|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 427 Records
-
2003 (5) TMI 537 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s, the awards passed in all the above cases by the Arbitrators/Registrars allowing future interest including the penal interest also at contract rate of interest are set aside. Likewise, all the impugned judgments passed by the Co-operative Tribunal reducing the interest at 6% from the date of suit and upholding the grant of contract rate of interest including the penal interest are set aside. This order setting aside the order shall be in respect of the grant of future interest alone. Accordingly all the cases are remanded to the respective Arbitrators/Registrars for fresh disposal for fixing the future interest from the date of suit in accordance with the principles mentioned above. The Arbitrators/Registrars shall pass fresh orders in accordance with the above guidelines within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It is made further clear that the remand of the cases shall be for the limited purpose of determination of the future interest only.
-
2003 (5) TMI 536 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ting. If the ink is manufactured five years before the date of the execution of the document and used on 11.2.1998 for the first time then instead of resolving any controversy it would create confusion. Therefore, no useful purpose could be served by allowing such an application. It is true that opinion of expert is relevant under Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but in the present case that has to be read with Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code. The basic rationale is whether such scientific investigation is going to advance the cause of justice and would be necessary for adjudicating upon the rights of the parties. Therefore, I do no find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the learned Civil Judge. The revision petition does not disclose any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. For the reasons above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 535 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Singh, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 534 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... athur, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 533 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... shna, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 532 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tten that certain valuable rights have also been conferred upon the seed producers and sellers so as to protect them from malicious prosecution or at any rate the prosecution without application of mind or due to sheer negligence in not following the mandatory requirements. As such, I deem it fit to direct the Registry to send a copy of this order to the Department of Agriculture for taking effective steps to curb the negligence or inaction pointed out on the part of the Seeds Inspector and other concerned authorities and hope the Government will take appropriate steps in this regard. 12. In the result and for the reasons stated above, in my view, as the prosecution launched against the petitioners is being barred by limitation as well as is in contravention of the mandatory provisions including violation of the statutory rights of the accused are clearly unsustainable and hence the prosecution in each of these petitions is liable to quash and accordingly the same is quashed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 531 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sel for the appellant was that the Court below had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as the sale took place at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu. The article were sold for being used at Shornur. Only by the use of the articles the latent defect of the material could be ascertained and thereby the cause of action for damages arose. The court below found that it had jurisdiction to decide the matter. Though a contention as to the jurisdiction was raised, the appellant did not move the court below to consider the above issue on jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and to decide the same before taking evidence. The judgment would further reveal that the above issue was not canvassed too. No reasons are there to disbelieve the above recital. On these circumstances I find no reasons to interfere with the above finding of the court below on jurisdiction. Thus this appeal has only to be dismissed. In the result this appeal is dismissed. The parties will suffer their respective costs.
-
2003 (5) TMI 530 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nion on the submission urged before us by the appellants that in any event the respondents have committed default in payment of instalments as directed by the High Court in its impugned order and, therefore, in terms of the order itself, the order stands vacated. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that in view of the pending dispute between the parties the respondent is suffering irreparable loss therefore we should request the High Court to dispose of the pending writ petition at an early date. This is a matter which is best left to the discretion of the High Court, hence, we do not propose to make any such request to the High Court. We also make it clear that whatever views may have been expressed in this order, if any, are only tentative and meant for the disposal of this appeal only. We have not expressed any concluded opinion on the issues which may arise for consideration before the High Court in the pending matters. 20. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
2003 (5) TMI 529 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce or substantial question of public importance. In Taherakhatoon (D) By Lrs. v. Salambin Mohammad, 1999 2 SCC 635 it was noted that even in cases where leave has been granted, the Court might after declaring the correct legal position decline to interfere saying that it would not exercise discretion to decide the case on merits and that it would decide on the basis of the equitable considerations in the facts and circumstances of the case and mould the final order. Even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that there was some faulty conclusion in law, the impugned order being an interim one, we do not consider this to be fit case for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136. But, taking note of the peculiar facts, ends of justice would be best served if the appellant is directed to deposit Rupees Fifty lacs instead of Rupees Eighty two lacs by end of June, 2003. The appeal is accordingly disposed of leaving the parties to hear their respective costs.
-
2003 (5) TMI 528 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... For this reason, the decisions in Indu-Nissan case, Casio India case and Usha Martin case cited by learned counsel have no relevance. On the other hand, the High Court's decision in C.L. Jain Woollen Mills cited by him has a bearing on this case inasmuch it was held in that case that Customs authorities were not to go behind the licence issued by DGFT. In the instant case, the Customs authorities correctly understood the licence condition and rightly acted upon it. In Titan Medical Systems (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that Customs authorities were not to deny exemption to a DEEC licence-holder on the ground that the licence was obtained by misrepresentation. This case law also does not make any headway for the appellants in this case wherein the department has never had a case that they had obtained the licence fraudulently. 20. For the reasons already recorded, I must concur with the view taken by learned Brother Shri Kait. The appeal has only to be dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 527 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... 5168-5170/2001 2003 (154) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) and batch titled Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. M/s. Escorts Mahle Ltd., etc. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (5) TMI 526 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from 1.12.1985 to 8.2.1987 the plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the suit plot pursuant to agreement dated 1.12.1985 entered into by Shri Niwas Vaidhya, the allottee of the plot from the Society, in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also entitled for mandatory and permanent preventive injunctions. It is ordered and decreed that the construction, if any, raised by the defendant on the plot and the hutment raised by his labourers shall be removed by him and the possession over the plot shall be restored to the plaintiff. The defendant is permanently restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot except by due process of law. The suit filed by the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been decreed by the Trial Court in the abovesaid terms. The Trial Court shall draw up a decree consistency with this judgment. The costs shall be borne by the defendant-appellant upto the High Court. The costs in this Court shall be borne as incurred.
-
2003 (5) TMI 525 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... s of all the shares of the Company including the impugned shares was realized on 16.04.1992, 41 months prior to the sale. This discrepancy remains unexplained. For these reasons, the plea of the respondents is not convincing and must fail. The case laws cited on behalf of the respondents, in my view, are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made on behalf of both the parties and the legal position set out hereabove, it is hereby directed that the Company shall rectify its register of members by registering the transfer of impugned shares in the name of the petitioner and deleting the name of the second respondent within thirty days of receipt of the order. The Company is, further, directed to return the original share certificates already lodged with the Company to the petitioner forthwith. 9. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2003 (5) TMI 524 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mentioned settled law the High Court should have on its own refused to interfere and should have left the parties to agitate their contentions in the appeal to be filed under Section 34, POTA. It must be mentioned that before us also arguments on merits were made. At one stage this Court did consider giving a decision on merits. However on a proper consideration of the matter it appears to us that to give a decision on merits would be to perpetrate the mistake committed by the High Court. It would result in depriving one or the other party of a valuable rights of agitating the point in the statutory appeals, which are at present going on before the division bench of the High Court. We therefore refrain from expressing any opinion on merits. We clarify that all parties will be free to urge all questions in the pending appeals before the division bench of the High Court. In the above view we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned order. There will be no order as to cost.
-
2003 (5) TMI 523 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... ompany Petition. There is no doubt that the CLB has ample power to order impleadment of any person as a party in order to adjudicate upon the question involved in the proceedings and if there could be no effective adjudication of the issues in the absence of the proposed parties as born out by the decisions cites by Counsel for the applicants. Therefore, necessary parties are parties whose presence is essential and in whose absence no effective order can at all be passed. Whereas in the instant case, the reliefs sought can be granted, even in the absence of the proposed parties, provided the alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement are established by the applicants. Moreover, where reliefs can be obtained by the applicants on establishing the alleged acts in the affairs of the company, it is in my view, not necessary to implead the KPS and FS&I, as proposed by the applicants. For these reasons the application is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 522 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ay condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 521 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal in the case of Principal Officer, Builcon Towers (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT in IT(SS)A No. 96/Cal/1997 (Order dt. 17th May, 1999). The learned counsel also referred to the amendment in the Act brought about with effect from the first day of June, 2002, and which provided for surcharge over and above the amount of tax chargeable. The plea, in other words, was that the additional ground being legal, be admitted and adjudicated upon. The learned Departmental Representative did not oppose the admission of the additional ground and urged that the matter be restored to the file of the AO for a decision on merits. 65. After hearing the parties, we admit the additional ground, but restore the same back to the file of the AO asking him to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law along with some of the other grounds, which have been sent back to him, after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 66. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 520 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed to evade the payment of trade tax on the freight. The dealer incurred all the expenditures up to the stage of delivery of coal to the brick-kiln owners. The title in the coal passed to brick-kiln owners only at the time of delivery of coal and not earlier to it. 16. So far as the case of Sharma Trading Supply is concerned, in the said case the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court as in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the High Court disturbed a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. In the case in hand, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse and it has over looked the undisputed facts as disclosed by the dealer himself. Therefore, I hold that the dealer had made the purchases on his own account. He incurred the freight charges and, therefore, freight charges shall be part of his turnover. 17. In the result, both the revisions are allowed. The orders of the Tribunal are set aside and the orders of the First Appellate Authority are restored.
-
2003 (5) TMI 519 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... to understand how such user can be characterised as a "personal use". The "personal use", which is contemplated by the exemption is not a pride of possession. The element of pride of possession can be understood, to some extent, in the case of Maharaja or Maharani, but it is difficult to understand in the case of a salaried employee like the assessee. 24. Therefore, on the given facts and in the light of the ratio laid down by the decisions relied upon by the Departmental Representative, unlike the ones relied by learned Authorised Representative which are distinguishable, we hold that the antique car held by the assessee is not a "personal effect" as occurring in s. 2(14)(ii) rather it is a capital asset. Consequently, the surplus realised on its sale is chargeable to capital gain under s. 45 of IT Act, 1961. 25. Accordingly, the decision of CIT(A) is reversed and that of AO is restored. 26. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 518 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... not have any authority to take the modvat credit suo motu. As regards the time bar, he reiterates the stand of the department and the SCN could be issued within one year after the amendment even for pending cases. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and find that the demand is hit by time since the credit of modvat was taken during the month of Nov.'99 whereas the show cause notice had been issued on 21.12.2000. Therefore, the demand is time barred. We are of the considered opinion that for duty paid excess by way of debiting in RG.23A, assessees can take credit of modvat credit with a simple intimation to the Superintendent of Central Excise concerned. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong and requires to be set aside and the appeal along with stay application is, therefore, allowed by setting aside the order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Dictated and Pronounced in Court.
........
|
