Reported in : AIR2007SC2594; RLW2007(3)SC1974; 2007(6)SCALE140; 2007AIRSCW4619; 2007(1)LawHerald(SC)1561
.....not gone to the police station to lodge the report and that it was rampal who had gone to the police station to lodge the report. the most crucial fact is that the said report bears the signature of nandan. it is important to appreciate that nandan had collapsed when he was assaulted with lathi by tukaram. his arm was fractured. he was taken to bijadehi hospital where he regained his consciousness. however, before being taken to bijadehi hospital he was taken to his house where his signature was taken on exhibit p/1. he was taken to baitul hospital after the x-ray. in our view, there is no reason to disbelieve pw-1. in any event, exhibit p/1 cannot discredit the evidence of tikaram (pw-2) and koshabai (pw-3). that evidence corroborates the evidence of pw-1 who has categorically stated in his evidence that his land was situated in neemgarh village; that before diwali he had gone to his field with sukhdev, bhure, tikaram and koshabai; that after sowing the field till 12:00 noon, nandan (pw-1) with others was returning home for lunch and when the complainant party consisting of nandan, tikaram and koshabai had reached the field of chunni, they saw asharam, tukaram, dayaram and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2007(113)FLR978]; (2007)IILLJ835SC; (2007)147PLR96; 2007(6)SCALE192; (2007)9SCC194; 2007AIRSCW6299
.....subsistence allowance was not illegal and, therefore, the high court was justified in dismissing the writ petition. 3. a few details so far as the factual position is concerned need to be noted. by order dated 18.9.2001 passed in c.w.p.no. 14465 of 2001 a division bench of the high court had directed the matter to be listed before a learned single judge on 19.2.2002. meanwhile, it was ordered that the pleadings in the case before the labour court were to be completed. it appears that the subsistence allowance amounting to rs. 5291/- was paid by the appellant vide demand draft dated 30.1.2002. but the labour court had closed the evidence of the management vide order dated 5.12.2001 on the ground that the order dated 18.9.2001 passed by the high court had not been complied with by that date. undisputedly, the amount of subsistence allowance was paid to the workman after the evidence was closed by order dated 5.12.2001. the management had not paid the subsistence allowance to the workman. he was not re- instated into service during the enquiry proceedings being conducted by the enquiry officer. it is true that no date was fixed. the high court was of the view that looking at the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(2)CTLJ64(Del); 140(2007)DLT378; 2007(95)DRJ668
.....(two hundred fifty thousand dollar), with effect from the original date of the bid i.e. 5th january, 2007. (d) the petitioners upon realizing the fact that the bank guarantee was in effect required to be from the rescheduled date of the opening of the bid, i.e., 22nd january 2007, and not from 5th january 2007, acted promptly by rectifying the same and thereby furnishing the amended bank guarantee dated 1st february, 2007 for a period of 180 days from the revised date of bid opening and valid up to 21st july, 2007. the amended bank guarantee was sent to the nhai by the petitioner vide letter dated 4th february, 2007. (e) the petitioner apprehending rejection of the bid on the ground that the bank guarantee was made in conformity only after the opening of the bid despite the fact that the original bank guarantee was valid for a period of 180 days with effect from the non-rescheduled date of opening of bid that is 5th january, 2007, made a representation on 12th february, 2007 to the respondent no. 2 indicating the bonafide mistake and informing them about the rectification of the same. (f) despite that rectification and amendment of the bank guarantee the respondent no. 2.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2007)213CTR(Del)151; [2007]293ITR294(Delhi)
.....referred to as 'tribunal'), delhi bench 'c' in it(ss) no. 6(del)/1999 for the block period 1st april 1986 to 29th august, 1996.2. the facts of this case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the act was conducted at the residence of karta of the assessed huf sh. sandeep kumar. certain documents/loose papers were seized during the course of search. proceedings under section 158bd were initiated against the assessed on 7th january, 1998 and the assessed filed return declaring 'nil' undisclosed income on 17th february, 1998. during the course of search,` a set of cheque books and pass books of nre account of the donors of the alleged gifts to this group were recovered from the business premises of the karta of the assessed huf. from the perusal of the seized documents it was noticed by the assessing officer that the assessed has received a sum of rs. 3,37,000/- and rs. 36,000/- as gifts by cheques on 20th february, 1993 and 5th march, 1993 respectively from one banshi l.sawhney, 32 west springway lutherville md-21093, usa. the assessing officer asked the assessed to prove the genuineness of these gifts. the assessed in its reply stated that.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2008]296ITR682(Delhi)
.....paid towards membership fee of the club is concerned, the assessing officer permitted a disallowance of rs. 1 lakh that is 50% of rs. 2 lakhs under section 37(2) of the act. it is submitted, and rightly so by learned counsel for the assessed, that this postulates that the expense incurred by the assessed was for business purposes otherwise even rs. 1 lakh would not have been allowed as a deduction by the assessing officer.5. in appeal, the commissioner of income tax (appeals) accepted the view taken by the assessing officer but before the tribunal the view taken on the basis of certain decisions, was that admission fee is not in the nature of entertainment but is an allowable business expenditure. it is because of this conclusion that the revenue is before us.6. learned counsel for the revenue has drawn our attention to commissioner of income tax v. sundaram industries ltd. : [1999]240itr335(mad) to contend that there should be a specific finding whether the expenditure incurred was for business purposes or for entertainment purposes. it is submitted that there is no specific finding given by the tribunal. we, however, notice that the madras high court has also observed that.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 140(2007)DLT424; 2007(95)DRJ674
.....of the respondent/institute adopted in 1974, 1985 and 1986 and the ratio of the division bench decision of this court in the light of the facts of the present case and while dismissing the writ petition recorded inter alias the following finding:7. the initial appointments of shri anand kumar and shri manoj kumar were on a temporary basis for one year, which terms however, were changed later in 1988 and 1989 to convert the appointments to be under the contract basis. the learned single judge took note of the fact that the supreme court has on more than on occasion laid down that in order to be regularized and confirmed there must be a regular and permanent post and it must be established that the work is of regular and permanent nature. reliance was placed on the decisions of the supreme court in the cases of c.s.i.r and ors. v. dr. ajay kumar jain : [2000]2scr839 , and director, institute of management development, u.p. v. pushpa srivastava : (1993)illj190sc and on the decision of the division bench in the case of ms. amita gulati and ors. (supra). where, however, the appointment is temporary or on contract basis or on project post for a limited duration, the same.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2008ACJ1812
.....1923. the said para is produced ver batim:14. considering the workmen's compensation act is a 'social welfare association'. further considering the facts that the appellant had waited a year to get the applied amount of compensation in the interest of justice, i hereby allow her interest @ 12% from the date of order i.e. 26/05/2004 to 04/05/2005 i.e. the date that the balance payment was made to her i.e. rs. 35,657.00 (rupees six thousand six hundred and fifty seven only).3. the appellants have picked up a conflict with this order and pointed out that as per section 4a clause 3 of the workmen's compensation act, 1923, the interest has to be paid within one month from the date it fell due. section 4a clause 3 of the workmen's compensation act, 1923, is reproduced as under:(3) where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this act within one month from the date it fell due, the commissioner shall-(a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(2)CTLJ51(Del)
.....recitals therein in regard to exclusive or non exclusive jurisdiction of the court of choice of the parties are not determinative but are relevant factors and when a question arises as to the nature of jurisdiction agreed to between the parties the court has to decide the same on a true interpretation of the contract on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. 4) a court of natural jurisdiction will not normally grant anti suit injunction against a defendant before where parties have agreed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a court including a foreign court, a forum of their choice in regard to the commencement or continuance of proceedings in the court of choice save in an exceptional case for good and sufficient reasons, with a view to prevent injustice in circumstances such as which permit a contracting part to be relieved of the burden of the contract; or since the date of the contract the circumstances or subsequent events have made it impossible for the party seeking injunction to prosecute the case in the court of choice because the essence of the jurisdiction of the court does not exist or because of a vis major or force majeure and the like. 5) where.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(96)DRJ60
.....she has not been given sufficient opportunity to reply to the prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of maxi at the instance of mahesh, the factum of recovery of maxi cannot be considered adversely against mamta.9. it is urged by the learned counsels for the appellants that the nature of circumstantial evidence produced on the record by the prosecution is weak and there is no evidence to establish the motive, thereforee, both the appellant are entitled to acquittal. 10. satya wati (pw1) and lachari (pw2) are the parents of deceased anand. they went to the house of anand on 3rd may, 1999 at about 5.00 p.m. to meet anand. they found the deceased lying in a pool of blood on the wooden bed (takhat) in his jhuggi. appellant mamta was no where seen. even appellant mahesh, who had purchased two rooms in the same jhuggi from them about 2/4 years prior to the incident, was also found missing from the jhuggi. it was on the complaint of lachari (pw2), the fir was registered. 11. the only material witness examined by the prosecution is rajesh (pw3) who happens to be a neighbour of the appellants. he, in categorical terms, has proved that deceased anand suspected his wife mamta.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 140(2007)DLT748; [2007]293ITR231(Delhi)
.....(hereinafter referred to as 'tribunal') delhi bench 'c', in ita no. 4701/del/1998 and ita no. 4795/del/1998 for the assessment year 1995-96.2. brief facts of this case are that m/s. relaxo footwears ltd. ( for short 'the assessed') is a company engaged in trading of all kinds of rubber footwears and in the year under consideration, the assessed had commenced the business of manufacture and sale of hawai chappals at its factory at bahadurgarh. the assessed filed the return of income on 30th november, 1995 disclosing total income of rs. 1,50,98,660/- and the same was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the act. during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that assessed has claimed pre-operative expenses of rs. 41,24,841/- in the computation of total income in respect of the expenses occurred on new factory and has also claimed capital issue expenses of rs. 2,63,588/-. the assessing officer disallowed these claims of the assessed by holding that pre-operative expenses cannot be written off in one go as done by the assessed and the capital issue expenses are allowable only after the public issue has been raised and subscribed.3. being dissatisfied with.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT