Reported in : 132(2006)DLT281; [2006(111)FLR537]; (2007)ILLJ47Del
.....amounting to rs. 2544/- along with ten times compensation of rs. 25,440/- be paid to the applicant shiv prasad yadav within 30 days.2. the brief facts are that claimant shiv prasad yadav filed an application before the claim authority under section 20 of the act that since september 1999 to february 2000 he was being paid rs. 424/- less than the minimum wages applicable to him. he was working as machine man but he was being paid rs. 2348/- while the minimum wages for machine man as per notification were rs. 2772/-. the management had been taking work of machine man from him but paying minimum wages of a helper to him. when he requested the management to pay him minimum wages of a machine man, management threatened to throw him out of service. he made a complaint in this regard to the labour department. labour inspector visited the site and found him working as machine man on the machine. despite directions of the labour inspector to pay him wages of a machine man, minimum wages of a machine man were not paid to him. he, thereforee, requested for minimum wages along with interest and costs. 3. a notice of the application of workman was sent to the petitioner. the order sheets.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 131(2006)DLT671
.....take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous considerations without any factual background foundation. in this case transfer orders having been issued on administrative grounds, expediency of those orders cannot be examined by the court. 12. the apex court while relying upon national hydroelectric power corporation ltd. v. sh. bhagwan : (2001)iillj1243sc in state of u.p. and anr. v. siya ram and anr. : air2004sc4121 took the same view.13. the apex court in state of u.p. and ors. v. gobardhan lal : (2004)iiillj749sc took a view that transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot be interfered with by the courts, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless such transfer is shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.14. this position was reiterated by the apex court in kendriya vidyalaya sangathan v. damodar prasad pandey and ors. : (2004)12scc299 by observing that who should be transferred and posted where, is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2006)205CTR(Del)571; [2008]299ITR39(Delhi); [2006]157TAXMAN308(Delhi)
.....the present appeal under section 260a of the act.the tribunal has noted that there is no dispute about the genuineness of smt. kavita kothari. in fact, not only did she appear before the assessing officer but her gir number was also disclosed. she also filed a copy of her return of income along with the balance sheet in which she declared an investment of rs. 15 lakhs in the shares of the assessed. insofar as m/s mahal chand moti lal kothari is concerned, its bank statement had been produced before the assessing officer, as noted by the assessing officer himself, but even though the company was based in calcutta, summons was issued to it on the delhi address. in any case, the creditworthiness of, smt. kavita kothari was not doubted and there was evidence to suggest that m/s mahal chand moti lal kothari also had the requisite amount of creditworthiness on the basis of which cheques were issued to smt. kavita kothari. given these facts, the tribunal was of the view that the assessed cannot be foisted with a liability. under section 68 of the act.4. we are of the view that the revenue has not been able to raise any substantial question of law. it is clear that the assessed.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : II(2007)BC563; 2006(4)KLT477
.....with the appeal namely, section 17 does not say that all appeals for amounts exceeding rs. 10 lakhs would lie before the tribunal. the determining factor is the forum which passed the order. therefore, if the order is not one passed by the debt recovery tribunal, or is shown to be one capable of being passed by the tribunal, as per the valuation in the suit it cannot be deemed to be one passed by the debt recovery tribunal. further, an appeal is the creation of a statute and section 17(2) of the act provides for an appeal from the order of the debt recovery tribunal. thus, it does not take away the jurisdiction of the appellate court to which an appeal ordinarily would lie against a decree. further, if the contention of the respondent is accepted, it would lead to an anomalous situation. if the suit claim exceeds rs. 10 lakhs, the claim would lie only before the debt recovery tribunal alone which is the competent authority who would have jurisdiction to entertain the claim instituted by the financial institution as per the provisions of the act. now, suppose after adjudication, the debt recovery tribunal finds that the amount as claimed cannot be decreed and eventually a.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(1)KLT226
.....followed earlier decision rendered by this court reported in 1962 m.w.n.(crl.) 129 as well as calcutta high court reported in air 1931 cal. 646.7. in this case, admittedly, the complaint was preferred by twopersons viz., dr. j.a. thethavusamy and mrs. arlette alyisus.therefore, the above said preposition of law laid down by the decision stated supra are squarely applicable to the facts of this instant case. in view of the same, this court is left with no other alternative except to allow the appeal preferred by the accused in crl.a. no. 235 of 2006 and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for the alleged offence under section 323 i.p.c. and to pay a fine of rs.200/- in default to undergo 2 months s. i. is hereby set aside. if the fine amount paid, the same is directed to be refunded to the appellants. in view of allowing of the appeal no. 235 of 2006, the appeal preferred by the complainants in crl.a. no. 769 of 1998 is dismissed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2007)10VST479(Ker)
.....and turnover) rules, 1957 requiring production of original part of c form for granting concessional rate of tax at four per cent. this is factually incorrect because form c prescribed under rule 12(1) provides in the note of the original portion that it should be surrendered to the prescribed authority in terms of rule framed by the state government. similar instruction is there in the other parts stating that duplicate should be retained by the selling dealer and the counterfoil is to be retained by the purchaser namely, the issuing dealer. we find that rule 11(2) of the central sales tax (kerala) rules, 1957 makes it mandatory that in order to grant concessional rate of tax on inter-state sales under section 8(1) of the cst act the selling dealer has to produce original portion of the c form issued by the purchasing dealer. in other words, we are of the view that in order to grant concessional rate, the requirement of production of original part of the c form is mandatory. even though all the entries in three parts namely, counterfoil, original and duplicate are one and the same, the same does not mean that the original can be dispensed with and in its place.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2008]296ITR661(Guj)
.....order nor the same is mentioned in the reference order).3. the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion:whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the rental income received from any property in the construction business can be claimed under the head of 'income from property' even though the said property was included in the closing stock and expenses on maintenance were debited to the p&l; a/c4. the short facts, leading to the reference, are that the non-applicant assessee-company is engaged in the business of construction of property; one of the building properties was included in the closing stock in the balance sheet drawn for the business. the assessee filed revised return submitting that a part of its property was given on rent and the income derived on that basis should be computed under the head 'income from house property' and not as business income. the ao, during the course of the assessment proceedings, observed that the expenses on maintenance of the property were debited to the p&l; a/c and so also the building was shown as stock-in-trade, therefore the property would partake the character of the stock and any income.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : RLW2006(4)Raj3180
.....has been recorded or not for which the petitioner was granted time by the court.4. in order to understand the controversy we take notice of the facts that a complaint was lodged by daughter-in-law of the petitioner under section 498 a ipc alleging that he has demanded dowry and he harassed her for demand of dowry. in respect to the said complaint the matter was investigated and the charge-sheet was filed in the trial court.5. in the memo of charge sheet dated 12.1.06 the following charges were levelled:vki jh tsrnku dkfu- 306 fjtoz iqfyl ykbzu tks/kiqj 'kgj esa inlfkkfir gs vki ij fueu vkjksi gs%;g fd vkids fo:) vijk/k la[;k 130 fnukad 36-6-03 /kkjk 498 ,] 406]323 hkknl fkkuk xqmk ,unyk ftyk ikyh esa iaftc) gqvk ftlesa okn vuqla/kku vkids fo:) /kkjk 498,] 406 hkknl dk vijk/k izekf.kr ik;k tkus ij pktz'khv u;k;ky; esa izlrqr dh xbza;g fd vki }kjk iqfyl fohkkx esa gksrs gq, dkuwu dh tkudkjh gksrs gq, hkh vkijkf/kd d`r; fd;k tks jktlfkku flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e 1971 ds fu;e 4 dk myya?ku gsavkidk mdr d`zr; vuq'kklughurk ,oa vkijkf/kd ekufldrk dk ifjpk;d gksdj fohkkxh; fu;ekuqlkj n.muh; gsa6. a bare reading of the aforesaid charges shows that no misconduct is alleged to have been.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : RLW2007(1)Raj48
.....counsel for the parties jointly on the admission of these petitions which are being disposed of by this common order.3. briefly stated, the relevant facts which are not disputed are that complainant-non-petitioner is a company duly incorporated and registered under the companies act, 1956. it was earlier incorporated by the name of m/s. krishna texport india ltd. which name has now been duly changed on 27.1.2004. likewise, m/s. punjab wireless systems ltd. is also a company duly incorporated and registered under the companies act, 1956. the complainant-non-petitioner-company provided loan facility to m/s. punjab wireless systems ltd. in the year 1988 who issued various cheques in favour of the complainant-non-petitioner-company from time to time but the same were dishonoured about which complaints for offences under section 138 read with section 141 of the act were filed in the competent courts which, it is said, are still pending.4. m/s. punjab wireless systems ltd., the accused-company also issued three cheques bearing nos. 01417157, 575490 and 0635083 for rs. 1 crore, rs. 1 crore and rs. 2 crores, respectively on 1.9.2003 in favour of the complainant-non-petitioner-company......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : RLW2007(1)Raj232
.....short 'the tribunal') constituted under recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993 (for short 'the act of 1993').3. brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant bank filed a suit for return of goods which were delivered to the defendant/respondent transporter against which some financial benefits were availed by m/s. derby textiles ltd. and who did not pay the amount to the appellant bank. the appellant also prayed that the money decree, in alternate, of rs. 43,09,144/- be passed. the suit was filed on 8.12.2000. the respondent submitted written statement on 9.7.2001 before the civil court wherein the respondent took an objection about the civil court's jurisdiction in entertaining the suit of the financial institutions like the appellant. it appears that an issue about the question of jurisdiction was framed by the trial court, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondent, but that issue has not been decided by the trial court. be it as it may be. the respondent submitted an application under order 2 rule (2) read with section 151 cpc.4. respondent in the application under order 2 rule 2 cpc submitted that the appellant submitted a.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT