the facts of this case. In the case in hand also despite receipt of notice respondent did not care to reply nor refuted the averments of demand of the amount on the basis of the invoices/bills in question. But the learned Trial Court failed to draw inference against the respondent. 14. For the reasons stated above we are of the considered view that the impugned cannot stand. The same is accordingly set aside. Appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs. The suit is accordingly hereby decreed as per the relief claimed in the plaint.
-
2002 (5) TMI 877 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce the offence under Section 138 is completed, the prosecution proceedings can be initiated not for recovery of the amount covered by the cheque but for bringing the offender to penal liability. 11. In view of discussions made above, I would hold that even accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that M/3. Sterling Novelty Products is not a registered firm under the Partnership Act, yet the bar created by Section 69 of the said Act has no application for maintaining a criminal proceeding under Section 138 of the Act. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in the criminal proceeding (Case No. 852/9 of 1999) pending against the petitioner in exercise of inherent power. 12. In the result. Criminal Misc. Application fails and the same is dismissed. 13. The court below is directed to take up expeditious hearing and dispose of the case within reasonable time preferably within a period of six months from date of receipt of this judgment.
-
2002 (5) TMI 876 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sions of the Designs Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957 the plaintiffs could have claimed copyright therein only if the designs were registered under the Designs Act. 30. plaintiffs do not dispute that the alleged designs or drawings are being used by them for manufacturing purposes. It is also not disputed that the drawings and designs are not registered under the Designs Act. If that is so, I am persuaded to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendants. On the facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have prima facie failed to establish their right. The plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of injunction prayed for. The balance of convenience is also in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. The application is accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that my any observations made by me in this order shall have no reflection on the merits of the case.
-
2002 (5) TMI 875 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sser while the trespasser in the act process of trespassing and has not accomplished his possession, but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner. Incidentally we may notice that almost a similar contention relying upon Ram Rattan supra was advance din Sri Hanuman Steel Rolling Mill v. CESC Ltd 1996 Calcutta 449 to the effect that the electrical connection can be disconnected to prevent theft of electrical energy but the same was rejected. 35. For the reasons afore-mentioned, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner cannot exercise its power of sealing of property for mis-user of the premises under Section 345A of the DMC Act and Section 31A of the DDA Act. The question thus referred to the full Bench is answered accordingly. Aforesaid LPA and CWPs are accordingly disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
........
|
