|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 622 Records
-
2004 (2) TMI 742 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ions against any of the accused persons including the appellant. It is significant to note that the Trial Court itself observed that the deceased and others assaulted the appellant and he may have acted in retaliation. 11. The genesis of the incident, the place of incident and the manner in which the incident took place was found not to have been established by cogent and credible prosecution evidence. Therefore, on the peculiar facts of the case and the nature of evidence tendered by the prosecution there is no scope for taking a different view so far as the appellant is concerned and treat the case against him alone to have been substantiated beyond reasonable doubt. The conclusion arrived at in respect of other accused persons were equally applicable so far as the appellant is concerned. 12. That being the position, we set aside the conviction as recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. The appeal is allowed. The bail bonds of the appellant be cancelled.
-
2004 (2) TMI 741 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erty even though the assessed had not acquired legal title to the ownership of the said property through a registered sale deed in her favor ? 2. In view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. 1997 226 ITR 625(SC) , the answer is required to be given in favor of the assessed and against the revenue. The Apex Court in the said decision has held as under We are conscious of the settled position that under the common law, owner means a person who has got valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirements of law such as the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, etc. But, in the context of section 22 of the Income Tax Act, having regard to the ground realities and further having regard to the object of the Income Tax Act, namely, to tax the income, we are of the view, owner is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favor of the assessed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 740 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that Section 80 of the Income Tax Act, which contains the provision relating to carry forward of loss, does not contemplate that a revised return can be filed, and therefore, the loss as indicated in the original return alone can be taken into account. We do not consider such a contention to be tenable. In the face of the specific provision contained in Section 139(3) laying down that all the provisions contained in the Act shall apply to a return under Section 139(1), there was no further necessity in Section 80 to refer so such provisions. On the other hand, there is no specific provision contained either in Section 80 or in Section 139 excluding the applicability of Section 139(5) to a return filed under Section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we are convinced that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission.
-
2004 (2) TMI 739 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s been illegally appointed/promoted/regularized or not, so that appropriate actions can be taken against them and the erring officers. All these exercise should be completed within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The registry will sent a copy of this order to the Secretary of the concerned department immediately. 6. It is made clear that in the absence of relevant materials, this Court has not gone into the merits of the claims of the petitioner. I have not decided which circular(s) of the Government including the said circular dated 31.3.1992 will be applicable in this case. The competent/concerned authority will be free to take decision in accordance with law. 7. At this stage, the judgments relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner to show that if promotion is given from a retrospective date, the monitory benefits should also be paid, are not relevant. 8. With these observations and directions this writ petition is disposed of.
-
2004 (2) TMI 738 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... trict Court. In the circumstances, the petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy by filing appeal against the impugned order and at this stage, this petition can not be entertained. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the order (Annexure P-l). As the petitioner has filed this petition within a period of 30 days from the date of passing order (Annexure P-l), in the circumstances, the petitioner is allowed 30 days' time from today to file appeal before the Appropriate Court, and if such an appeal is filed within a period of 30 days from today, the Appellate Court shall entertain and decide the appeal in accordance with law without going into the question of limitation. Office is directed to return the certified copy of the order (Annexure P-l) if. the petitioner or his Counsel appears in the office and supplies photo-copy of the order with a prayer to return the certified copy to him. No order as to costs.
-
2004 (2) TMI 737 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the factum of appellant being away from his house at the time of death, forgetting the fact that the argument of the defence was not merely the absence of the appellant at the time of death of Darshana but also the possibility of appellant's involvement in the alleged harassment, since most of the time he was away from the village. That apart, we notice that the courts below have not founded the guilt of the appellant on the oral evidence produced by the prosecution but the same is based primarily on a presumption drawn under Section 113B of the Evidence Act which we have held to be impermissible in law in view of the prosecution's failure to prove the basic facts which was a condition precedent to the drawing of such a presumption. 22. For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the courts below are set aside. If the appellants are in custody, they shall be released forthwith. 23. The appeal is allowed
-
2004 (2) TMI 736 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t upon the complaint to produce documentary/oral evidence to establish that the cheques were in fact issued to him in discharge of a debt or liability because the presumption had already been rebutted by the accused in their replies to the notice of dishonour. The complainant was, therefore, aware that this would be the plea of the accused in defence and he should have produced the evidence in support of his case that the cheque was issued to him for consideration. The complainant had failed to so, therefore, the Appellate Court was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused. The acquittal of the accused could be set aside in this appeal against acquittal but only after finding that the conclusion of the Trial Court was perverse. In the circumstances of the case it cannot at all be held that the decision of the Appellate Court was either unreasonable or perverse while acquitting the accused-respondents. In view of the above, the appeals are without merit and are dismissed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 735 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pect as we are informed that barring Mumbai all other Collectors have not shown necessary expediency and urgency in initiating proceedings for recovery of dues under the certificates forwarded to them. 24. We hope that if there is any obstacle or hurdle in initiating prompt steps to recover the dues under the recovery certificates, the same need to be removed and rectified by. respondent No. 1. It is the suggestion of petitioners in majority of cases before us that instead of forwarding the recovery certificates to the Collectorates in the district, recoveries could be made by appointing Recovery Officer in the concerned Industrial Court/Labour Court. This aspect also be considered by respondent No. 1 and to expedite recoveries, even this measure be thought of by them. We leave the matter for their decision. A copy of this order be forwarded to Secretary, Department of Labour, Mantralaya, Mumbai for information and necessary action at his end. 25. Petitions stand disposed of.
-
2004 (2) TMI 734 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... n to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (2) TMI 733 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cument which is produced in court is ordinarily exhibited only after its proof. But, exhibiting a document does not mean that the document is proved and non-exhibiting a document does not mean that the document is not proved. A document is required to be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. Merely for administrative convenience of locating or identifying a document, it is given an Exhibit number in courts. Exhibiting a document has nothing to do with the proof though, as a matter of convenience, only the proved documents are exhibited. 4. It is therefore open to the petitioner defendant to contend at the stage of arguments that the agreement though exhibited, has not been proved by the plaintiff in accordance with law. With this clarification, no injustice or prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Hence, with this clarification, petition is rejected. 5. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of the order attested by the court Sheristedar.
-
2004 (2) TMI 732 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ence with regard to a document is permissible. None of the contingencies contemplated under Section 65 of the Evidence Act are pleaded to exist in the affidavit filed in support of the IA. 9. In the circumstances, though the order of the Trial Court did not give the accurate reasons for rejection, the conclusion reached by the Trial Court in rejecting to receive the document in question in my opinion is right. Exercising the revisionary power more particularly under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is required to be exercised sparingly. This Court does not normally interfere with an order where the conclusion is right if the conclusion could be supported by the right reasons. The mere Act that conclusion is not supported by reasons need not necessarily warrant interference of this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not see any merits in the revision petition and the same is dismissed at the admission stage.
-
2004 (2) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g at any rate in respect of the claim for alleged improvements said to have been from aforesaid angle. As factual adjudication is necessary as to whether appellant acted in good faith or with bona fide belief as envisaged, has to be decided taking into consideration the materials placed before the Court in that regard. It is, therefore, appropriate that the Trial Court should consider this aspect afresh uninfluenced by any observation made by it earlier or by the Appellate Courts. We also do not express any conclusive opinion on the merit of the claim except indicating the parameters relevant for such consideration. For that limited purpose, the matter is remitted to the Trial Court which shall make an endeavour to adjudicate the matter within six months from the date of judgment, after allowing the parties to place material in support of their respective stands. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated and in other respects shall stand dismissed. Costs made easy.
-
2004 (2) TMI 730 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he impugned order ought to be set aside. Though a prayer was made on behalf of the first respondent that the matter be remanded to the High Court to facilitate it to pass a reasoned order, on facts of this case, we think it proper to decide the issue before us ourselves without prolonging the proceeding any further by remanding it to the High Court. But we do record our disapproval of the practice followed by the High Court reflected in the impugned order and hope the same will not be repeated. For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds. The bail granted to the first respondent is cancelled. He is directed to surrender within a week from today. On failure to do so, the concerned police are directed to take necessary steps to arrest the first respondent. Any expression of opinion found in this order is purely tentative and for the disposal of this appeal. The same shall not, in any manner, prejudice the parties in the trial of the pending cases. The appeal is allowed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 728 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat no Government servant shall be prosecuted in any case except with the sanction of the Government. The wording in the section is clear that sanction is required only in respect of a public servant “not removable from his office save by or with the Government”. 5. The learned Single Judge while considering the issue had also referred to an earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in Sarojini v. Prasarman (1996 (2) KLT 859). In that case a Sub Inspector of Police removable from service only upon the order of a Deputy Inspector General and not by the Government faced prosecution. This Court held that in such situation they are not public servants not removable from service save by or with sanction of the State Government. The benefit of S. 197 of Cr. P.C as well as S. 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act also would not be therefore claimed Accordingly we are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Appeal fails. 6. Dismissed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 727 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... filed by the department under section 256(1) of the Act had been dismissed by the Tribunal. The department filed an application under section 256(2) for calling of question of law. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the department. The Tribunal has held that the question whether investment allowance and depreciation is a debatable question, therefore, it is not an error apparent on the face of the record. The Apex Court in T.S. Balaram Income-tax Officer v. Volkart Bros. 1971 82 ITR 50 held as under "a mistake apparent on the face of the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record". In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, we do not find that this is a fit case to call for a question of law. 4. The application is accordingly rejected.
-
2004 (2) TMI 726 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rd has been laid down by the Parliament therefor. It is furthermore not a case where principles on which the power of the Central Government are to be exercised have not been disclosed. By reason of the Act, essential legislative functions have also not been delegated. We do not think that having regard to the purport and object of the said Act, the provisions of Section 18 have bestowed unguided and uncanalised powers on the Central Government. Sections 18 and 3 of the Atomic Energy Act had to be enacted by the Parliament as in wrong hands the information can pose a danger not only to the security of the State but to the public at large." The High Court, therefore, committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed. Since in view of the fact that nobody appeared for the respondents, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (2) TMI 725 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (3)(a)(iii) It is a term of this contract that no person other than a gazetted railway officer should act as an arbitrator/umpire and if for any reason, that is not possible, the matter is not to be referred to arbitration at all.” 4. In view of the express provision contained therein that two gazetted railway officers shall be appointed as arbitrators, Justice P.K Bahri could not be appointed by the High Court as the sole arbitrator. On this short ground alone, the judgment and order under challenge to the extent it appoints Justice P.K Bahri as sole arbitrator is set aside. Within 30 days from today, the appellants herein shall appoint two gazetted railway officers as arbitrators. The two newly appointed arbitrators shall enter into reference within a period of another one month and thereafter the arbitrators shall make their award within a period of three months. 5. The appeal is allowed in part and to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (2) TMI 724 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... ority and where it is so deposited it shall not be removed therefrom until the sum as aforesaid has been paid..." 16. The building in question at Kanpur or any part of it was never approved or used as a godown of the factory under the above said provisions. The plea taken by the respondent that the premises in question was being used as a godown to store the sugar is therefore not sustainable As pointed out earlier, there is no material on record to show that the premises in dispute were being used as a residence of a Director or a guest house. The plea raised by the appellant to this effect is also rejected. 17. The relief as prayed for in Writ Petition No. 1954 of 1994 was not granted to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has not come up in appeal to challenge the findings which have been recorded against it. The same have attained finality. 18. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2004 (2) TMI 723 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, PRINCIAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e them. Because of the difference in the nature of powers, there is hardly any scope for conflict in their decisions. In this connection, it is necessary for me to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation case wherein the Court has held that once there is an arbitration agreement, then the matter should be relegated to arbitration. I am of the view that the said decision being with reference to a suit, the same is not applicable to a proceeding under Sections 397/399 if the allegations are capable of being examined without any reference to the terms of the arbitration agreement. 11. In view of the findings that there is no commonality of parties and that the allegations of oppression could be examined without reference to the arbitration agreement, this application is dismissed. The respondents will file their replies to the petition by 31-3-2004 and the rejoinder will be filed by 30-4-004. The petition will be heard on 6.5.2004 at 10.30. AM.
-
2004 (2) TMI 722 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of capital asset held by the assessee is exigible to tax under the head capital gains is liable to be upheld. We also sustain the direction of the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer would calculate the long term capital gains after allowing deduction of expenses incurred in connection with the sale of the property. 10. In support of the view taken by us above, reliance is placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Cadell Wvg. Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 2001 249 ITR 265 1 which has been cited by the ld. counsel. Further reliance is placed on the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of J.C. Chandiok v. Dy. CIT 238 ITR 89 (AT). In our opinion, since the receipt is capital per se, there is no justification to bring to tax the receipt as a revenue receipt. It could have been charged to tax only under the head capital gains as held by us above. We, therefore, reject the contention of the revenue. 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
........
|
