|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 858 Records
-
2008 (2) TMI 971 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ew it was also observed that the grant of permit in favour of Thirumalai Transport Service, operated as a deemed rejection of all other applications filed by the applicants including the petitioner itself, was an appealable order. It is of course true that the grievance of the petitioner was to the effect that certified copy of the proceedings had not been issued. His efforts to obtain certified copy by filing writ petition proved futile when the Division Bench observed that the prayer made in the writ petition filed by the petitioner for issuance of certified copies did not survive and the writ petition was dismissed. It was for the petitioner to challenge such decision before the appellate forum and having abandoned such a recourse, the present contention that he was prevented from filing an appeal though understandable cannot be justified. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any scope to review the earlier judgment. The Review Application is accordingly dismissed.
-
2008 (2) TMI 970 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der Section 11A could have come to a different conclusion. There is no quarrel with this proposition of law. The Labour Court could have awarded lesser punishment in the given facts and circumstances of the case. In a case where two views are possible on the evidence on record, then the Industrial Tribunal should be very slow in coming to a conclusion other than the one arrived at by the domestic Tribunal by substituting its opinion in place of the opinion of the domestic Tribunal. 18. Labour Court fell into the factual as well as legal error in setting aside the findings recorded by the domestic Tribunal. Learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have simply affirmed the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 19. For the reasons stated above, we accept this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court as well as the Labour Court. Accordingly, the Order passed by the domestic Tribunal and the Punishing Authority is restored. There should be no orders as to costs.
-
2008 (2) TMI 969 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Lalit Kumar PW-1 that he has not shown this amount in the income-tax return but it is apt to be borne in mind that as testified by him, he had given this amount from his personal account and for that reason, he might not have felt the necessity to reflect the same in his income-tax return. 15. In view of the above discussion, no interference is warranted in the judgments delivered by the Courts below. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld. At this juncture, Mr. Garg made a misericordious submission that the petitioner has been facing the agony of trial since 1.9.2005. and he has undergone more than 3 months of the actual sentence and in these premises, the ends of justice will be met if the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone. I have seriously cogitated this prayer. Taking into consideration the entirety of facts, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone. With this modification, this revision fails and is dismissed.
-
2008 (2) TMI 968 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... recording of reasons, it is inherent in the word overrule'. In fact, such interpretation would alone be in consonance with the rule of law under the Constitution of India even in respect of the members of the Armed Forces. It may be noticed that under Rule 51 of the Rules, in appropriate cases, Court can allow even evidence to be led in respect of the special plea raised by the accused. Therefore, it is impossible to imagine in the country governed by the Rule of Law that reasons are not required to be recorded while declining the special plea of an accused. 32. In view of the above, we set aside the order dated 7.5.2007 as reproduced by the respondents in para No. 29 of the reply and direct competent authority to record reasons on the special plea raised by the petitioner to make the right of appeal of the petitioner a meaningful right, which alone would satisfy the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. 33. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2008 (2) TMI 967 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erent service but after going through the Rules we find that the same principle which is applicable in the case of Excise Inspectors is squarely applicable in this service also. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this submission of Mr. Gupta. 29. Since we do not find any merit in this batch of appeals, therefore, we need not consider other submissions made by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants in CA No. 1776 of 2007. Mr. Rohatgi submitted that the list which has been prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission though has exhausted, but the Appellants have come up before this Court in time, therefore; that list should be retained. We regret that this question does not survive in view taken by us and more so, the list has already exhausted. Therefore, we need not consider this aspect any more. As a result of our aforesaid discussion, we don't find any merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2008 (2) TMI 966 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ness shall be first examined in chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination in chief. Thus, the above provisions make it clear that the right of examining the witness is confined only to a party, who has brought action and the adversary party. Since it is not the case of the petitioner that P.W.1's case is adverse to that of her, the Court below has rightly disallowed the cross examination on behalf of the petitioner herein. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the said order. 10. In the result, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, dated 09.03.2006 made in O.S. No. 4 of 2005 is confirmed and the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected petition is closed.
-
2008 (2) TMI 965 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... , it was submitted that the revenue was aware what they were doing so, from the returns which have been filed with the authorities. We find this as not acceptable, as the invoices/gate passes under which the clearances of freshly manufactured bottles were effected without payment of duty would have clearly indicated clearance under the provisions of Rule 173H after remaking/reconditioning . These remarks may not create any suspicion in the mind of the authorities below, as these provisions are very clear, and hence the extended period invoked against the appellant is correct. Since it is held by us that the amount of duty demand confirmed under this head is correct and extended period is invokable, the impugned order to the extent it upholds the confirmation of demand of duty on such clearances and imposition of penalty is correct and does not require any interference. The appeals filed by both sides are disposed as indicated in the above paragraphs. (Pronounced on 21-2-2008)
-
2008 (2) TMI 964 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rd in favor of the Claimant directing the Respondent to make a payment of a sum of Rs. 7.69 Crores to the Claimant towards discharge of its admitted liability. This interim award will be taken into consideration at the time of making the final award after determination of the amount payable by the Respondent to the Claimant under the Statement of Claim, including the claim regarding interest as well as the amount found payable to the Respondent under the counter claim. Accordingly I make this Interim Award and direct the Respondent to pay to the Claimant a sum of Rs. 7.69 crores (Rupees seven crores sixty nine lakhs only) against the claim made by the Claimant, which is the subject-matter of these arbitral proceedings. 10. In the light of the above findings which have been affirmed even by the learned Single Judge, there is no room for taking a contrary view by us. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.
-
2008 (2) TMI 963 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 9. The above position was highlighted in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004(5) SCC 568). 10. Therefore, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside, and matter is remitted to it. The High Court shall take up the matter afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.
-
2008 (2) TMI 962 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ound guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negtiable Instruments Act. This Court has also taken into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused regarding punishment to be awarded for the said offence. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case , this Court feels that it is a fit case in which imposition of a sentence of one month Simple Imprisonment shall be appropriate. In addition to that, there shall be a direction to the accused under Section 357(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to pay a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- (cheque amount) as compensation to the complainant. This Court grants' two months time from this date to the respondent herein to pay the said amount by way of a demand draft drawin in favour of the appellant and payable at Chennai. In default thereof, the respondent shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 14. With the above observation, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of.
-
2008 (2) TMI 961 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ) Whether when the present market value (PMV) of the goods were found to be much less than what was declared before the Indian Customs Authority, such was additional evidence of declaration of inflated value for the purpose of wrongfully and fraudulently claiming and obtaining duty drawback by the respondents?” Let the paper book be prepared by the appellant and be served upon the respondent within 8 weeks from date. Let the appeal appear 10 weeks hence. All parties including Receivers concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2008 (2) TMI 960 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the write petition. A memo dated 20.11.2007 has also been filed by the petitioner in this behalf. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2008 (2) TMI 959 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er consent and knowledge are not sufficient pleadings to show prima facie that she was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. 17. Though the petitioner could not establish that she is not liable for the act of the other partners of the firm right from her alleged date of retirement, the court find that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted with the aforesaid vague allegations which does not indicate her active role in the business of the Partnership Firm. A sleeping partner who had not played any active role in the business of the Partnership Firm cannot be directed to face the criminal liability under section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 18. In view of the above, the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner ranked as fourth accused in C.C.Nos.504, 461 and 679 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Coimbatore stand quashed. The Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.
-
2008 (2) TMI 958 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly provides that in case dealer commits default in making payment of any amount of tax (i) leviable or (ii) payable or (iii) of any amount of tax, fees interest or (iv) penalty assessed or (v) determined or (vi) of any amount or (vii) demand otherwise payable, within the specified time under the provisions of the Act of 1994 or rules made or notification issued thereunder then dealer is liable to pay interest for the period starting from the day immediately succeeding the date specified for such payment. Therefore, interest can be charged on the amount when payment of tax is required by law itself by particular time and in that situation, the payment is not dependent upon passing of any order by the assessing authority. In this case, the petitioner paid the tax @ 4% admittedly and he was not entitled to pay the less amount of tax and, therefore, the interest has rightly been levied against the petitioner. 36. In view of the above reasons, the revision petitions are dismissed.
-
2008 (2) TMI 957 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the payee's name and the amount shown in the cheque Is not in the handwriting of the drawer of the cheque that by itself is not a ground to contend that they are not validly issued or the cheques were not executed at all. 21. Respectfully following the aforementioned decision this Court is satisfied that the earlier order dated 8th March 2006 passed by the learned MM declining to refer the cheques in question for the opinion of the handwriting expert was valid and did not call for any review. The subsequent order dated 14th September 2006 passed by learned MM was in the circumstances not sustainable in law. It is accordingly hereby set aside. 22. The petition is allowed. The case be listed before the trial court on 17th March 2008 for directions. The learned MM will proceed to the next stage as expediously as possible. 23. A certified copy of this order be delivered to the trial court concerned within six days from today. 24. Order dusty to the counsel for the parties.
-
2008 (2) TMI 956 - SC ORDER
HIGH COURT ORDER NOT FOUND
... ... ... ... ..... Mr. Himinder Lal, Adv. and Mr. V.K. Sidharthan, Adv. ORDER Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at great length, we see no reason to interfere. The appeals, being devoid of merit, are, accordingly, dismissed. However, the question of law, if any, is kept open. SLP(C) No.19586/2007 Heard. No merit. The special leave petition is dismissed both on account of delay as also on merit.
-
2008 (2) TMI 955 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t and it is his duty to appear on behalf of his client, in our opinion, is beyond the scope of this appeal. 15. We, therefore, although do not approve the manner in which the appeal has been disposed of by the High Court, are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 16. However, keeping in view of the fact that the complaint petition was filed as far back on 10.01.2002, the learned Trial Judge should proceed with the matter in accordance with law and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. On the date(s) on which the accused remains present, the complainant would not take any adjournment and in the event she does not choose to be represented in the court, the court shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Both the accused and complainant are directed to appear in the Trial Court within two weeks from date. The appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned observations.
-
2008 (2) TMI 954 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are virtually unfettered. If it is open to the Government to revoke a Detention Order and thereafter make another Detention Order under Section 11(2) of COFEPOSA Act, it is beyond cavil that the same course can be chartered by the writ Court. The order that commends itself to us at this juncture, is to set aside the impugned Detention Order with liberty granted to the Government to pass a fresh order on the same facts if it considers it expedient, necessary and just to do so. We think this to be the proper path in the present case because the extent to which the previous Detention Order has affected the thought-process of the Detaining Authority is certainly nebulous. 12. We allow the writ petition. The impugned Detention Order is set aside with liberty granted to the Respondents to pass a fresh Detention Order on the same set of facts. The Detenu, namely, Shri B.K. Goyal, is set at liberty forthwith unless he is wanted in any other case. There shall be no orders as to costs.
-
2008 (2) TMI 953 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aside and the writ appeal is disposed of as under (i) The respondent hospital is at liberty to make a representation to the appellant Corporation objecting to the demand of property tax, enclosing all the relevant materials, within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (ii) on receipt of such representation, the appellant Corporation shall pass appropriate orders, considering the materials furnished by the respondent Hospital and also taking note of the receipts by them, which may vary depending upon the nature and period and in accordance with law; and (iii) considering the huge arrears by the respondent hospital for the period since October 1993, the respondent hospital is directed to make a payment of 1/3rd of the arrears of the impugned demand, which shall be, of course, subject to the final order to be passed by the appellant Corporation in this regard, as directed above. In the result, writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
2008 (2) TMI 952 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ven been verified through the Foreign Tax Division of the CBDT. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which dismissed the appeal. 8. Before us, in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is contended that even though the transaction may be genuine, there is nothing to suggest the creditworthiness of the loanee. We are of the opinion that in view of an inter-Governmental exchange which resulted in a report from the IRS department of the American Government to the Foreign Tax Division of the CBDT, which suggests that the transaction was completely above board, the revenue cannot seek to add the amount to the income of the assessee without any substantial material, but only on surmises. 9. In view of the concurrent finding of fact with regard to the genuineness of the transaction, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. 10. The appeal is dismissed.
........
|
