|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1047 Records
-
2011 (4) TMI 1552 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eviction against Defendant No. 1 in terms of Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. 29. In light of the discussion made above, we find that the judgments and orders passed by the High Court and the two courts below are quite unsustainable. We, accordingly, set aside the judgments and orders passed by the High Court and the court of Small Causes and dismiss the suit filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1. 30. The appeals are allowed but with no order as to costs. NOTE - 1 As a result of acquisition of a part of the leasehold lands and for other reasons, the 1886 lease was followed by subsequent leases in which the area of the lease hold lands was considerably reduced. But the stipulation against assignment on which the case of the Plaintiff-Respondent is based remained unaltered. In the pleadings of the parties and the judgments of the courts the reference is made to the above quoted clause in the 1886 deed. It is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the details of the subsequent leases.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1551 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s, as has been discussed here-in-above, enunciates that the charge sheet was incomplete for the evidences, which were within the knowledge of the Investigating Officer, therefore, in light of the facts of the present case, I am of the view that since the charge sheet is incomplete charge sheet, it is not the stage for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of offence on the basis of incomplete charge-sheet, therefore, I hereby quash the order impugned dated 9th of November, 2010, passed in Case No. 13126 of 2010, arising out of Criminal Case No. 639 of 2010. However, since the investigation is still continuing on the evidences, which have been disclosed in the said incomplete charge-sheet, I hereby observe that as soon as it is completed and police report is filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, he shall be at liberty to take cognizance of offence on the basis of police report. 23. With the aforesaid observations and directions the petition is partly allowed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1550 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and subject to following conditions not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty; not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; maintain law and order; mark his presence before the concerned Police Station on every 1st and 15th day of English Calendar month between 11 00 am to 2 00 pm not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; furnish the address of his residence at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; surrender his passport, if any, to the Lower Court immediately. 13. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. 14. Bail before the Lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. 15. Rule is made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly. 16. Direct service is permitted.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1549 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ght it proper to call for a Remand Report from the concerned AO. A report was submitted on 25/07/2003 and, thereafter, an another report was submitted on 15/04/2004. Copies of those reports are also before us. After careful perusal of the said reports, ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition. In respect of share application money, the assessee has furnished the creditworthiness of the creditors, identity of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction which was found correct on verification by the AO, therefore, a view was taken in favour of the assessee. In the absence of any contrary material from the side of the Revenue, we find no fallacy in the judgement of the ld.CIT(A), hence affirm the same. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed . 13. In the result, Assessee s appeals for both the years ((ITA Nos.3674 3675/Ahd/2008) are allowed and Revenue s appeal for AY 1996-97 (ITA No. 3876/Ahd/2008) is dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 8th April, 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1548 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... Limited with respect to the procurement of orders of Rs. 2,42,21,413/- from M/s Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited and for timely receiving the payment thereof. Merely because there was no written agreement, the same cannot be made sole reason for disallowing the payment of commission with respect to the services rendered by M/s Lamp Cap (India) Private Limited. It is a matter of record that the turnover of the assessee has increased from Rs. 1.15 crore to Rs. 5.28 crores which includes sales to M/s OIntas Pharmaceuticals Limited amounting to Rs.2.42 crores which has been achieved by the efforts of M/s Lamp Cap (India) Private Limited. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any justification for disallowing the claim of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of promotion of the assessee s business in the form of commission. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th April, 2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 1547 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cused and issuing directions based on which the trial has to be concluded within the schedule time, viz. 31.07.2011, we hold that the High Court committed an error in granting bail to these Respondents A4 and A10. 23. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order of the High Court dated 25.06.2010 in Crl. Petition Nos. 4913 and 4972 of 2010 granting bail in favour of the Respondents i.e., A4 and A10 is set aside. They are directed to surrender on or before 30.04.2011 otherwise the Appellant shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. All the observations and directions, as stated in the earlier order dated 26.10.2010, are also applicable to the Respondents (A4 and A10). We also make it clear that the above said conclusion is for considering the grant of bail by the High Court and the trial Court is free to decide the case without being influenced by any of the observations made by the High court and by this Court in this order. 24. The appeals are allowed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1546 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... III of the said Code are limited. It cannot be said that the impugned order is perverse and in fact, the grounds on which equitable relief has been denied are certainly relevant. Hence, on facts, this is not the case where interference can be made with the impugned order. Appeal from Order No. 884 of 2010 is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 31. Civil Application No. 1095 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. 32. It is obvious that the suit will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the tentative observations made by the trial Court and confirmation thereof by this Court. 33. Hearing of the suit is expedited and the trial Court shall endeavour to conclude the hearing before 31st March, 2012. 34. Appeal from Order No. 857 of 2010 is admitted. 35. Pendency of Appeal from Order No. 857 of 2010 in this Court will not operate as stay of the proceedings of the suit and the trial Court is free to proceed with the hearing of the suit.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1545 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection for rectifying the assessment order passed by the respondent, dated 25.3.2011, for the assessment year 2007-08, and to pass a fresh order, as per law. 4. Hence, the respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner, dated 31.3.2011, for rectification of the assessment order, dated 25.3.2011, passed by the respondent, for the assessment year 2007-08, and to pass a fresh assessment order, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1544 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee. We find no justification on the part of the Revenue to disbelieve the same based on the Inspectors report only. Therefore we delete the additions of Rs.3,65,110/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act and consequential disallowance of Rs.65,72/- on account of interest. Therefore ground no.1 and 2 of the assessee are allowed. 8.1. As regarding the gifts, we are of the considered view that the Revenue has brought sufficient material on record to the effect that in the circumstances of the case it is quite unusual and unnatural and against human probabilities that without any relation between the donor and the donee and with poor financial status of the donors simply by proving the identity of the donor is not sufficient to establish the gifts to be a genuine one. Therefore, we confirm the action of the Revenue on account of the gifts and dismiss ground no.3 of the assessee. 9. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the court on 05.04.2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1543 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... idavit-in- opposition at the instance of the defendant, the scope of this appeal is very limited as to whether even if all the averments made in the plaint are treated to be true, it was a fit case for grant of injunction by the learned Single Judge. For the above reasons, we dispense with the necessity of filing paper book with a direction upon the appellant to prepare an informal paper book containing Memorandum of Appeal and the plaint of the suit itself. Let such informal paper book be served upon the plaintiff/respondent by Thursday next. Let the matter appear as a last "new application" on 29.4.2011. We also dispense with the necessity of service of notice upon the respondent other than the plaintiff/respondent. This order, however, will not stand in the way of other parties appearing and supporting any of the parties. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1542 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nged on the ground it violates the basic structure of the Constitution, it can be challenged as violative of constitutional provisions which enshrine the principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and independence of the judiciary. 25. In view of this decision by this Court, till a proper judicial authority is set up under the aforesaid Acts, the appeals to the Administrator under Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and also under Section 256 of the NDMC Act shall lie to the District Judge, Delhi. All pending appeals filed under the erstwhile provisions, as aforesaid, shall stand transferred to the Court of District Judge, Delhi. However, the decisions which have already been arrived at by the Administrator under the aforesaid two provisions will not be reopened in view of the principles of prospective overruling. 26. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed. There will be, however, no orders as to costs.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1541 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... t year 2009-10, order dated 13.1.2011, in which it has been held that appeal against the order of the DIT(CIB) does not directly lie to the Tribunal, but it first lies before the ld. CIT(A). Only second appeal can be filed before the ITAT. 5. We have seen the Tribunal order dated 13.1.2011 and are convinced that this appeal before the Tribunal is not maintainable because the first appeal against the penalty order lies before the ld. CIT(A). In that view of the matter, we cannot treat this appeal as maintainable; but still in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we would like to observe that it is open to the appellant to file proper appeal before the ld. CIT(A) after obtaining legal opinion, if it so advised. Hence, by respectfully following our above order, we dismiss the appeal which is filed directly before the Tribunal, being not maintainable. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 7. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.4.2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1540 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y the basic object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds. 10. The High Court was, therefore, in error in passing the impugned order. 11. It further appears that an important and relevant fact was completely missed out in considering the Respondent's claim for appointment on compassionate basis. From the records it appears that in the verification appended to his OA before the Tribunal he gave his age as 58 years in June, 1998. Unless his age is wrongly stated in the verification to the OA, he would be 54 years of age when he made the application for compassionate appointment and 61 years old when the High Court allowed his Writ Petition. In other words, he was already beyond the age of superannuation and there was no question of his appointment on compassionate ground or on any other grounds. 12. In light of the discussions made above, the order coming under appeal is wholly unsustainable. It is set aside. The appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1539 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... ck owners. However, the Assessing Officer has taken the view from the return of income of the assessee that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source on the said freight payments. Thus it can be noticed that the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer is not as simple as it was considered by him. The matter requires a detailed verification of facts. Further the contentions made by the assessee would show that there are conceivably two opinions on the impugned issue. Thus it is hard to accept that the impugned issue would fall in the category of obvious and patent mistake. Hence, in our view, the Assessing Officer could not have passed the order under section 154 of the Act for making the impugned disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and also the order passed under section 154 of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 12th April, 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1538 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ITR 14 (SC) wherein it was held that “When it is left to the option and discretion of the ITO whether or not to take action, it cannot be described as a direction. A mere observation by the AAC and that the ITO is free to take action to assess the excess in the hands of the co-owners cannot be described as a ‘direction’. A ‘direction’ or ‘finding’ as contemplated by section 153(3)(ii) must be a finding necessary for disposal of a particular case, that is to say, in respect of a particular assessee and in relevance to a particular assessment year. To be a direction as contemplated by section 153(3)(ii), it must be an express direction necessary for disposal of the case before the authority or the Court (CIT Vs. Foramer France (2003) 129 Taxman 72 (SC).” 6. In view of the above discussions, we quash the assessment orders of both the years and the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21.4. 2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 1537 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... u, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1536 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... an option or discretion given to the first respondent, which option or discretion affects a civil right of the bidder by way of forfeiture. The first respondent is undoubtedly an instrumentality of State. Therefore, notwithstanding that this is a contractual matter, it must follow the principles of fair play and give an opportunity of hearing to the person whose rights would be affected by the decision in which the first respondent has more than one option. 23. In view of what has been held above, we quash that part of the decision of the first respondent by which it has been decided to forfeit the bid security of the petitioner and allow the first respondent liberty to issue a proper show cause notice in the light of what has been stated above and to pass a reasoned order after considering the response of the petitioner, if any such response is received within the time permitted by the first respondent for such response. 24. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1535 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... two years of the publication of the declaration issued under Section 6(1) and, as a result of that the acquired land vested in the State Government. In these cases, possession of the acquired land was not taken within two years of dismissal of the writ petitions. Therefore, the land cannot be said to have vested in the State Government. 23. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and it is declared that the acquisition proceedings will be deemed to have lapsed insofar as the Appellants are concerned, due to non-compliance of the mandate of Section 11A of the Act. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 24. In terms of signed order, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and it is declared that the acquisition proceedings will be deemed to have lapsed insofar as the Appellants are concerned, due to non-compliance of the mandate of Section 11A of the Act. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1534 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the circumstances, we allow this appeal. Impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Writ Petition bearing No. CWJC 9981/2010, dated 8th July, 2010, is set aside. The said writ petition filed by the Appellant herein stands allowed in part. Section 27 of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007, shall be read down harmoniously with and subject to Sections 25(4), 23(3), 21(3) and 21(4) of the said Act. The Respondent No. 3, the District Magistrate, Patna, Bihar is consequently directed to administer the oath of secrecy under Section 24 of the Act to the seven Municipal councillors nominated by the Appellant to the Empowered Standing Committee. The Appellant as well as the members of the Empowered Standing Committee shall be entitled to exercise all the powers as the Mayor and the members of the Empowered Standing Committee as provided in the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, in accordance with law. 40. Parties will bear their own costs of the proceedings.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1533 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xhibit46) in STC No. 466/2009 pending on the file of JMFC, Jalna is allowed. Rule is made absolute as indicated above with no order as to costs. 8. At this juncture, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 requested that considering the age of the trial, time bound programme be given to the trial court to carry out the exercise of drp 5 CWP No. 984/2010 sending the disputed cheques to expert and collect the report of the expert. In the premise, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 04.05.2011, thereafter, learned JMFC, to refer the disputed cheques to the expert concerned with directions to determine the age of the ink used for signature so also the age of the ink used for filling up of other particulars and call for the report of the expert within 3 months. Learned JMFC is further directed to decide the case in accordance with law, after receipt of the report from expert as expeditiously as possible. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
........
|
