|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 879 Records
-
2010 (1) TMI 1316
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The core legal questions considered in this judgment include: - Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and sufficient to convict the appellants for kidnapping and murder.
- The admissibility and impact of evidence recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- The involvement of Sonia in the conspiracy and her culpability.
- The appropriateness of the death penalty in this case, given the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the age of the appellants.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Chain of Circumstantial Evidence The Court considered whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants. The evidence included eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and the recovery of incriminating items. The Court noted that the presence of witnesses at the crime scenes was natural and their testimonies were credible. The medical evidence supported the prosecution's theory of death by chloroform and pentazocine poisoning. The Court found that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed solely to the guilt of the appellants. Admissibility of Evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act The Court examined the recoveries made pursuant to the appellants' disclosure statements. It was argued that these recoveries were inadmissible as the appellants were not formally arrested at the time. However, the Court held that formal arrest was not necessary for the application of Section 27, as long as the accused were in police custody and accused of an offence. The Court found the recoveries admissible and relevant to the case. Involvement and Culpability of Sonia The Court analyzed Sonia's involvement in the conspiracy. Evidence showed her participation in the planning stages and her attempt to destroy evidence. The Court concluded that Sonia was part of the conspiracy, although she was not present at the actual kidnapping. Her actions post-kidnapping were indicative of her involvement in the conspiracy. Appropriateness of the Death Penalty The Court considered the appropriateness of the death penalty, given the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the appellants' ages. It weighed the aggravating factors, such as the brutal nature of the crime and the motive of ransom, against mitigating factors like the appellants' young age and potential for reform. The Court found the crime fell within the "rarest of the rare" category, justifying the death penalty for Vikram and Jasvir Singh. However, it showed leniency towards Sonia, converting her death sentence to life imprisonment due to her lesser role in the crime. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court upheld the conviction of the appellants based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. It emphasized the credibility of eyewitnesses and the corroborative medical evidence. The Court ruled that the recoveries made under Section 27 were admissible, as the appellants were in police custody and accused of an offence at the time of their disclosures. Regarding the death penalty, the Court reiterated the principle that it should be reserved for the "rarest of the rare" cases. It found that the kidnapping and murder for ransom, involving the death of a young boy, met this criterion. However, the Court showed leniency towards Sonia, considering her lesser involvement and potential external influences, and commuted her death sentence to life imprisonment. The judgment underscores the Court's approach to circumstantial evidence, the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the careful consideration required in imposing the death penalty.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1315
Issues:
- Contestation of suit for specific performance of agreement of sale
- Objection to portions of affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief
- Power of the Court to delete portions of an affidavit
- Consideration of objections raised by the petitioner
- Duty of the Court in dealing with objections during final hearing
Analysis:
The petitioner, an original plaintiff, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, which was contested by the respondent-defendant. After the petitioner presented evidence, the respondent submitted an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The petitioner objected to certain statements in the affidavit, claiming they should be deleted as they were previously rejected when the respondent sought to amend the written statement. The trial Court, relying on precedent, held it lacked the power to order deletion of portions of the affidavit (paragraphs 1-2).
The petitioner argued that objections to objectionable portions of an affidavit can be raised in writing, citing a Supreme Court case. The petitioner contended that the trial Court should have considered the objections raised in the application, which was akin to raising objections in writing. The respondent, however, asserted that the Court had no authority to delete any part of the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief (paragraphs 3-4).
The High Court examined the Supreme Court decision cited by the petitioner, emphasizing that objections in writing should be considered at the final hearing of the suit. The Court clarified that while objections could not lead to the deletion of portions of the affidavit, the Court could disregard objectionable parts while deciding the case. The Court highlighted the objective of expediting trials and avoiding lengthy examinations-in-chief (paragraphs 5-8).
Ultimately, the High Court upheld the trial Court's decision regarding the lack of power to delete portions of the affidavit. However, it directed that the petitioner's application be treated as a written objection to be considered during the final hearing of the suit. The Court left all contentions on the objections open for further consideration by the trial Court (paragraphs 9-10).
In conclusion, the High Court confirmed the rejection of the prayer to strike out paragraphs of the affidavit but directed that the petitioner's application be treated as a written objection to be evaluated during the final hearing of the suit, keeping all contentions open. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly (paragraph 11).
-
2010 (1) TMI 1314
Issues:
1. Setting aside/quashing of Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner.
2. Jurisdiction of High Court to grant anticipatory bail directly without approaching the Court of Sessions first.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking to set aside/quash the Look Out Circular issued against him as he was wanted in a murder case in India. The petitioner, settled in Dubai, wanted to surrender before the competent court in Delhi but faced restrictions due to the Look Out Circular. However, the proceedings against the petitioner in Dubai were dropped, his passport was released, and he was no longer restricted from coming to India. The petitioner's counsel requested anticipatory bail directly from the High Court due to fear of arrest upon arrival in India.
2. The High Court highlighted that in cases involving non-bailable offenses, the usual remedy is to seek anticipatory bail before surrendering in court. Both the Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. However, it is a well-established rule that the superior forum should be approached only after the inferior forum, i.e., the Sessions Court, has been approached. This practice prevents flooding the High Court with bail applications that can be conveniently handled by the Sessions Court. The High Court may entertain direct applications for anticipatory bail only in exceptional cases where circumstances warrant such intervention.
3. The High Court emphasized the need for caution in identifying exceptional cases justifying direct intervention without approaching the Sessions Court first. Directly approaching the High Court for anticipatory bail may lead to premature opinions on the case's merits, potentially prejudicing the trial in lower courts. The Court cited precedents from other High Courts supporting the practice of approaching the Sessions Court first before seeking relief from the High Court. In the present case, the petitioner failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying bypassing the Sessions Court.
4. The High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous since the petitioner's issues in Dubai were resolved, and his passport was released. The petitioner was advised to seek anticipatory bail from the Trial Court, with the option to approach the High Court if necessary. The Court clarified that the petitioner's original petition was solely for quashing the Look Out Circular and not for anticipatory bail. The petitioner's request for interim protection was denied, as more than three months had passed since the request was made. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition and granting the petitioner the liberty to seek anticipatory bail from the Trial Court.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1313
Issues:
1. Challenge to show-cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Allegations of neglect under Section 68(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulatory Act, 1973.
3. Delay in adjudicatory proceedings.
4. Interim orders and their implications.
5. Decision on whether to proceed with show-cause notice.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice issued under Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulatory Act, 1973. The petitioners contended that the notice lacked essential particulars and was issued without proper application of mind. The petition was admitted, and the operation of the notice was stayed. Subsequently, interim orders were passed, allowing the proceedings to continue but prohibiting the final adjudication without court's leave. However, over a span of 15 years, the respondents failed to progress beyond the show-cause stage, despite a subsequent development where the respondents themselves abandoned allegations of connivance and consent, focusing solely on neglect under Section 68(2) of the Act.
The court noted the inaction of the respondents and the prolonged delay in the proceedings. It emphasized that the interim orders were clear in their intent to complete the proceedings based on the show-cause notice. The petitioners had retired from their Bank during this period, further highlighting the extended duration of the case. The court deemed it necessary for the respondents to determine their interest in pursuing the matter, suggesting seeking further clarification if needed. It opined that given the circumstances, there appeared to be minimal grounds for prosecution based on the facts presented.
In conclusion, the court directed the respondents to make a decision on proceeding with the show-cause notice within two months. If pursued, the proceedings were to be concluded within three months, focusing solely on the aspect of neglect. The judgment emphasized the need for expeditious closure of the proceedings and expected cooperation from all parties involved. The petition was disposed of, with each party bearing its own costs, and instructions were given for the delivery of the judgment to both parties.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1312
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals against the High Court judgment in a dispute involving a work contract with an arbitration clause. The Court held that the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable, and the 1983 Act only applies where there is no arbitration clause. The appeals were allowed with no costs.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1311
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the pre-deposit requirement for appeals under Section 406(2)(e) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
2. Distinction between tax, interest, and penalty under the Act.
3. Validity of the reassessment and demand for cess, interest, and penalty.
4. Entitlement to refund under Rule 49 of the BPMC Rules.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Pre-Deposit Requirement for Appeals:
The petitioners challenged the order requiring them to make a pre-deposit of the cess, interest, and penalty before their appeal could be entertained. The court examined Section 406(2)(e) of the Act, which mandates that "the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant" must be deposited with the Commissioner as a pre-condition for the appeal. The court found that the term "tax" does not encompass interest and penalty, which are distinct concepts. Therefore, the court ruled that the petitioners are only required to deposit the disputed tax amount, not the interest and penalty, to proceed with their appeal.
2. Distinction Between Tax, Interest, and Penalty:
The court emphasized the distinct nature of tax, interest, and penalty. Tax is a charge imposed by the statute, interest is compensatory for the delayed payment of tax, and penalty is punitive for willful non-compliance. The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Associated Cement Company Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, which clarified that these are separate concepts under tax law. This distinction was crucial in interpreting Section 406(2)(e) of the Act, leading to the conclusion that only the disputed tax amount needs to be pre-deposited for the appeal.
3. Validity of the Reassessment and Demand for Cess, Interest, and Penalty:
The petitioners argued against the reassessment and the demand for cess, interest, and penalty, asserting that the original refund under Rule 49 was correctly granted. The court did not delve into the merits of this argument, as the primary issue was the pre-deposit requirement. However, it noted that the reassessment order demanded Rs. 9,46,570/- as cess, Rs. 10,03,364/- as interest, and Rs. 35,00,000/- as penalty. The court set aside the requirement to pre-deposit the interest and penalty, allowing the appeal to proceed on the basis of the cess amount alone.
4. Entitlement to Refund Under Rule 49 of the BPMC Rules:
The petitioners contended that they were entitled to the refund under Rule 49 because the diamonds used in their jewellery retained their original characteristics and were not subjected to any process that would attract cess. The court did not make a determination on this issue, stating that it was a matter to be considered by the lower appellate court during the appeal. The court directed the lower appellate court to hear the appeal on merits and decide on the entitlement to the refund.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned order to the extent it required the pre-deposit of interest and penalty, allowing the petitioners to proceed with their appeal by depositing only the disputed tax amount. The court clarified that all other contentions raised by the petitioners would be considered by the lower appellate court during the appeal. The court directed the lower appellate court to expedite the hearing and decide the appeal within six months. The petition was partly allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1310
Issues:
1. Disallowance of Rs.1,66,74,500 towards obsolete/non-moving material written off.
2. Tax treatment of premium on redemption of debentures - revenue receipt or capital gains.
Issue 1: Disallowance of Rs.1,66,74,500 towards obsolete/non-moving material written off:
The appeal was filed by the assessee-company challenging the disallowance of Rs.1,66,74,500 towards obsolete/non-moving material written off. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The assessee contended that the issue was decided in their favor in earlier years by the ITAT. The Tribunal noted that the first issue was decided in favor of the assessee in the past and set aside the second issue for further consideration by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding ground Nos. 2 and 3, but set aside the disallowance of Rs.1,66,74,500 related to ground No.1. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed in this regard.
Issue 2: Tax treatment of premium on redemption of debentures - revenue receipt or capital gains:
The second issue revolved around the tax treatment of the premium on redemption of debentures amounting to Rs.6,44,42,000. The CIT(A) treated the premium as a revenue receipt taxable under "Income from other sources," while the assessee argued that it should be taxed under 'capital gains.' The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had followed his earlier order for the assessment year 2004-2005, where the issues were decided against the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on this matter, stating that the premium on redemption of debentures should be taxed under 'Income from other sources.' As a result, the appeal was partly allowed, confirming the tax treatment of the premium as a revenue receipt.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT MUMBAI, in the cited judgment, addressed the issues of disallowance of obsolete/non-moving material written off and the tax treatment of the premium on redemption of debentures. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee-company, upholding the tax treatment of the premium as a revenue receipt and setting aside the disallowance related to obsolete/non-moving material.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1309
Issues involved: Challenge to order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dismissing appeals against original orders u/s 7301/21.09.2000 and 8808/15.03.2001 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Manifest Clearance Department.
Facts: Petitions challenged order dated 29th August, 2002 dismissing appeals against original orders imposing penalties.
Rival Submissions: Petitioner's counsel criticized the order for not considering whether penalty was imposed jointly on all steamer agents or only one. Cited judgment not discussed, leading to dismissal. Previous writ petitions referred to the same judgment, showing awareness by Appellate Authority. Respondent's counsel supported the order but lacked reasons.
Consideration: Court emphasized the importance of reasoned orders for writ jurisdiction. Absence of reasons renders order arbitrary and against natural justice principles. Impugned order set aside, matter remitted for fresh consideration by lower Appellate Authority within 8 weeks. Authority instructed to consider existing law and decide each contention with a reasoned order. All arguments on merits remain open. Amount deposited to stay with the Court pending appeal result. Both petitions allowed with no costs.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1308
Issues involved: Taxability of advertisement receipts, Interest u/s 234B and 234C
Taxability of advertisement receipts: The Revenue raised grounds challenging the taxability of advertisement receipts, contending for mercantile basis while the assessee argued for cash method. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal upheld that advertisement receipts should be taxed on a cash basis due to absence of maintained books of account in India. The decision was supported by a High Court ruling, leading to the issue being decided against the Revenue.
Interest u/s 234B and 234C: Ground No.4 concerned the levy of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal deemed this issue as consequential and directed the Assessing Officer to levy interest as per the law.
In conclusion, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on January 1, 2010.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1307
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest on delayed payment of service tax.
2. Computation and allowance of long term capital loss.
3. Disallowance of expenses related to rent, water charges, and property tax.
4. Disallowance of retainership fee.
5. Disallowance of short term capital loss.
Summary:
1. Disallowance of Interest on Delayed Payment of Service Tax:
The first issue in the Revenue's appeal is whether interest paid on delayed payment of service tax is penal in nature or not. The AO disallowed the amount of interest paid on delayed payment of service tax, on the ground that it is penal in nature. The first appellate authority held that the said interest was only compensatory in nature and as it is not levied for violation of a statute, no disallowance can be made. The Tribunal agreed with these findings, noting that interest on delayed payment of service tax is levied u/s 75 of the Service Tax Act and is compensatory, not penal. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the first appellate authority and dismissed this ground of the Revenue.
2. Computation and Allowance of Long Term Capital Loss:
The assessee held shares in M/s Polychem Ltd., which were reduced due to an order by BIFR. The AO rejected the claim of the assessee for long term capital loss, stating that reduction in share capital does not result in transfer of shares. The first appellate authority, however, held that the reduction in share capital results in a transfer as defined in section 2(47) of the Act. The Tribunal, after considering various case laws, agreed with the first appellate authority that there is a transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act, entitling the assessee to claim long term capital loss. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the Revenue.
3. Disallowance of Expenses Related to Rent, Water Charges, and Property Tax:
The assessee claimed expenses relating to rent, water charges, and property tax. The AO disallowed these expenses, stating that there was no agreement between the assessee and the lessor. The Tribunal, however, found that the liability for these expenses was not disputed by the assessee and that the liability had crystallized. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed this ground of the assessee.
4. Disallowance of Retainership Fee:
The assessee claimed a retainership fee of Rs.57,000/-. The first appellate authority dismissed this ground as the claim was not supported by any documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the finding of the first appellate authority due to the lack of documentary evidence.
5. Disallowance of Short Term Capital Loss:
The assessee claimed short term capital loss on shares purchased in M/s Polychem Ltd. The AO and the first appellate authority disallowed this claim, stating that the transaction was a colourable device to book short term capital loss, as the assessee knew about the impending reduction in share capital. The Tribunal agreed with this view, noting that the purchase of shares at an inflated rate despite knowing the reduction in capital was a make-belief transaction. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the first appellate authority and dismissed this ground of the assessee.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed in part, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1306
Issues Involved:
1. Existence of a Concluded Contract
2. Validity of the Arbitration Clause
3. Appointment of an Arbitrator
Detailed Analysis:
1. Existence of a Concluded Contract:
The Petitioner-Company, based in Dubai and engaged in trading minerals, sought to supply Bauxite to the Respondent, an Indian company. The Petitioner submitted a commercial offer on 15.10.2007, which was accepted by the Respondent on 16.10.2007 through e-mail, confirming the supply of five shipments. The Petitioner then finalized deals with the Bauxite supplier and ship owner. Despite several exchanges of e-mails and a formal contract sent on 08.11.2007, the Respondent later requested to hold the next consignment and eventually rejected the claim for damages. The Respondent argued that there was no concluded contract, as essential terms like product specifications, price, delivery point, and others were still under negotiation. However, the court found that the minute-to-minute correspondence and the acceptance of the offer for five shipments on 16.10.2007 at 3:06 PM constituted a concluded contract. The essential terms were detailed in the offer, and the Respondent's acceptance was clear and unconditional. The court emphasized that once a contract is concluded, the absence of a formal signed agreement does not affect its validity.
2. Validity of the Arbitration Clause:
The Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, as per Clause 6 of the Commercial Offer and Clause 29 of the Agreement. The Respondent contended that there was no binding arbitration agreement due to the lack of a concluded contract and ambiguity in the arbitration clause. The court, however, held that the arbitration clause in the commercial offer was valid and enforceable. The acceptance of the offer included the arbitration clause, and the subsequent formal contract also contained a detailed arbitration clause. The court noted that the intention of the parties to arbitrate any dispute arising from the contract was clear from the correspondence and the terms of the offer. The court referred to the principle that once a contract is concluded, the arbitration clause within it is binding, even if a formal agreement is not signed.
3. Appointment of an Arbitrator:
The court appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna, former Judge of the Supreme Court, as the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. This decision was based on the fact that Justice Srikrishna was already adjudicating a related dispute between the same parties. The court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims made by both parties, and the Arbitrator would decide the issue on merits after affording adequate opportunity to both parties. The place of arbitration was fixed at Mumbai, and the Arbitrator was given the liberty to fix his remuneration and other expenses, to be borne equally by both parties.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the arbitration petition, confirming the existence of a concluded contract and the validity of the arbitration clause. The appointment of an Arbitrator was made to resolve the dispute, with the place of arbitration fixed at Mumbai. The court's decision was based on the detailed examination of the correspondence and the terms of the offer, emphasizing the intention of the parties to arbitrate any disputes arising from the contract.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1305
Issues Involved:
1. Dishonour of cheque and legally enforceable debt.
2. Reasonableness of the Trial Court's findings.
3. Presumption under Sections 118, 139, and 138 of N.I. Act, 1881.
4. Appellate Court's power to review evidence.
5. Sentence and compensation.
Summary:
1. Dishonour of Cheque and Legally Enforceable Debt:
The appeal was filed against the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. The cheque in question, dated 10.10.2007, was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The appellant/complainant claimed the cheque was issued towards part payment for cashew nuts worth Rs. 93,640/-. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused, stating the appellant failed to prove the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt.
2. Reasonableness of the Trial Court's Findings:
The Trial Court's logic was questioned by the appellant's advocate, arguing that the evidence showed continuous business transactions and outstanding dues of Rs. 3 Lacs. The Trial Court had presumed the payment of Rs. 55,000/- was adjusted towards Rs. 93,640/-, leaving a balance of Rs. 38,640/-, not Rs. 41,000/-. The appellant argued that the Trial Court overlooked material evidence and statutory presumptions under Sections 118, 139, and 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881.
3. Presumption under Sections 118, 139, and 138 of N.I. Act, 1881:
The appellant's advocate emphasized that the presumption in law about the issuance of the cheque for discharge of a debt or liability was ignored by the Trial Court. The respondent/accused failed to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt, as evidenced by the cash credit memos and continuous business transactions.
4. Appellate Court's Power to Review Evidence:
The appellant's advocate cited judgments to argue that the High Court has full powers to review evidence and ascertain the reasonableness of the Trial Court's appreciation of evidence. The Trial Court's approach was criticized for ignoring the basic principles of criminal law and extraneous considerations.
5. Sentence and Compensation:
The High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting the respondent/accused u/s 138 of N.I. Act, 1881. The respondent/accused was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 60,000/-, with Rs. 50,000/- to be paid as compensation to the appellant/complainant. The fine was to be deposited within four weeks, and in default, the respondent/accused would undergo S.I. for three months. The Registry was directed to arrange for the payment of compensation.
Conclusion:
The High Court found the Trial Court's logic unreasonable and not probable, reversing the acquittal and convicting the respondent/accused, emphasizing the statutory presumptions and material evidence supporting the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1304
Issues involved: Challenge to tender process and contract award based on territorial jurisdiction of filing the petition.
Details of the judgment:
1. The petitioners challenged the tender process and contract award by the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited. The Respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of filing the petition at Nagpur. The issue was whether the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench or the Principal Seat at Bombay.
2. The Respondent No. 1 argued that the filing of a writ petition is controlled by Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which empowers a High Court to exercise jurisdiction based on the territory where the cause of action arises. The territorial jurisdiction was delineated by Section 41 of the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960, and Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.
3. The Petitioner contended that only writ petitions with the cause of action within specified districts could be filed before the Nagpur Bench. The events related to the cause of action included communications received at Nagpur, while significant actions like tender notice publication and document scrutiny occurred in Bombay.
4. The Petitioner's Counsel relied on Supreme Court decisions to support the objection that the cause of action should determine the jurisdiction of filing. The Supreme Court emphasized that the cause of action must arise wholly or partly within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to avoid abuse of process and maintain the dignity of the institution.
5. The Court referred to previous decisions where similar principles were reiterated, emphasizing that the cause of action must align with the territorial jurisdiction specified by the rules and acts. In the present case, as the cause of action did not arise within the specified districts, the petition was not maintainable before the Nagpur Bench.
6. The Petitioner's Counsel cited a previous case to argue that the Nagpur Bench had the power to exercise writ jurisdiction within the State of Maharashtra. However, the Court clarified that while administrative rules and acts do not abridge the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226, they must be considered for administrative convenience.
7. The Court concluded that the communications received at Nagpur did not constitute part of the cause of action, and therefore, the petition should not be entertained by the Nagpur Bench. The papers were directed to be returned to the Petitioner for filing before the Principal Seat at Bombay.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1303
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused issued a cheque in discharge of debt or other liability towards the complainant.
2. Whether the presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was successfully rebutted by the accused.
3. Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was justified.
Summary:
Issue 1: Whether the accused issued a cheque in discharge of debt or other liability towards the complainant.
The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- in repayment of a loan. The accused denied any loan transaction, claiming the cheque was given as part repayment for a shop purchase that did not materialize. The trial court found that the accused rebutted the presumption u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by raising a probable defense, casting doubt on the loan transaction.
Issue 2: Whether the presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was successfully rebutted by the accused.
The trial court held that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption u/s 139 by demonstrating inconsistencies in the complainant's case and questioning her financial capacity to lend Rs. 65,000/-. The accused's defense that the cheque was given as part repayment for a shop purchase and later assumed the character of security was found probable.
Issue 3: Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was justified.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the accused raised a probable defense and rebutted the presumption u/s 139. The complainant's evidence was found inconsistent and lacking credibility. The appellate court concluded that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the trial court rightly dismissed the complaint.
Conclusion:
The appellate court rejected the criminal appeal, affirming the trial court's acquittal of the accused. The personal bond and surety furnished by the respondent-accused were discharged.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1302
Issues involved:
1. Winding up of a company by BIFR and appointment of Official Liquidator.
2. Complaints u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against Managing Director of the company.
3. Quashing of complaints on the ground of freezing of company's assets.
Issue 1: Winding up of the company by BIFR
The petitioner, Managing Director of a company, was directed by BIFR to work out a rehabilitation scheme. Subsequently, BIFR recommended winding up of the company, leading to a court order for winding up and appointment of Official Liquidator to take over company's assets.
Issue 2: Complaints u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
Respondent filed complaints u/s 138 against the petitioner for dishonored cheques. Petitioner sought quashing of complaints, arguing that freezing of company's assets prevented payment, completing the offense only after the freeze was in place.
Issue 3: Quashing of complaints
The court analyzed the essential elements of the offense u/s 138, emphasizing the need for dishonor and non-payment within 15 days of notice. It was established that due to the asset freeze by BIFR, the company couldn't make payments, thus not committing an offense. Citing previous judgments, the court quashed the complaints, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court and previous decisions of the High Court.
This judgment by the Delhi High Court addressed the winding up of a company by BIFR, complaints u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the Managing Director, and the subsequent quashing of complaints due to the freezing of company assets by BIFR. The court's decision was based on legal principles and established precedents, ensuring justice in the context of the company's financial constraints and legal obligations.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1301
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal in the case with citation 2010 (1) TMI 1301. Judges were Mr. S.H. Kapadia and Mr. Aftab Alam.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1300
Issues Involved:
1. Reservation of posts for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women Candidates, and Sportspersons.
2. Selection process and criteria for Sub Inspectors and Platoon Commanders.
3. Validity and application of horizontal and vertical reservations.
4. Eligibility and impact of age and fee relaxation for reserved category candidates.
5. Filling of vacancies reserved for women and sportspersons.
6. Alleged irregularities and bungling in the selection process.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Reservation of Posts for Various Categories:
The appellants challenged the High Court's decision on reservations for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women Candidates, and Sportspersons. The High Court had dismissed their writ petitions seeking mandamus to send them for training as Sub Inspectors and quash the select list.
2. Selection Process and Criteria:
An advertisement issued on 4.5.1999 for direct recruitment on the post of Sub Inspectors in Civil Police and Platoon Commanders in PAC included a breakdown of 1379 posts for SICP and 255 posts for PC, with 2% reserved for outstanding Sportspersons and 10% for women. The selection process involved a Preliminary Written Test, a Physical Test, a Main Written Test, and an interview.
3. Horizontal and Vertical Reservations:
The Division Bench addressed the historical background and statutory provisions of reservation, noting that Article 16(4) aims to achieve adequate representation for backward classes. The Division Bench concluded that reserved category candidates can compete for unreserved seats if they meet the general criteria without relaxation. The Court emphasized balancing individual rights under Article 16(1) and group rights under Article 16(4).
4. Eligibility and Impact of Relaxation:
The Division Bench concluded that concessions in age and fee for reserved category candidates do not amount to relaxation in selection standards. Therefore, such candidates can compete for unreserved seats if they score higher than the last general category candidate. The Court held that these concessions are provisions pertaining to eligibility and do not affect the open competition.
5. Filling of Vacancies:
The High Court's direction to recalculate vacancies for general category candidates by applying 2% sports quota horizontally was challenged. The Division Bench held that vacancies reserved for women and sportspersons, if unfilled, should be filled by suitable male candidates and not carried forward. The Court confirmed that horizontal reservations like those for women and sportspersons do not allow for carry forward of unfilled vacancies.
6. Alleged Irregularities:
The appellants alleged irregularities in the selection process, including the adoption of a pick and choose method, absence of guidelines for interviews, and selection of candidates with inferior educational records. The High Court dismissed these allegations, finding no substantial evidence to support them.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision that concessions in age and fee for reserved category candidates do not preclude them from competing for unreserved seats. The Court also affirmed that horizontal reservations for women and sportspersons must be filled by suitable candidates from the respective categories without carry forward. The appeals challenging the selection process were dismissed, and the directions issued by the High Court regarding recalculating vacancies were set aside.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1299
Issues involved: The judgment involves issues related to the disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) for a company engaged in the business of manufacturing Hepatitis 'B' Vaccine, provision for gratuity and royalty to total income, and the disallowance of weighted deduction on clinical trials conducted outside the approved facility.
Issue 1: Disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB)
The Revenue contended that the business of bio-technology became eligible for claiming deduction u/s 35(2AB) from the assessment year 2002-03. The Departmental Representative argued that the company was not engaged in the manufacture of drugs or pharmaceuticals as the Hepatitis B Vaccine was made from a bio-technological organism. However, the CIT(A) justified the deduction u/s 35(2AB) based on the company's approval by the Drug Control Administration and the Ministry of Science & Technology. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the company's products fell under Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, making it eligible for the deduction u/s 35(2AB).
Issue 2: Provision for gratuity and royalty
The Revenue raised concerns regarding the addition of provision for gratuity and royalty to total income. Regarding the provision for gratuity, the Tribunal referred to a judgment of the Bombay High Court which held that since the provision was based on actuarial calculations, it was an ascertained liability and should not be added to the net profits. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to exclude the portion of the gratuity provision based on actuarial calculations. As for royalty, it was acknowledged that there was no dispute in the treatment of royalty while computing the book profit.
Issue 3: Disallowance of weighted deduction on clinical trials
The Revenue contested the disallowance of weighted deduction on clinical trials conducted outside the approved facility. The Departmental Representative argued that expenses related to such trials should not be included in the cost of in-house research facility. The Appellate Tribunal, considering consistency, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on a previous ruling in the assessee's case for the assessment years 2003-04. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds in these appeals.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of the Revenue in some cases while dismissing others, based on the specific issues and arguments presented before the court.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1298
The Supreme Court of India ordered a four-week extension for the petitioner to submit an additional affidavit regarding the accounting treatment of expenses related to excise duty. (Citation: 2010 (1) TMI 1298 - SC Order)
-
2010 (1) TMI 1297
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of additions u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for A.Y. 2006-07.
Summary:
The revenue appealed against the deletion of additions of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessee company had shown share application money received from its Director, Shri Sujit Acharya. The AO treated the amount as undisclosed income due to lack of satisfactory explanation on the source of money. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the evidence provided by the assessee, including PAN card, consent letter, and bank account details of Shri Sujit Acharya, establishing his identity and the genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) also referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Lovely Exports to support the deletion of the addition.
In the appeal, it was established that the identity of the shareholder, Shri Sujit Acharya, was not in dispute as evidenced by his PAN card, consent to be a director, and bank account details. The CIT(A) verified the identity and existence of Shri Sujit Acharya and found no reason to justify the addition of share application money. The department failed to provide evidence to suggest the transaction was bogus or an accommodation entry. The CIT(A) upheld the deletion of the addition based on the established identity of the shareholder and the lack of evidence against the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the similar view taken in a previous case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of establishing the veracity of submissions made by the assessee and criticized the Assessing Officer for insisting on the production of share applicants without valid justification. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal supported the decision to delete the addition of share application money. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld based on the established facts and legal principles.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- as share application money received by the assessee from Shri Sujit Acharya. The decision was pronounced in open court on 22nd January, 2010.
........
|
9911796707
