|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 623 Records
-
2007 (1) TMI 652 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the plea raised by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this Court should entertain the award given by the arbitrator appointed by this Court and all objections to it should be disposed of by this Court is unacceptable and consequently, the prayer made in the application is rejected. 11. Learned Counsel has next submitted that since the matter is old and pending before the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction i.e. the District Judge, Dehradun, that Court may be directed to expedite the disposal of the application. This submission of the Learned Counsel to expedite the matter has merit as the matter has become an old one, as it has come up to this Court a second time. Therefore, it is directed that the District Judge, Dehradun, who is seized of this matter shall hear and dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The applications are accordingly disposed of. 13. Court Masters
-
2007 (1) TMI 651 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court and award simple interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The possession of the land was taken on 31.08.2000. Therefore, the Agra Development Authority (Respondent No. 2) is liable to pay simple interest @ 18% on the sum of Rs. 17,84,974.50 from 31.08.2000 till the date of actual payment. In the meanwhile, the appellants are at liberty to withdraw the sum of Rs. 17,84,974.50 which is in deposit with the Civil Court without furnishing any security and on production of a copy of this Order. The said court is directed to refund the said amount to the appellants on production of copy of Order of this Court. 6. We direct that the Agra Development Authority (respondent No. 2) shall not take any further time and pay the interest on or before 10.02.2007. We hope and trust that the Agra Development Authority (respondent No. 2) shall strictly and punctually obey this Order. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
-
2007 (1) TMI 650 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rial court, so far as the first issue under consideration in this application is concerned. There is no scope for the Resident Editor and/or the Editor to rebut the presumption contemplated under Section 7 of the Act in this case and therefore the ratio in the case of Mathew-II is not applicable. As far as the applicant is concerned, in view of the presumption drawn under Section 7 of the Act against accused nos.2 to 4 or any one of them, there is no case for the present applicant to face the trial and hence it is not necessary to answer the second issue as framed earlier for considerations. Undoubtedly, the decision of the second issue have to be awaited in the pending Writ Petitions. 17. In the premises, this application succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) so far as it relates to the present applicant only. It is also made clear that the observations made in this judgment will have no bearing on the pending petitions.
-
2007 (1) TMI 649 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . In any case, it cannot be concluded that the impugned clauses are irrational, unreasonable or unconscionable. 9. The argument of the learned Counsel with regard to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Limited (supra), does not advance his case as the writ petition undisputedly is maintainable against the respondent, which is an agency and instrumentality of a State within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. It appears to be well settled that for enforcement of contract against an instrumentality or an agency of the State, the aggrieved party can invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Having said that it does not lead to conclusion that in every case the jurisdiction is required to be exercised and present is the case where impugned clauses have not been found to be unfair or unconscionable. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
-
2007 (1) TMI 648 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ling up the gaps for the dates there, it only shows that the magistrate has not studied the material placed before him and has not applied his mind and not formed any opinion about proceeding further in the matter. 5. One of the singular characteristics of a judicial order is that it should disclose application of mind, in the given facts at hand. The respondents have not denied the stereotyped format used by the trial Court with particulars filled at appropriate places, in hand, and signed by the Magistrate. Such an order could have passed muster if it was a show-cause notice in administrative proceedings. It cannot, however, stand scrutiny where as in the present case, the consequences are penal in nature. 6. In view of the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted to the concerned Magistrate for issuing appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the materials on record.
-
2007 (1) TMI 647 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... can be regarded as forming integral part of vessels and, hence, classifiable under CETA Heading 89.08 and remaining fuel and oil other than the above, are classifiable separately in thereon appropriate heading. Therefore, the classification is depended upon the location of the fuel and oil. In this case there is no dispute that fuel and lubricating oil was contained in the vessel's machinery and engine. Hence, the lower authorities have correctly classified the goods in question on merits in their respective headings. The Tribunal as well as Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad have rejected the claim of the assessee. When there is concurrent finding of the Tribunal and Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad that the fuel was neither in the engine, nor in the machinery, no case is made out for admission of this appeal. we see no justification to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal stands dismissed at admission stage.
-
2007 (1) TMI 646 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is another aspect of this matter which cannot be overlooked. Appellant No. 1 made a confession. He felt repentant not only while making the confessional statement before the Judicial Magistrate, but also before the learned Sessions Judge in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 40. It is, therefore, in our opinion, not a case where extreme death penalty should be imposed. We, therefore, are of the opinion that imposition of punishment of rigorous imprisonment for life shall meet the ends of justice. It is directed accordingly. Both the appellants, therefore, are, instead of being awarded death penalty, are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, but other part of sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge are maintained. Subject to the modification in the sentence mentioned hereinbefore, this appeal is dismissed. We must, before parting, however, express our appreciation for Ms. Makhija who had rendered valuable assistance to us.
-
2007 (1) TMI 645 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as for determining the rate of duty. 38. If such is the significance of Rule (2) of the Rules, then the language of Rule (2) cannot be ignored, the charge is effectuated only in terms of the language of Rule 2 and if so, the charge is not complete till the article is issued and the levy in terms of the demand under Annexure-J being at a stage when the charge had not been effectuated cannot be sustained. It is for this reason that the demand in terms of Annexure-J is quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. 39. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute. 40. If any amount has already been recovered from the petitioner, pursuant to the demand under Annexure-J, the same to be refunded to the petitioner unless this amount can be adjusted against any other outstanding liability of the petitioner. The respondents are directed to intimate the petitioner the action taken in this regard to the petitioner within ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2007 (1) TMI 644 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nstruments Act arose in Kerala, the Kerala High Court cannot interfere with the proceedings before a Criminal Court, outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 11. The reference is answered as above. Since nothing more survives to be decided in this case, it is unnecessary to send this case back to the Division Bench or the single Bench. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner regarding the merits of her case and her right to move the Coimbatore Court, where the complaint is pending, or the Madras High Court, for appropriate reliefs. W.P. (C) Nos. 21240 and 21241/2005 12. The judgment in W.P. (C) No. 21289/2005 will govern these cases also, as the facts and the question raised are identical. Accordingly, they are also dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner regarding the merits of her case and her right to move the appropriate Court for appropriate reliefs. A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series)
-
2007 (1) TMI 643 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ic interest. As stated above, the Central Government has submitted their No Objection as well as the Official Liquidator attached to this Court has also submitted his Report and no objection has been raised by the Official Liquidator. Hence, there does not appear to be any impediment to granting sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation as proposed. 32. For the reasons stated above, both the petitions, namely Company Petition No. 147 of 2006 and Company Petition No. 148 of 2006 are allowed. Prayers in terms of paragraph 28(a) of the Company Petition No. 147 of 2006 and 21(a) of the Company Petition No. 148 of 2006 are hereby granted. Company Applications No. 572 of 2006 and 573 of 2006 are hereby dismissed. 33. So far as costs to be paid to the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel is concerned,, the same is quantified at Rs. 3500 per petition and the same may be paid to Shri Y.N. Ravani, learned Central Government Standing Counsel by the respective petitioners.
-
2007 (1) TMI 642 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ion 10 of the Regulations on more than one occasion. Each of them was required to comply with the Regulations as and when they got triggered and make the necessary disclosures and where the acquisition exceeded 15%, the acquirer had to come out with a public announcement. None of these provisions were complied with and, therefore, each of them was guilty of violating the provisions for which a penalty could be imposed on them. It cannot be said that only one breach was committed. As already observed each of the entities committed a breach when they did not comply with the Regulations. The adjudicating officer was, therefore, right in levying penalty on each of them. 12. No other point has been raised. 13. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in these appeals and they stand dismissed. The appellants will now comply with the order of the adjudicating officer and deposit the penalty amount within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. No costs.
-
2007 (1) TMI 641 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Computation of Surcharge u/s 5-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 ("the OST Act") - modality contravenes the provisions of the Orissa Entry Tax Act ("the OET Act) and Orissa Entry Tax Rules ("the OET Rules") - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that the objective of framing rules is to fill up the gaps in a statutory enactment so as to make the statutory provisions operative. Rules also clarify the provisions of an Act under which the same are framed. (A) Subordinate legislation has been fictionally called the delegation of power to fill up the details.
In Khambhalia Municipality v. State of Gujarat [1967 (2) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT], it was pointed out that the legislature may, after laying down the legislative policy, confer discretion on an administrative agency as to the execution of the policy and leave it to the agency to work out the details within the framework of the policy. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the O.E.T. Rules, in consonance with the heading of Section 4 of O.E.T. Act lays down that a motor vehicle importer's "tax liability under the Sales Tax Act shall be reduced to the extent" of Entry Tax paid. The illustration appended to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the O.E.T. Rules specifically indicates that Sales Tax payable by a dealer is Sales Tax due less the amount of Entry Tax paid. The inconsistency or ambiguity, if any, between the language of Section 4 of the O.E.T. Act and Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the O.E.T. Rules gets removed by the language in c, which provided that, "the Sales Tax payable on the sale of goods shall be reduced to the extent of Entry Tax paid in the manner illustrated under Sub-rule (1)."
Thus, it is clear that the O.E.T. Act and O.E.T. Rules provide for set off of Entry Tax paid from the amount of Sales Tax payable by a dealer. In such view of the matter, the controversy in the present applications is confined to the question as to what constitutes "Sales Tax payable" under the O.S.T. Act.
Therefore, on a plain reading of the provisions under the O.S.T. Act and the O.E.T. Act, set off has to be made by way of reduction of the Sales Tax payable to the extent of Entry Tax paid. There is no scope for the Revenue to urge that surcharge paid u/s 5-A of the O.S.T. Act has also to be taken into account in computing the dealer's tax liability under the O.S.T. Act. Such a conclusion is apparent from the provision of Section 5-A of the O.S.T. Act as it stood during the periods of assessments under the reference in the present applications.
Thus, from a harmonious reading of the relevant provisions of the O.S.T. Act, O.E.T. Act and O.E.T. Rules, it is evident that "tax payable", as contemplated u/s 5-A of the O.S.T. Act, means tax payable after set off of Entry Tax from the Sales Tax assessed on a dealer. The modality adopted by the taxing authorities in computing surcharge on the gross tax assessed instead of tax payable after reduction to the extent of Entry Tax paid is not in accordance with the provisions under the O.S.T. Act, O.E.T. Act and O.E.T. Rules. The letter of clarification issued by the Government is misconceived and has no legal sanctity.
In the result, therefore, the writ petitions are allowed; the impugned letter and the extra tax demand made on the Petitioners on the basis of such letter of clarification are quashed.
-
2007 (1) TMI 640 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... t is having a PE in India. In fact, what the applicant is seeking is to have additional evidence admitted and the ruling reviewed on the strength of such additional material. The power to grant such reliefs is analogous to the power of the appellate court under Rule 27 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Obviously, the Authority does not have power either to admit additional material or to review the ruling on the basis of such additional material. It is needless to mention that under Sub-section (2) of Section 245S advance ruling is binding on the applicant as well as on the Commissioner till such time there is a change in law or facts on the basis of which the advance ruling has been pronounced. If after pronouncement of the ruling facts available are different from the facts on the basis of which the ruling was sought, the applicant may seek appropriate relief from a competent forum. 13. Subject to the above observation, we dismiss the petition as not maintainable.
-
2007 (1) TMI 639 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nuing as a member. The first question is thus answered in the affirmative. Therefore the second question does not survive for consideration. 453. In view of the above, I hold that the action of the two Houses of Parliament, expelling the petitioners is violative of Articles 101 to 103 of the Constitution and therefore invalid. Petitioners, therefore, continue to be Members of Parliament (subject to any action for cessation of their membership). Petitions and transferred cases disposed of accordingly. • Kaul and Shakhder after referring to conflicting decisions of the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Punjab & Haryana, state; "There are, therefore, two decisions and the position is uncertain. In the absence of a decision by the Supreme Court, neither decision is a declared law under Article 141 of the Constitution. Law of a certain and binding character can be laid down only by the Supreme Court". 'Practice and Procedure of Parliament', (5th; p. 268
-
2007 (1) TMI 638 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute...." (p. 29) 4. The revenue is seeking to levy penalty on the assessee only because it has the power to do so. It has refused to exercise its discretion which it should have, as held by the Supreme Court. In matters of this nature where only a technical default is committed, there is hardly any reason to levy penalty. 5. We are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 6. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (1) TMI 637 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... o interfere with the impugned decision. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
2007 (1) TMI 636 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and also the view taken by the High Court. There is no dispute in regard to the delay of 3320 days in filing the petition for setting aside the award. When a mandatory provision is not complied with and when the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay, only on the sympathetic ground. The orders passed by the learned Sub Judge and also by the High Court are far from satisfactory. No reason whatsoever has been given to condone the inordinate delay of 3320 days. It is well-considered principle of law that the delay cannot be condoned without assigning any reasonable, satisfactory, sufficient and proper reason. Both the courts have miserably filed to comply and follow the principle laid down by this Court in catena of cases. We, therefore, have no other option except to set aside the order passed by the Sub-Judge and as affirmed by the High Court. We accordingly set aside both the orders and allow this appeal. No costs.
-
2007 (1) TMI 635 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed by this Court in various decisions. See Abraham Sebastian v. State of Kerala 2002 (3) K.L.T. 839 judgment delivered for Division Bench by Justice B.N. Srikrishna (as he then was) Mohammed Kunhi v. Executive Engineer 2001(3) K.L.T. 733 V.P. Kunhammed v. State of Kerala 1999(2) K.L.J. 678and K.A. Sobhanadas v. State of Kerala and Anr. 1984 K.L.J. 684 8. In the above circumstances, we set aside Ext. P-12 issued by the Chief Engineer without prejudice to the rights of the parties elsewhere. We are not expressing any opinion regarding merits of the claim put forward by the KSIDC. If the first Respondent wants to file a separate suit or counter claim in the suit filed by the petitioner, since there was a stay in this case and was pending for some time, the time taken during the pendency of this proceedings shall be excluded considering the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The original Petition is allowed to the above extent. A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series)
-
2007 (1) TMI 634 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his family to look after her. Police have also made enquiry about this and found substance. It appears that his wife Sanjana is due to deliver any time. Therefore, on humanitarian ground the applicant is hereby granted temporary bail for a period of one month only from the date of his release from jail on same terms and conditions as before the trial Court subject to executing fresh bail bonds. The surety shall be a local person. He shall not misuse the bail and on expiry of one month he shall himself surrender before the jail authorities. He shall attend Kalamboli Police station on every Sunday between 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. during the bail period. 3. The application stands disposed of. Application allowed.
-
2007 (1) TMI 633 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... funds was a state of affairs which existed when the cheque was presented in 1998 by which time, as recorded by the trial court, the accused No.5 had resigned and his resignation had been accepted. 7. In addition to the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the complaint did not specify as to the nature of involvement of the accused No.5/respondent which was necessary in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in SMS Pharmaceutical Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89. For these reasons, I find that the order impugned in these proceedings does not call for interference. However, it is made clear if on a later date, the petitioner is able to satisfy that the respondent's involvement was indeed there and that his presence in the proceedings is necessary, it would be open in such circumstances for the trial court to invoke its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., if the facts so warrant. 8. The petition is accordingly dismissed subject to the above observations. No costs.
........
|
