|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 731 Records
-
2009 (11) TMI 1031 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as raw materials, which are then converted into gas through a unique process. Both the raw materials and the end products have different quality and different characteristics. The mechanized process by which the liquid is converted into gas includes compression at high pressure, removal of impurities using vaporizer and also of giving heat treatment. 13. Thus, looking to the nature of process undertaken by the petitioner, in my opinion the petitioner unit is a manufacturing unit within the definition of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner is required to pay only 10% duty charges and not 60% as demanded by the respondent. The finding of the authority that no manufacturing process is without any basis. 14. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.6.2000 passed by the respondent no.3 is quashed. The Respondents are directed to credit the excess payment made by the petitioner in the future bills. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1030 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e are only those documents that can legally be on record and other documents cannot be on record of the suit even if found amongst the papers on record. In the present case, evidence is still underway and the stage for sifting documents has not reached. In view of conclusion reached above, the document Ex.PW1/D1 is legally on record till this stage. 15. I answer the questions framed above accordingly. This petition succeeds and is allowed. The petitioner/defendant was entitled to put the document in cross examination of the respondent/plaintiff; notwithstanding the denial by the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant is entitled to otherwise prove the said document. Since the scope of this petition vide order dated 4th March, 2009 was restricted to the above, the Trial Court to now decide the application of the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act in accordance with the legal position enumerated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1029 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... l for the appellant. Delay condoned. The civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1028 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ee s counsel on this issue. Regarding the other arguments of the assessee s counsel that the money borrowed from his wife and there was only technical and venial breach. The transaction between husband and wife cannot be constitute as a loan transaction, law does not take into account trivialities. In respect of the loan taken from the wife, the said borrowing carries no interest and no condition regarding the repayment. It was taken on account of urgent business commitment. It cannot be construed to be a transaction borrower and the lender. Genuineness of the transaction was not doubted. Apropos the relation of husband and wife, it is said in the Bible what God hath joined together man cannot cast asunder . As such, there existed mitigating circumstances. In our opinion, penalty cannot be maintained in respect of loan from wife. Accordingly, penalty is deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 20.11. 2009.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1027 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Essential Commodities Act, 1955, are quashed. Consequently, the order dated 11.3.2009 summoning them to answer the charges is also quashed. 33. As this Court by its order dated 11.6.2009 in Crl.P No. 7354/2009 has set aside the impugned order against the principal offender M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Limited (accused No. 1) and has remanded the matter to the Trial Court for reconsideration, the impugned order in CC No. 309/2009 (PCR No. 4/2009) in so far as it relates to petitioners 1 and 2 (accused Nos. 2 and 3) is also set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court directing it to reconsider the averments in the complaint, sworn statement and other relevant documents to ascertain whether it makes out a prima facie case to proceed against them for the offences punishable under Section 403, 405, 424, 420 of IPC and Sections 7 and 8 with reference to sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 34. Petition stands disposed of in terms of this order.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1026 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... P1 cannot be treated as acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, since the acknowledgment should be before the period of limitation is over and that it should be in writing. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant has been able to prove that Ex. P1 was in relation to a legally enforceable debt or liability in law as the same was admittedly issued after more than three years of the advancement of the alleged amount as loan. So, if the matter is viewed in the background of the observations rendered in re Ashwini Satish Bhat (Mrs.) (supra), it turns out that the accused- respondent had issued the cheque in 2003 when the debt had already become time barred. The acknowledgment of the alleged amount in 2003 was not valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and consequently it was not a legally enforceable debt. 10. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. 11. Disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1025 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... perty cannot be considered to be either of her husband or of anyone else after 31 years of execution of the title deed in her favour. 10. The present suit is a gross misuse of the judicial process and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The suit seems to have been filed with a mala fide design of depriving defendant No. 4 of his right to get the specific performance of the agreement entered by defendant No. 1 with defendant No. 4. I consider the suit should be dismissed with heavy costs so that Courts are not used as a tool of harassment and to further mala fide intentions by a litigant. 11. The application is allowed. The suit is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 50,000/- be paid to defendant No. 4 and Rs. 50,000/- be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. In case the cost is not paid within 30 days, the same shall be recovered through Execution. Defendant No. 4 is authorized to file such an Execution for recovery of cost.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1024 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... the Respondent Mr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vijay Nair, Adv., Ms. V.D. Khanna, Adv. for M/s. I.M. Nanavati Associates, Advs. ORDER Heard learned counsel on both sides. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1023 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on behalf of the landlady are not correct, it can be rebutted on the basis of the affidavit in rebuttal. There was no occasion to cross-examine and the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable. Therefore, it is unnecessary to the Court to allow the application for cross-examination. If the Petitioner is of the opinion that the contents are incorrect and false, the Petitioner on the basis of the relevant document to be filed before the Prescribed Authority can prove regarding the false statement and incorrect facts stated in the affidavit. In my opinion, the court has rightly rejected the same. If the Petitioner ultimately is aggrieved by the said action of the Respondents, she can challenge it before the appellate court of before the revisional court as the case may be. 7. In view of the aforesaid fact, I see no justification to interfere in the matter. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 9. No order is passed as to costs.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1022 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hers’ and CWP No. 3673 of 1983 titled as ‘Charan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others’. Therefore, the order of stay of dispossession is no longer in subsistence. The authorities, who have to lay the pipe and connect the sewerage pipe of the area with the main sewage treatment plant, can immediately proceed ahead, as the hurdle perceived by them stands removed. We direct HUDA to take all effective adequate steps to redress the grievance of the petitioners. With these observations, present writ petition stands disposed of. To conclude, CWP No.3855 of 1982 titled as ‘Dr.Jagdish Singh Sarkaria and others v. State of Haryana and others’ and CWP No. 3673 of 1983 titled as ‘Charan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others’ are dismissed and CWP No.3065 of 2008 titled as ‘Aarushi Coop. Group Housing Society and another v. Chief Administrator, HUDA and others’ is disposed of in view of the observations made above.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1021 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instrument Act - offence punishable u/s 138 - Whether the Courts below have acted legally in declining to refer the cheque to an expert for examination? - Petitioner said cheque in question be referred for an examination by an expert contending that he had issued a blank cheque and a bond paper to the complainant, who has written thereon the amount etc. according to his choice and the writings in the cheque and the bond are not in his handwriting - HELD THAT:- The reason which has weighed with the Magistrate to dismiss the application is that there is specific admission with regard to the signature on the cheque. The Learned Magistrate did not consider the specific case of the accused that, the contents of the cheque and the bond, are not in his hand and the same have been entered by misusing the cheque and the bond and it is in that context, the prayer was made for sending of the cheque an expert's opinion. The view of the Trial Judge was mechanically upheld by the Revision Court, without noticing the case of the revision petitioner. Since the Courts below have failed to consider the case of the accused to the aforesaid effect, they have acted with material irregularity, which has resulted in illegal orders being passed, requiring interference.
No doubt, the suggestion has been denied by P.W.2. P.W.3 is an attestor to Ex.P-7, the promissory note. P.W.3 has admitted that, there is difference in the ink with reference to the contents of the document and the name appearing as 'Hadimani' and that they are in different pen.
Keeping in view the line of cross-examination of PW's by an interim order, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 3,50,000/-. The petitioner has deposited a said sum in this Court. The Registry is hereby directed to invest the said amount in any Nationalised Bank, for a period of six months. In case the respondent succeeds, the invested amount along with accrued interest shall be paid to the complainant. If the complaint were to be dismissed, the invested amount along with interest earned thereon, be refunded to accused.
Keeping in view the prima facie facts and record, it has to be held that, both the Trial Court and Revision Court, by dismissing the application, have acted illegally. When the case of the accused is that, his cheque has been mis-used, though the presumption u/s 118(a) and 139 of the Act can be raised, still an opportunity must be granted to the accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal thereof. Denying of the opportunity, is illegal.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it is necessary to have an expert opinion on the following question - Whether the writings appearing in the cheque Ex.P-1 and the promissory note Ex.P-7 have been written on the same day and time, when the cheque and the promissory note was signed as 'I.M. Hadimani' or in other words, whether the age of the writing in Ex.P-1 and 7 is the same as that of the signature 'I.M. Hadimani' appearing on Ex.P-1 and P4?
Petition is allowed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1020 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the original sale price on which they have in fact collected sales tax and remitted the same. The present attempt to get refund of tax paid based on the discount allowed through credit notes in our view is not tenable and is not permissible under the Act. For the forgoing reasons, we confirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding disallowance and demand of tax on discount given after sales through credit notes. However, since the Legislature itself has felt that discount provision calls for clarification, we feel penal provision should not be invoked against the appellants/petitioners, provided they accept disallowance, clear the arrears if any, with interest due thereon. We therefore direct the respondents to recall the orders in the case of such of the appellants/petitioners who concede liability in terms of the judgment and who remit balance tax if any along with applicable rate of interest within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1019 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... anything regarding corrections and over-writings in Form 26, are neither factually nor legally sound. 16. We are of the opinion that in the light of the afore-noted factual scenario and the fact that findings of the Election Tribunal on issues No.1 and 2 were in favour of the appellant, except for a bald plea that some irregularities and illegalities had been committed in counting, there was no material on record on the basis whereof the Election Tribunal could have arrived at a positive finding that a case to order re-count of the ballot papers had been made out. For all these reasons, we are convinced that the order of re-count passed by the Election Tribunal was illegal and the High Court erred in upholding it. 17. In view of the afore-going discussion, the appeal is allowed; the order passed by the Election Tribunal ordering re-count of the ballot papers, and affirmed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to costs, quantified at ₹ 20,000/-.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1018 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h the Court than to send him to jail for serving sentence. 27. In this background keeping in view the role ascribed to the present appellant, the fact that he is a first offender having no criminal antecedents, he had in the intervening period of two decades proved that he has reformed himself as he has educated himself and become a lawyer and is practicing at the bar as on date; he already having remained in custody for about seven months, this would be a fit case for exercising powers for the grant of the benefit of probation. 28. While maintaining the conviction under Section 392 of the IPC, the sentence is modified and the sentence of imprisonment is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on probation for a period of one year on his furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with an undertaking that he has maintain peace and good behaviour. 29. Appeal disposed of in the above terms.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1017 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... drafting necessary application in the appeal. No mention as to the name of the learned panelled counsel is to be found in the application. Then, it is said that on February 24, 2009, the learned counsel is alleged to have returned the papers without drafting necessary application on his personal ground. These allegations are vague, devoid of any particulars. There is no document to show when these papers were handed over to the learned counsel, nor any document is there to show that the learned counsel returned the papers. In the absence of the name of the learned counsel and necessary document above, we are unable to take any step to verify whether such statement is correct or not. Under the circumstances, it is difficult for us to accept such explanation to be sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after 774 days. Hence, this application for condonation of delay is reluctantly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal need not be registered as the same also stands dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1016 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s that if the appellants ensure that the illegal sale deeds executed by them are got cancelled and the amounts refunded and settled with the purchasers resulting in closing the litigations filed by the purchasers, then though the appellants are guilty of contempt, they may not undergo sentence of fifteen (15) days imprisonment but that punishment would be substituted with a fine of ₹ 2,000.00 each. The sentence of imprisonment, thus, stand suspended for a period of three (3) months to facilitate the appellants to redeem themselves and avail of this opportunity and in case they settle the claims of all the purchasers to whom they had sold the land contrary to the injunction order within the said period of time and deposit the fine of ₹ 2,000.00 each, then they will not undergo sentence of fifteen (15) days imprisonment failing which the impugned order of sentence would come into operation. 11. The appeals accordingly stand dismissed with the aforesaid modification.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1015 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ERPRISES reported in 266 ITA 356 (KAR) this Court has on the very same issue considered the point now canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant had held that amounts paid towards fine/penalty for getting the construction regularised would come within the mischief of explanation to Section 37 (1) of the Act. The learned counsel for appellant has been unable to demonstrate as to how the said decision is inapplicable to the facts of the case. Hence, we do not see any ground to take a different view from the view taken in Mamta's case referred to supra. We do not see any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this and we also do not see that any ground has been made out by the appellant to deviate from the view already taken by this Court. Hence, following the said judgment, we are of the opinion that there is no substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal fails and It is hereby dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1014 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... imitation and same was rightly negatived by lower Appellate Court. 22.Plaintiff has established his title by Ex.A1 to A3 and has proved the lease arrangement with the defendant and that defendant has committed default in payment of paguthy. In a catena of decisions, Supreme Court has held that as general rule, where the findings of the Courts below based on evidence and when the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact, High Court will not normally interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 C.P.C (See 2009 (4) LW125 Narayanan Rajendran & another Vs. Lakshmy Sarojini & others) 23.In the result, the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.70 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2004 made in O.S.No.236 of 2003 on the file of the Addl.District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai is confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1013 - SUPREME COURT
Dishonour of Cheque - insufficient funds - compounding of offence - cheques returned unpaid with remark "exceeding of arrangements'' - Petitioner has prayed to review and recall orderpassed by this Court dismissing SLP - Amount payable by the petitioner to the original complainant, i.e. the respondent herein, is already paid pursuant to the compromise between the parties and the petitioner be permitted to compound the offence.
HELD THAT:- Having regard to the salutary provisions of Section 147 of NI Act r/w Section 320 of the CrPC, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner should be permitted to compound the offence committed by him u/s 138 of the Code.
Condonation of delay for 39 days caused in filing review application is allowed and delay is condoned. The Review Petition succeeds. The Order dated September 11, 2008 dismissing is recalled. The said SLP is restored on file with its original number.
Affidavits sworn by petitioner on December 1, 2008 as well as affidavit sworn by P. Kaliappan power of attorney holder of R. Rajathi on December 1, 2008, as additional documents is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. The Order of conviction and sentence recorded by all the Courts are hereby set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the charge leveled against him. All the applications including Review Petition accordingly stand disposed of as also SLP (Crl.).
-
2009 (11) TMI 1012 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . In the aforesaid decision, the court has passed an order that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has disposed of the appeal of the assessee without considering the amended provision to the Finance Act, 2002. Therefore, in the aforesaid case, by setting aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, we are remanding the matter to the tribunal for fresh consideration. 3. In the circumstances, following the decision in ITA 146/2002, we allow this appeal without considering the questions of law and remand the matter to the tribunal for fresh consideration considering the amended provision of Sec. 158BB of the Income Tax Act.
........
|
