Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-28-1999
Reported in : (2000)1CALLT7(HC)
R. Pal, J1. This matter has been assigned to this Bench at the instance of the learned single Judge on the ground that the issues involved in the matter are very Important and require more authoritative pronouncement on the subject.2. Questions have been formulated by the learned single Judge by his order dated 18th February, 1999 for determination of the larger Bench--(a) whether the appeal was maintainable under section 116 of the Patents Act, 1970 (referred to as the Act); and (b) whether the order of the Controller dismissing appellant's application under section 135 of the Act was in confirmity with the letter and spirit of section 133 of the Act or not.3. We have taken up the first question at the outset before addressing ourselves to the merits of the matter. The facts briefly are that the applicant had applied on 31st March, 1999 In Italy for grant of a patent. Italy was declared a convention country as far as India was concerned on 3rd January, 1995. On 15th March 1995 an appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-1999
Reported in : 1999IIAD(Delhi)265
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This order, which I propose to pass, shall dispose of the application registered as E.A. 347/1998 filed by the respondent herein raising a preliminary objection about the aintainability of the execution petition filed by the petitioner herein and seeking for ismissal of the execution petition on the ground that the said petition is not aintainable.2. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 1.8.1994 whereunder the respondent was to supply certain goods to the petitioner during the period from January 1995 to June 1996. In course of execution of the aforesaid agreement certain disputes and differences arose between the parties and accordingly the petitioner filed a claim petition before the International General Produce Association, the body nominated by the petitioner as the arbitrators. It appears that the respondent objected to the aforesaid appointment. The arbitrators appointed entered into reference, received evidence an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-23-1999
Reported in : [2001]247ITR593(Mad)
V. Bakthavatsalu J.1. All these appeals are preferred by the Income-tax Officer, Coimbatore, against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Coimbatore. The first accused is Sakthi Finance Limited, represented by N.K. Pai. The second accused is the chief executive and president of the company and the third accused is the general manager. But, in the cases relating to C.A. Nos. 279 of 1990 to C.A. No. 288 of 1990, the company and the second accused, N.K. Pat, alone are impleaded as accused.2. The complaint relating to C.A. No. 249 of 1990 and connected cases are filed under Section 276E read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The complaint relating to cases C.A. Nos. 279 of 1990 to C.A. No. 288 of 1990 are filed under Section 276DD read with Section 276B of the Income-tax Act.3. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that the first accused violated Section 269T by repayment of loan otherwise than by an account payee cheque and that they v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-16-1999
Reported in : (2000)102BOMLR138
P.S. Patankar, J.1. Rule.2. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 waives notice. The Respondent No. 1 is the firm constituted originally by Petitioner and Respondent No. 2.3. Heard forthwith.4. The Petitioner, who is defendant in the suit, filed an application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996) for referring the dispute to Arbitration. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Nasik by order dated 28.9.1999. This is challenged here.5. The suit came to be filed by Respondent No. 2 for dissolution of partnership firm by name Hotel Padma and for taking accounts. There is no dispute that Clause 15 of deed of partnership dated 7.4.1992 provided for referring the dispute for arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1940) to two Arbitrators one chosen by each.6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-22-1999
Reported in : 1999(2)ALD(Cri)438; 1999CriLJ4766; 1999(2)CTC652
ORDERJudgement pronounced by V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The issue which falls for consideration before the learned single Judge of this Court (K.P. Sivasubramanian, J.) and which has now been referred to us for decision is as under:- 'Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate of First. Class will have the power to impose a higher punishment of fine than the limit spelt out from the relevant provision regarding the powers of such Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in respect of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.'2. The following factual matrix would be necessary to understand the controversy:- The accused Selvaraj, who was a petitioner before the learned single Judge of this Court in Crl.R.C. No.247 of 1997, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Tiruchirappalli for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the cheque issued by him in favour of the complainant was disho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-03-1999
Reported in : 1999(5)ALD609
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of prohibition restraining the Respondent No.5-H Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court from proceeding with the OP No.161of 1998 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 for the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the petition.2. The writ petitioner is a partnership firm, which entered into a contract with the 1st respondent-Corporation. When the Zonal Manager, Tirupathi of the 1st respondent invoked the bank guarantees issued by the State Bank of Hyderabad, the petitioner herein filed WP No. 1161 of 1996 questioning the said action. Though the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge, an appeal was filed in WA No.836 of 1996. In the course of hearing, the parties have agreed for referring the dispute to the arbitration. Hence ( Sri Justice K. Punnaiah was appointed as Arbitral Tribunal for r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-13-1999
Reported in : AIR1999SC2094; 1999(4)ALT18(SC); [1999(82)FLR856]; JT1999(3)SC607; 1999(2)KLT710(SC); 1999(3)SCALE540; (1999)5SCC624; [1999]3SCR610
M.B. Shah, J. 1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are filed against the common judgment and order passed in Original Petition Nos. 11764 of 1996, 6540, 12539 and 13871 of 1997 and W.A. Nos. 1842 and 1938 of 1996, 84 and 351 of 1997 by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 16th April, 1998. Persons selected to the post of Sales Tax Officers in the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales tax Department by the Kerala Public Service Commission filed petitions in the High Court. They were selected and included in the ranked list published by the Commission on 13th May, 1995 which was to expire on 12th May, 1998. As authorities failed to appoint them against the vacancies that arose in the quota earmarked for direct recruits and since only a limited number of candidates have been appointed, they approached the Court for a mandamus and consequential directions. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala arrived at the conclusion that Rule 5 deals with the subject-matter governed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Decided on : Jun-22-1999
Reported in : (2000)73ITD344(Hyd.)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee, which is a company, in which public are substantially interested. The relevant assessment year is 1990-91. As per the return of income filed by the assessee-company for the relevant assessment year, there was no taxable income, according to the computation made under the provisions of Chapter-IV of the IT Act, 1961. The AO had to examine the applicability of s. 115J for the purpose of assessment, as the assessee is a company. The P&L a/c of the assessee-company disclosed a net loss of Rs. 67,27,701. In this context, the AO has found that the assessee-company has debited an amount of Rs. 3,28,13,931 as depreciation in its P&L a/c, before arriving at the net loss. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, the assessee-company had revalued its assets to a higher extent on the basis of an expert valuation report (EVR). The amount of depreciation that has been debited in the P&L a/c was the amount worked out on the basis ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-23-1999
Reported in : [2000]109TAXMAN376(Mad)
1. All these appeals are preferred by the Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore, against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Coimbatore. The first accused is Sakthi Finance Limited, represented by N. K. Pai. The second accused is the Chief Executive and President of the Company and third accused is the General Manager. But, in the cases relating to C.A. Nos. 279 of 1990 to C.A. No. 288 of 1990, the Company and second accused N. K. Pai alone are impleaded as accused.2. The complaint relating to C.A. No. 249 of 1990 and connected cases are filed under section 276E, read with section 278B, of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The complaint relating to cases C.A. Nos. 279 of 1990 to C.A.No.288 of 1990 are filed under section 276DD, read with section 276B, of the Act.3. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that the first accused violated section 269T by repayment of loan otherwise than by account payee cheque and that they violated section 269SS by accepting depo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : May-04-1999
Reported in : AIR2000MP194; 2000(2)MPHT112
Dipak Misra, J. 1. Coal is sometimes called black diamond, of course, contextu-ally. Euphemistically it is also called 'Dark Diamond'. Archeological evidence indicates that coal was burnt in funeral pyres during the Bronz Age (3000-4000). Great philosopher and thinker Aristotle refers to coal in his book 'Mateorology'. In the modern context the term 'coal' has gained immense significance and importance as far as industrial world is concerned. Classification is sometimes viewed as a controversy in perpetuity for some reason or the other. It creates a stir in the atmosphere and gathers momentum to knock at the doors of justice for proper estimation. The authorities deal with the coal as their monopoly by prescribing grades and fixing the rates as they feel just but the dissatisfaction among the consumers arises because they feel that injury has been caused to justice which requires to be remedied by the Courts.2. The moot question that arises for consideration in this batch of writ appli...
Tag this Judgment!