|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1227 Records
-
2012 (8) TMI 1234 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the date, time or the year when the loan was sought or given. The appellant has presented a cheque, which obviously is written with two different inks, as the signature is appearing in one ink, while as the remaining portion, which has been filled-up in the cheque, is in a different ink. All these factors prove the defence of the respondent to be plausible to the effect that he had issued these cheques by way of security to the appellant for getting a loan from Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana. The respondent/accused has only to create a doubt in the version of the appellant, while as the appellant has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, in which, in my opinion, he has failed miserably. There is no cogent reason which has been shown by the appellant which will persuade this Court to grant leave to appeal against the impugned order, as there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the leave to appeal is refused and the appeal itself is dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1233 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... hipal,Adv. For the Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerji,ASG., Mr. S.A. Haseeb,Adv. And Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1232 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee in the CO is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 23. Ground of No. 2.3 reads as under Without prejudice to the ground Nos. 2 to 2.2 the assessee submits that it had itself disallowed 20% of Rs. 1,11,46,319/- u/s. 40A(3) and therefore, the disallowance if at all, to be made u/s. 40(a)(ia) should be restricted to the balance amount after considering the disallowance u/s. 40A(3) . 24. After hearing both the sides we find this ground is linked to Ground of appeal No. 2 discussed above. Since the above ground has been restored to the file of the AO, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this ground also should go back to the AO for his adjudication afresh. 25. In the result, ITA No. 675/PN/2009 and ITA No. 963/PN/2009 filed by the revenue and the CO No. 30/PN/2010 filed by the assessee are dismissed. ITA No. 899/PN/2009 filed by the assessee is partly-allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of August 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1231 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... its authorities had every intention to implement the aforesaid observations, though the progress of such implementation has been tardy. Accordingly, we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court holding the Appellants guilty of contempt of Court for purported violation of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court on 5th February, 2010, while disposing of the Civil Writ Petition No. 8410 of 2008. Consequently, the judgment and order under appeal has to be set aside. 45. We, accordingly, allow the appeals and set aside the aforesaid judgment, but with the further direction that the State and its authorities act in terms of the Report of the Bhatnagar Committee, in accordance with the decision rendered in M. Nagaraj's case and in Suraj Bhan Meena's case (supra), within two months from the date of communication of this judgment and order. 46. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1230 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ling with the property of the Government and entrusted with the task of distribution under FFWS, it is but proper on their part to maintain true accounts, handover coupons to the Mandal Revenue Office and to execute the same fully and without any lapse. Such recourse has not been followed by the Appellant. The courts cannot take lenient view in awarding sentence on the ground of sympathy or delay, particularly, if it relates to distribution of essential commodities under any Scheme of the Government intended to benefit the public at large. Accordingly, while rejecting the request of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, we hold that there is no ground for reduction of sentence. 12. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the order granting exemption from surrender is revoked and the Appellant has to surrender within four weeks and serve out the remaining period of sentence.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1229 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion 21. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that neither the Constitution nor the Legal Services Authorities Act makes any distinction between a trial and an appeal for the purposes of providing free legal aid to an accused or a person in custody. We are also of the view that the High Court was under an obligation to enquire from Rajoo whether he required legal assistance and if he did, it should have been provided to him at State expense. However, since the record of the case does not indicate any such endeavour having been made by the High Court, this case ought to be re-heard by the High Court after providing Rajoo an opportunity of obtaining legal representation. 22. We dispose of this appeal by setting aside the judgment and order dated 05.09.2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1991 and remit the case records back to the High Court for a fresh hearing. We request the High Court to expedite hearing the appeal.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1228 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 78/- u;/s. 92CA(3) of the Act made by the TPO, holding that the TNMM is the most appropriate method than the Internal CUP method ? III Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing to exclude the sales tax and excise duty from total turnover while computing deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act, even after insertion of Section 145A ? IV Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,53,210/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest expenses on security deposits ? Issue notice to the other side. Paper book be filed within 3 months.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1227 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... JR 265 (Khichri Ram v. State of Bihar). 11. In view of the aforesaid position of law this Court holds that the court below has wrongly taken cognizance u/s 138 of N.I.Act and the mode prescribed for filing the case has not been followed by way of fling complaint and lodging of FIR is not prescribed in law and to that extent this petition is allowed. But with regard to the cognizance u/s 406 and 420 IPC is concerned, this Court does not find any substance, while coming to a right conclusion, the court will have to examine evidence led during trial and the attending circumstance to find out the necessary ingredients constituting offence u/s 406 420 IPC. Prima facie, this Court finds that there is no error committed by the court below in taking cognizance under the IPC. So far cognizance under the N.I. Act is concerned it is bad and the petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The court below will proceed u/s 406 and 420 IPC. 12. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1226 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2011. The petitioner has thus failed to substantiate his allegations of malice and bias. The above contentions which we have noted, were the only raised before us. It is not necessary to go into any factual aspects because those are admitted and the petitioner does not urge that the conviction for the offence punishable under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, is not reason enough for the Vice Chancellor to withdraw or cancel the approval. Therefore, on facts, his action is not disputed or challenged. Further, the impact of such conviction on the maintenance of standards and norms in academic bodies is also not a matter, which is in dispute. Therefore, the Vice Chancellor had enough material before him to withdraw or cancel the approval and his conclusion in that behalf cannot be said to be vitiated by any errors apparent on the face of the record nor can be it termed as perverse. In the result, the writ petition fails. Rule is discharged but without any order as to costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1225 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... essing officer has to reconsider the issue after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessees to produce the material in order to explain the source of investment in the bank deposits. Giving one more opportunity to the assessee may not prejudice the interest of the revenue in any way. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that giving one more opportunity to the assessees to produce the material before the assessing officer would definitely promote the cause of justice. Accordingly the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the entire issue is restored to the file of the assessing officer. The assessing officer shall reconsider the issue in the light of the material that may be called for and produced by the assessees after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessees and in accordance with law. 5. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 10th August, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1224 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the sentence suspended, his Passport was not impounded. He was also allowed to travel abroad during that period. The impugned order was based upon the letter of the CBI but without hearing the petitioner and hence it is clearly invalid. To that extent the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 16.However, that will not end the matter. Since the petitioner had complained that he was not heard on the question of accepting the letter from the CBI, the first respondent is hereby directed to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders under Section 10(3)(d) if it is so required. Even after this exercise, if the order is adverse to the petitioner, it will always be open to him to avail the appellate remedy under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967. Accordingly, the impugned order will stand set aside. This writ petition will stand allowed to an extent indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1223 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... visions of General Clauses Act. It is after considering all these organizational features, that the assessee has been granted registration under sec.12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. Therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot deny the benefit of sec.11 to the assessee only on the basis of status claimed by the assessee. The exemption can be denied for violation of other conditions laid down in sec.11, 12 and 13. The assessing authority has no such case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of sec.11 to the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the claim of assessee was unjustly denied. Assessing Officer is directed to allow the exemption claimed by the assessee under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 23rd of August, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1222 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tioners that addresses of petitioners in notice Ex.C-4 are not correct addresses, nor it is the case that notice Ex.C-4 was not posted to petitioners. There is presumption of delivery of notice within reasonable time after posting on correct address. The respondent prima facie has fulfilled requirements of Sections 138, 141 of the Act. There is prima facie material for summoning the petitioners under Section 138 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Judicial Magistrate has erred in summoning the petitioners under Section 138 of the Act. The complaint, therefore, at this stage cannot be quashed. 33. In view of above, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Cr.M.P No. 36 of 2012 is also disposed of in view of disposal of the main petition. The interim order dated 10.1.2012 is vacated. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.9.2012. The record be sent back immediately so as to reach before the date fixed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1221 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t on the ground that the lease had not been renewed after 1986 and the rent had not been paid since 1986. In our considered opinion, therefore, this being not a suit of declaration of title and recovery of possession but only a suit for eviction, the trial Court, the First Appellate Court and the High Court were not called upon to decide the question of title. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the findings of the trial Court, the First Appellate Court and the High Court on title, but we maintain the decree for eviction. We, however, order that the Appellants will vacate the suit land within six months from today and further make it clear that the suit, if any, filed by the Appellants for declaration of title and consequential relief cannot be entertained by the Court unless the Appellants first vacate and handover possession to the Respondents. 9. The judgment of the Courts below are modified accordingly. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1220 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ome to a conclusion that no offence is made out at all against Respondent 1 and continuance of proceedings would be abuse of the process of court. 10. Mr. Shishodia submitted that Respondent 1 is on the verge of retirement. He has suffered the agony of investigation since 2007 and therefore, this Court may take a kindly view of the matter. Rampant corruption is seen in every walk of our life. People, particularly those holding high office, are frequently seen accepting illegal gratification. In such serious cases showing mercy at this stage may send wrong signals. We are, therefore, unable to accede to Mr. Shishodia's request. 11. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and order. It is not necessary for us to say the obvious that all observations made by us are prima facie observations and the court which may be seized of this matter shall deal with it strictly on merits and in accordance with law. 12. The appeal is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1219 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... would destroy the subject matter of the petitioners claim. Without the said textile mills and their assets, the MOU and the definitive agreements would loose their meaning and would be of no avail. Consequently, I allow these petitions and confirm the order dated 01.10.2010 till the making of the award by the arbitral tribunal, which is seized of the disputes between the parties. 102. I once again make it clear that the observations made by me in the aforesaid order, both on facts and in law, are only a prima facie evaluation undertaken for the purpose of passing this order, and that the arbitral tribunal shall not be bound by any of the observations made in this order. The arbitral tribunal shall deal with the issues raised before it, even if they are the same as raised before this Court, independently, without, in any manner, being influenced by any of my observations or prima facie findings. The petitioners are entitled to costs of Rs. 25, 000/- in each of these petitions.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1218 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the business of the Company. Under the circumstances, it can be presumed that the petitioners are being prosecuted under the principle of vicarious liability. But the Indian Penal Code save and except some provisions, specially providing thereof, does not contemplate any prosecution on account of vicarious liability on the part of the party, who is not charged directly for commission of the offence. This proposition has been laid down in a case of S.K. Alagh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008) 5 SCC 662 and recently that principle has been reiterated in a case of Aneeta Hoda vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 661 . Under the circumstances stated above, the trial court and also the revisional court certainly committed illegality in refusing to discharge the petitioners from the accusation. Accordingly, both the orders are hereby set aside. Consequently, the petitioners are discharged from the case. In the result, this application stands allowed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1217 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ned only a post-dated cheque from the respondent, is unbelievable. Per contra, in Ex.P7 reply notice sent by the respondent, he stated that the appellant was working as a collection boy in the financial institution, which was run by his close associates and he used to go to Lakshmi Saraswathi Finance Company to pay the amount on behalf of respondent. The cheque issued for eighth installment is utilised by the appellant for this purpose. Hence, I am of the view, the appellant herein has not proved Ex.P1 cheque has been issued by the respondent for discharging his legally subsisting liability, since the respondent has not borrowed any money from him. The trial Court considered all the aspects in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference and hence, it is confirmed. In fine, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1216 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... forum. If Exhibits R-1 (k), R-1 (e) or R-1 (f) are favourable to her, she could have produced the said documents before the competent authority for admission to Research Programme as desired by her. If she wanted a community certificate in the year 2010, the authority concerned must follow the guidelines issued by way of Government Orders and they are governed by the Government Orders, which were in force at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the Lok Ayukta exceeded its jurisdiction in passing Exhibit P-4 order and was further justified in quashing the same. As already stated above, if the appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of community certificate, she is entitled to approach the appellate authority under the special enactment by placing entire materials. With these observations, we decline to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1215 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... come was not found possible as per law. The finding of fact recorded by the ld. CIT(A) has been approved by the Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal has become final because no appeal is preferred against this order before the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and as such, claim of netting cannot be allowed in favour of the assessee. In the case of ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. (supra) the issue was with regard to deduction u/s. 80HHC read with Explanation. Therefore, the ld. DR rightly contended that the facts are clearly distinguishable in this case from the facts of the case of the present assessee. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the claim of assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
........
|
