|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 910 Records
-
2008 (8) TMI 1028 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ss legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 13. As the factual scenario goes to show the proceedings were nothing but abuse of the process of law. 14. In view of what is stated in Section 37 of the Act and the ratio in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) the appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct. The proceedings in CC No. 356/96 pending before learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karimnagar stand quashed. The appeal is allowed.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1027 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents would be entitled to construct bungalow on their plot of land, in terms of guidelines dated 8.2.1988 and that they would not be entitled to construct 15 dwelling units which is quite contrary to those guidelines. The record does not indicate that the building plans of the respondents are fully compliant with the requirements of the Delhi Master Plan 2001 and Delhi Bye- Laws 1983 and, therefore, impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 16. For the foregoing reasons the appeals succeed. The impugned judgment is set aside. It is clarified that the respondents would be entitled to submit their plans for development of the plot in accordance with LBZ guidelines dated 8.2.1988 and 9.5.1997. In the event of respondents submitting such building plans in accordance with guidelines as indicated above, the appropriate authority shall pass orders within two months with notice to the respondents. 17. There shall no order as to costs.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1026 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hority, the respondent herein was furnished with the copy of the said report along with all the relied upon documents. When all these infirmities were specifically pleaded and brought to the notice of the appellate authority (i.e. Forest Conservator), he rejected the same but has not pointed the relevant materials from the records of the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority to support his decision. Hence, the appellate authority has also committed an error in dismissing the appeal of the respondent. 15. After taking note of all the infirmities and in the light of the various principles enunciated by this Court, the High Court has rightly interfered and quashed the orders dated 05.03.1986 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani as well as order dated 27.04.1991 passed by the Conservator of Forest, Western Circle, Nainital. 16. In view of the above discussion and conclusion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1025 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... iled with the return of income. The Hon'ble High Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. National Taj Traders (1980) 121 ITR 535(SC) in this regard. Applying the parity of reasoning to the instant case, we find that the defect in this case was duly rectified by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings and the compliance made substantively. Therefore, the assessing officer ought to have considered the same. In this light, we find the said objection as unsustainable to deny the claim of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in both the objections, taken by the assessing officer to deny the benefits of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act. In the result, we set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and direct the assessing officer to allow relief to the assessee under Section 80-IB of the Act as claimed. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1024 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of one month from this date. 2. Now the learned Counsel for the parties have filed a joint compromise petition in this Court in compliance with the said order dated 17th of January, 2008 of this Court. The terms and conditions of the joint settlement have been duly signed by the parties. Such being the stand taken by the parties before us, the appeals are disposed of in terms of the joint settlement arrived at by the parties. The joint settlement shall form part of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1023 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e members can be roped into as the drawers of the cheques though signatory is one of them. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is unsustainable. The learned Sessions Judge failed to see that quashing of the process at the premature stage was not called for in view of the Explanation appended to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In any case, at such a premature stage, the process ought not to have been quashed against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The prospective defence of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not be a sufficient ground to quash the order of process issued against them. Needless to say, the impugned order is patently illegal and liable to be interfered with and deserves to be set aside. 13. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The impugned judgement of the learned 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge rendered in Criminal Revision Application No. 61/2006 is set aside and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate is restored.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1022 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra) where assessee i.e. petitioner was providing the facility of video machine and the entertainment was by the payee by use of some of his skills, it has been held to be an 'entertainment'. The contention raised has no force and is rejected. We have also considered the judgment of Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi 1979 1 SCR 557 relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner. The facts of that case are different and are not applicable to the present case. It may be mentioned that though in the petition, petitioner has raised a plea that the Act is violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution, however, no arguments have been advanced on the said plea. In these circumstances, we presume that petitioner has given up the said plea. In view of above discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders under challenge which calls for interference of this Court. We accordingly dismiss the writ petition.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1021 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion. 4. Having heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties and having gone through the petitions, RULE be issued in all the three petitions and ad-interim relief is granted in terms of paragraph 24 C(ii) whereby the respondent No.4 is restrained from refusing admission / entry of goods supplied by the Domestic Tariff Area Units, to the petitioner only on the ground of non-payment of export duty and on the condition that the petitioners will furnish Bond / Corporate Surety and Bank Guarantee of 10% of the supply value, till then. 5. Since this Court in Special Civil Application Nos.9656 9713 of 2008 had granted ad-interim relief, we are granting ad-interim relief in the above terms. 6. If the petitioners are not in a position to procure the Bank Guarantee because of intervening holidays, they will file an undertaking with the respondent No.4 that the Bank Guarantee would be furnished immediately on or before 20.08.2008. 7. S.O. to 26.08.2008. Direct service is permitted.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1020 - MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)
... ...
... ... ..... the manner in which the exercise would be undertaken by him. In case, the Arbitrator chooses to resume the proceedings, he shall issue notice to both parties, fix a date for hearing and proceed further. (c) The Arbitrator is requested to communicate his decision, within a period of 3 months to the Principal District Court, Tuticorin as well as to the parties, to enable the Court below to proceed further with Arbitration O.P. No. 127 of 2006, if necessary. (d) It is made clear that the finding recorded both by the District Court and by this Court that there exist grounds for setting aside the award, is only a prima facie finding and not a conclusive finding. Therefore the Arbitrator and the District Court (while resuming the proceedings in the main O.P.) shall consider the matter, uninfluenced by any finding recorded here or in the District Court. 28. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1019 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f possession. Relief for mandatory injunction has been valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 20,00,000/- and the relief of permanent injunction has been valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 200/- and appropriate court fees has been affixed. In view of the above, these two objections raised by defendant No. 1 in the written statement are also rejected. RELIEF 32. In view of the above discussion, the Suit of the plaintiff is decreed. plaintiff is held entitled to decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their agents, representatives, etc. from in any manner parting with possession or creating third party rights in respect of the Suit property or from in any manner creating interference or obstruction to the rights of the plaintiff, her successors, transferees, etc. Decree of mandatory injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants and their agents to remove themselves from the Property. 33. The plaintiff will be entitled to costs.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1018 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the order or for that matter dehors the records." 37. In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court and having regard to the decision taken by the Government, in implementing the orders of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.7331 of 2001 dated 17.5.2002, it is not open to the respondents to advance their arguments once again, over the same issue of seniority in the post of Assistants. Excepting the challenge with regard to applicability of judgement in O.A.No. 7331 of 2001, no other reasons have been assigned in the impugned order and therefore other objections raised in the form of counter affidavit, cannot be legally countenanced. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to promote the petitioner as Assistant from 1981 and consequently promote him to the post of Superintendent with effect from 16.6.2000 and extend all monetary and service benefits retrospectively. 38. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1017 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 10-7-2008 in Central Excise Appeal No.163 of 2007 (The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - III V/s. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Limited). The appeal cannot be entertained. Hence, rejected.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1016 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case referred by me above. Further to that it may occur why Section 111 A(3) and (4) are still maintained in the Act, when CLB has no jurisdiction. For this purpose, one should read Section 55A of that Act which clearly shows that the SEBI has no jurisdiction on certain companies like unlisted public companies and private limited companies which also can indulge in takeover as well as insider trading in the market, in view of this, these provisions under Section 111A(3) and (4) are maintained where SEBI and other market related regulatories can move CLB for getting necessary orders against these companies which do not come under their jurisdiction. 14. In view of Sections 15Y and 20A of the SEBI Act and Section 55A of the Act, I hold this Bench has no jurisdiction to issue the orders prayed for in the present petition. 15. In view of the various reasonings and the facts observed by me above, I dismiss this petition with no order to cost.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1015 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that in a suit, even if no such point is raised by a judgment debtor, interest is awarded to the decree holder on the decretal amount. The entire decree does not become open to challenge at the stage of execution for this reason. None of the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel support this proposition of his. As observed by the learned Single Judge, the course available to the judgment debtor here was to have filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the instant case, the appellants did not do so. If objections of the kind raised by the appellants are permitted at the stage of execution, then it would defeat the scheme of the Act. Clearly, this is neither intended nor permissible. 22. For all the aforementioned reasons, we find no merit in the appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- each which will be paid by the appellants to the respondent in each appeal within a period of four weeks.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1014 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... wise chargeable to nil rate of duty under the tariff, is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefit to the appellants.” In view of that we do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this matter. There is also no illegality or irregularity in respect of the order so passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence the appeal and the application both are dismissed. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the minutes 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 (8) TMI 1013 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... eph, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1012 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rd, adopted by reasonable men, the act was right or wrong. The mere fact that an accused is conceited, odd irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and had affected his emotions and will, or that he had committed certain unusual acts, in the past or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity at short intervals, or that he was subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the application of this section. 11. The trial Court and the High Court have, on the facts of the case, rightly held that Section 84 IPC has no application. 12. It is submitted that the accused-appellant is in custody since 23.1.1996 and Section 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Cr.P.C’) has application. We express no opinion in that regard. 13. Appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1011 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... artners of a Firm would be deemed to have committed an offence along with the Company if they are in-charge of the affairs of the Company and responsible to it. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 3 was the authorised signatory of the Company and in that capacity he has signed the cheque. Respondent No. 2 is the Firm. 7. In that view of the matter the averments which were necessary to be made to rope in respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein having not been made, the criminal proceeding could have been quashed against them but not against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. This aspect of the matter is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. 2005CriLJ4140 . 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the High Court is set aside so far as involvement of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is concerned. However, the judgment of the High Court is upheld so far as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1010 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the assessee has maintained the books of accounts as per the provisions of the Companies Act, which have been certified by the auditors and laid before the Annual General Meeting of the shareholders. After taking note of the annual accounts of the assessee-company and after following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Limited (supra), the CIT (A) held that taking into account all factors, the issues are squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the said case and accordingly, the assessee is entitled to claim deductions for two amounts of Rs.2,18,84,453/- and Rs.1,18,97,739/- in respect of provision of depreciation for calculating book profit under Section 115JA. The Tribunal has confirmed this finding of the learned CIT (A). 10. In view of the above settled principles of law, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. This Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1009 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ase, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction to the extent of actual payment to the ONGC, when the whole contractual liability was in dispute before the Hon'ble Supreme Court? B Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing inflated claim of depreciation on revalued assets without appreciating that such revaluation was made arbitrarily, as a colourable device to reduce book profit for the purpose of Section 115JA(2) and thus was not in conformity with this provision read with the provisions of the Companies Act?” 3. So far as Question B is concerned, we have already dismissed Tax Appeal No.391 of 2008 wherein a similar question was involved. Hence, this Tax Appeal is admitted in terms of Question A only. 4. Notice to other side. Additional Paper-Book, if any, be filed within three months from today. To be heard with Tax Appeal Nos.1097/2006, 786/2007, 389 of 2008 and 390 of 2008.
........
|
