|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 842 Records
-
2010 (10) TMI 1253 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ecretary, Forest Environment Department, State of Gujarat, is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization /conferring permanent status, afresh in light of the facts of each individual case keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove and also to consider the scope of framing a scheme for giving quasi permanent status to the petitioners daily wagers at par with the scheme for daily wagers in other Government Departments like Roads Buildings Department, Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department, etc., contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. In case, the authority is of the view that the benefits as prayed for cannot be granted then a reasoned order be passed supported by detailed reasons. C) The aforesaid exercise be undertaken within a period of two months from today. D) Liberty to revive the petitions in case of difficulty by filing required application/s. 8. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1252 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to present the cheques in a bank at Anna Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu for collection, issue notice from Adyar, Chennai and prefer the complaint on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. The said act on the part of the respondent not only amounts to forum shopping but also is an example of abuse of process of the court. Therefore, this Court does have no hesitation to arrive at the conclusion that in order to avoid miscarriage of justice, to prevent abuse of process of court and to render complete justice, it shall exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. Nos. 1506, 1507 and 1505 of 2007 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. 33. In the result, all the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the criminal proceedings in C.C. Nos. 1506, 1507 and 1505 of 2007 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, are quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1251 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y the Tribunal relating to the levy of interest on the licence fee from 1st January 2000 till actual date of payment. The Tribunal has taken the view, and in our opinion rightly so, that the respondents were entitled to recover not only the outstanding licence dues but also interest due on the same for the period of default. The Tribunal has rightly held that to the extent condition stipulated a deadline i.e. 31st January, 2000 it was open to the respondent to charge simple interest on the overdue amount for keeping the licence valid instead of terminating the same on the ground of default. 13. In the totality of the above circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal nor do we see any legal flaw in the directions issued by the Tribunal for re-working the dues along with interest keeping in view the observations made in the order under appeal. 14. There is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1250 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... lable in the paper book. So, he prayed that the above disallowances of expenses as sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) may be deleted. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 9. After hearing the rival submissions and carefully perusing the material available on record, we find that the personal use of the motor car, telephone and mobile phone expenses cannot be ruled out and since the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition as personal use of the same cannot be ruled out, we find no infirmity in his order to the extent of confirming the addition on account of motor car, telephone and mobile phone expenses. But in respect of FAX expenses, we are not in agreement with the view of the Ld. CIT(A) and the addition on account of FAX expenses so sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed. 11. Order is pronounced in the open court on 14.10.10.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1249 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l. Copy of the appeal is produced as Ext.P9. The petitioner seeks the same order as in the earlier judgment pending disposal of the said appeal. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of opinion that pending disposal of the second appeal also, the petitioner can be permitted to clear the goods. Accordingly the respondents shall permit the petitioner to clear the goods on payment of 50% of the duty demanded and furnishing bank guarantee for the balance. Demand for redemption fine and penalty would stand stayed until orders are passed by the 4th respondent on Ext.P9 appeal. The petitioner shall further execute a bond as provided under Section 143 of the Customs Act to pay the duty fine and penalty as per orders in Ext.P9 appeal. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above, in view of my above order I do not think that any further orders are necessary in the Contempt Case and in the Review Petition. Accordingly, the Contempt Case and in Review Petition are closed.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1248 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nstitutions. Exemption is also seen granted for the entire income except in regard to the addition made by the Officer under Section 68. Tribunal has allowed the claim following the decision of the Delhi High Court in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Raunaq Education Foundation (Delhi) 294 ITR 76. Since respondent assessee is entitled to exemption both under Section 11 as well as under Section 10(23C) we do not find any justification for separate treatment of unexplained cash credit treated as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. We do not find any ground to deviate from the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the above case. We therefore dismiss the department appeal.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1247 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... collusion, with the other accused decided to fabricate the document in question and adduce it in evidence before the arbitral tribunal. There is not even a whisper in the complaint indicating any participation of appellant No. 2 in the acts constituting the offence, and that being the case we are convinced that Section 34 IPC is not attracted in his case. 35. In the final analysis, we are of the opinion that no prima facie case has been made out against appellant No. 2 in respect of offences under Sections 192 and 199 of the IPC, even with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. Therefore, it was a fit case where the High Court should have exercised its powers under Section 482 of the Code by quashing the complaint against appellant No. 2. 36. For the aforegoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed qua appellant No. 1; it is allowed in relation to appellant No. 2; and consequently order of the Magistrate taking cognizance against appellant No. 2 in Complaint No. 476 of 2004 is quashed.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1246 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hilt to see that the case does not proceed and High Court and Supreme Court were made to give ten decisions in Antulay case (i) (1986) 2 SCC 716, (ii) AIR 1981 Bombay 422, (iii) (1982) 2 SCC 463, (iv) 1982 ILR 2098, (v) (1984) 2 SCC 183, (vi) 1983 ILR Bombay 2188, (vii) (1984) 2 SCC 500, (viii) 1986 Suppl. SCC 510, (ix) (1988) 2 SCC 602 and (x) AIR 1992 SC 1701. The complainant R.S. Nayak who had filed the complaint in 1981 had given up his effort to see that the accused is brought to book. So long as courts in India are generous in entertaining the petitions against interim and interlocutory orders and in granting stays but have no time to dispose them of with same speed at which they are admitted and so long we succumb to the culture of adjournments as prevalent, the speedier trial of criminal cases in case of powerful persons and in case of persons with money, is a distant dream. 12. The present petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1245 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... R. Dave, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1244 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... roceedings in those criminal appeals are not liable to be quashed; but the proper course to be adopted in such a case would be to return the appeal memoranda to the Appellant for presentation to proper Court having jurisdiction i.e., the High Court. The other course open to this Court in these petitions would be to transfer the pending appeals from the Additional Sessions Court to this Court for disposal according to law. 14. Since both the appeals in the lower Court were presented in November, 2008 prior to Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act No. 5 of 2009) came into force on 31.12.2009, both the appeals are not maintainable before the Sessions Court. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal Nos. 12 of 2009 and 13 of 2009 are transferred from the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District to this Court. After receipt of records, the Registry is directed to post the two appeals for admission before the appropriate bench.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1243 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he issue is covered by the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. 251 ITR 15 (Bom.) in which it has been held that the provisions for gratuity has been made on the basis of actual calculations such it was an ascertained liability and the said amount cannot be added to the net profit, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal in the recent case also after following the above order of the Tribunal has rejected the similar ground taken by the revenue vide order dated 4.1.2010, supra. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the revenue we respectfully, following the order of the Tribunal(supra), and the rule of consistency decline to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this account and accordingly the ground taken by the revenue is rejected. 43. In the result revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6.10.2010.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1242 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ibution from the Respondent No. 2-SBI. This issue has not been raised in the appeal memo and, therefore, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the joint and several decree against the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 would enable the Appellant to claim contribution and/or indemnify from the Respondent No. 2. We are only of the view that the decree ought to have been passed against both, the Appellant as well as the Respondent No. 2 and in an appeal at the instance of the Appellant we are empowered to pass a decree even against Respondent No. 2. 16. Consequently, we modify the decree passed by the trial Court and direct that the Appellant, the State of Goa, and the Respondent No. 2, the State Bank of India i.e. the original Defendants No. 1 and 2 shall jointly and severally pay to the Respondent No. 1 (original Plaintiff) the amount of Rs. 16,16,301-40 together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till payment and all costs of the suit.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1241 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... tion towards provident fund and Rs. 13,158/- on account of employee’s contribution towards ESIC paid beyond the due dates b) in not appreciating the fact that the amounts were paid before the end of the financial year.” 2. At the very outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee mentioned that the grounds in appeal relate to employee’s contribution towards provident fund and ESIC. He further mentioned that the said amounts are already paid before the due date of filing of return. In this case, Counsel relied on Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. 2010 321 ITR 508(Delhi) in support of the assessee’s claim. DR relied on the orders of the Revenue. On perusal of the said judgement we find that the ratio of this judgement applies to the facts of the case. Therefore, order of the CIT(A) should be revered and the appeal of the assessee should be allowed. 3. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 08th October, 2010
-
2010 (10) TMI 1240 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... manner, cannot escape of repaying the amount to the respondent Bank. It is not possible for us to construe the definition of debt in a narrow manner, as suggested by Mr. Kamdar. Since the Appellate Tribunal has given cogent reasons, to which we are totally agreeable, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and this is not a case in which we would like to interfere with the order passed Appellate Tribunal in our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which interference is otherwise, also not called for in view of what is stated above. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. 24. At the oral request of Mr. Kamdar, interim relief granted earlier by this Court at the time of issuing notice, is ordered to be extended upto 10-11-2010. 25. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the civil application No. 2380 of 2010 does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1239 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... strial undertaking nor there is any evidence that any expenditure was also actually incurred by the assessee in earning these receipts. In these circumstances and in the light of view taken in the aforesaid decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court and jurisdictional High Court, we are of the opinion that the AO was justified in denying deduction u/s 80IB on these incomes. We, therefore, have no alternative but to set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the order of the AO, denying deduction u/s 80IB on these receipts. Therefore, ground no.1 in the appeal of the Revenue so far as these receipts are concerned, is allowed. 8.. Ground nos. 2 & 3 in the appeal of the Revenue being prayer and general in nature, do not call for any separate adjudication and are, therefore, dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed while that of the Revenue is allowed, but partly for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court today on 7-10-2010
-
2010 (10) TMI 1238 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the files of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the same afresh after admitting the submissions and evidences being filed by the assessee. Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. 7.1 For the above proposition, we also rely upon the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench decision in the case of Shahrukh Khan vs. DCIT in ITA No. 202/mum/2003 vide order dated 20.7.2006 13 SOT 61, in which it was held that after calling of remand report from Assessing Officer on merit as envisaged in sub-rule (3) of rule 46A, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had no discretion to refuse to admit the additional evidence. 7.2 Since we are remitting the issue to the files of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the issue on merit is not being decided by us. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/10/2010 upon conclusion of hearing.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1237 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ate Government by making a representation praying for pardon or remission of sentence in terms of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution of India. We make it clear that the power of the President of India under Article 72 or of the Governor under Article 161, being a constitutional power cannot be under the restriction imposed by Section 433A Cr.P.C. Section 433A Cr.P.C. can restrict the power under Section 432 Cr.P.C. or Section 433 Cr.P.C. but it cannot. restrict the constitutional powers under Article 72 or 161 of the Constitution, just as no limitation statute can restrict the constitutional power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This is because the Constitution is a higher law and the statute is subordinate to it. 9. The appellant may also file a petition before the High Court if the appellant is entitled to the benefit of any Rule or G.O. of the State Government for remission of the sentence.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1236 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ure of services rendered by the recipients of commission or the amount had been expended in fact, we consider it fair and appropriate to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for deciding the issues raised in this ground afresh in accordance with law in the light of our aforesaid observations, after allowing sufficient opportunity to both the parties. Needless to say that while redeciding the issue, the learned CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order, keeping in mind, inter alia, the mandate of provisions of sec. 250(6) of the Act, bringing out clearly the nature of services rendered by each of the recipient of commission. With these observations, ground no.1 in the appeal is disposed of. 8 Ground nos.2 and 3 in the appeal being mere prayer and general in nature, do not require any separate adjudication and are, therefore dismissed. 9 In the result, appeal is allowed, but for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court today on 11-10-2010
-
2010 (10) TMI 1235 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the defects pointed out are not coming within the purview of Section 66. Proper application of mind by the 1st respondent with due advertence to the grounds raised in the rectification application is totally lacking in Ext.P8. Therefore I am of the view that Ext.P8 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P8. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition, if the appeal is registered on the files, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till such time orders are passed by the respondents 1 and 2 as directed above, all further steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P6 notice shall be kept in abeyance.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1234 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hukla has already been granted bail vide order dated 16.08.2010 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 6198 of 2010 (B). It is further submitted that the applicant's case is at par with co-accused Ashwini Kamal Shukla. Learned counsel claims parity and the same is not controverted by Sri Bireshwar Nath, counsel for the C.B.I.The applicant is in jail since 05.10.2010 and has no previous criminal history, as averred in para 17 of the bail application. It is also submitted that the applicant is law binding person and has no change to abate the proceedings of the trial. Considering the facts and circumstances, I direct that the applicant be released on bail in Court Case No. 7/2010, Crime No. RC-8(A)/2007 under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, P.S. CBI/ACB, Lucknow on his filing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned/Remand Magistrate.
........
|
