Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : IV(2008)BC421(SC); 153(2008)DLT27(SC); 2008(12)SCALE42; (2008)9SCC763
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal raises a question of great public importance having far- reaching consequences. The appeal is filed by KSL & Industries Ltd. (`appellant' for short) against final judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi on February 23, 2006 in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 2041-42 of 2006. By the said judgment, the High Court, set aside the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (`DRAT' for short) and held that in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereafter referred to as `SICA'), no recovery proceedings could be effected against the first respondent- Company in the light of the bar contained therein.Factual Background3. To understand the controversy in its proper perspective, it is necessary to keep in mind the factual matrix of the case. Respondent No. 1 (M/s. Arihant Threads Ltd.) (`Company' for short) was incorporated as a joint ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.K. Sharma, J.1. This batch of writ petitions involves 61 petitioners, who have been declared as foreigners by the respective Foreigners Tribunals. They have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing the legality and validity of such declarations. Since the issue involved is the same, which is - whether the petitioners are illegal migrants to Assam after the cutoff date i.e. 25.3.1971, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order, dealing with each and every case independently.2. One interesting feature of all the cases, except three, is that the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Foreigners Tribunals are all Ex-parte. The petitioners, except in three cases, did not respond to the proceedings before the Tribunals, which the learned State counsel describes as a methodical ploy to prolong the proceedings on untenable grounds.3. Barring three, in all the cases, the common ground(s) is/are that the Ex-parte proceedings and judgments ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR546; 2008(3)BomCR408; (2008)110BOMLR951
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. On 21st March, 2008, we observed world 'forest' day. On 23rd March, 2008 in Maharashtra we observed 'Tukaram Beej'. That is the day on which Saint Tukaram, a Seventeeth Century Poet, regarded by many as the greatest in Marathi language, left for his Nirvana. Eachone of us has forgotten his apt remark and observation regarding a forest, the Trees and the creatures. He says:Trees, creepers and the creatures of the forest Are my kith and kin And birds that sweetly sing This is bliss! How I love being alone! Here I am beyond good and evil Commit no sinThe sky is my canopy, the earth my throne. My mind is free to dwell wherever it will. A piece of cloth, one all purpose bow! Take care of all my bodily needs.The wind tells me the time. Translated from original Marathi by Dilip Chitre, Penguin Classics, 1991.Reciting these lines today is like talking of other world. At least, the land owners and all those claiming through them think so. We rest here and say nothing mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. The issue in this case is whether the Commissioners can maintain a civil claim for damages under the tort of unlawful means conspiracy against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. Two questions need to be considered. The first is whether it is open to the Commissioners to maintain a cause of action in damages at common law as a means of recovering VAT from a person who has not been made accountable or otherwise liable for that tax by Parliament. The second is whether, if so, it is an essential requirement of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy that the conduct which is said to amount to the unlawful means should give rise to a separate action in tort against at least one of the conspirators. 2. On the second issue the Court of Appeal considered itself bound by prior Court of Appeal authority to hold that the unlawful means had to be independently actionable: [2007] EWCA Civ 39, paras 78-79. Its decision to strike ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)2MLJ348
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The Civil Revision Petitioners herein are the respondents in Execution Petition No. 90 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry. 2. Before the lower Court, the respondents/petitioners in the Execution Petition No. 90 of 2002 have prayed for the relief:(i) to grant leave to them to execute the French Grosse Copy of the Usufructuary Gift Deed dated 25/04/34 as a Deemed Decree;(ii) to grant leave to execute the Deemed Decree (Section 146 C.P.C.);(iii) to deliver to the civil revision petitioners/respondents vacant and actual possession of the E.P. Schedule Mentioned Property by ejecting the respondents, bound by the decree, and if necessary by removing the person/persons bound by the said decree and further if necessary by breaking open the locks, if any, put up by the Respondents/Obstructors or person/persons, bound by the said decree, in accordance with Order XXI Rule 35(1) & (3) of the C.P.C.3. In the counter filed to the E.P. No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC809; 2008(2)ALD1(SC); 2008(56)BLJR181; (2008)1CALLT69(SC); (2008)1CompLJ1(SC); 2008(1)JKJ41[SC]; LC2008(1)56; (2008)1MLJ361(SC); 2008(36)PTC1(SC); 2007(14)SCALE1; 2008AIRSCW49; AIR2008SC809; 2008(1)SCC1; 2008(1)LH(SC)179; 2008(2)ICC206; 2008(4)KCCRSN237
1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi involving the analogous question and are, therefore, decided together by this judgment. 2. Appellant No. 1 Eastern Book Company is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of publishing law books. Appellant No. 2 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated and existing under the Companies Act, 1956. The said appellants are involved in the printing and publishing of various books relating to the field of law. One of the well-known publications of appellant No. 1 Eastern Book Company is the law report Supreme Court Cases (hereinafter called SCC ). The appellant publishes all reportable judgments along with non-reportable judgments of the Supreme Court of India. Yet another category included in SCC is short judgments, orders, practice directions and record of proceedings. The law report S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. Since October 2004 the appellant, who is a national of both this country and Iraq, has been held in custody by British troops at detention facilities in Iraq. He complains that his detention infringes his rights under article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, a Convention right protected by the Human Rights Act 1998, and also founds a good claim in this country under the English common law. These claims were rejected by the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Moses and Richards JJ: [2005] EWHC 1809 (Admin), HRLR 1355) and also by the Court of Appeal (Brooke, May and Rix LJJ: [2006] EWCA Civ 327, [2007] QB 621. Both courts below delivered lengthy and careful judgments, commensurate with the importance and difficulty of the issues then raised, but a new issue has (by agreement) been raised and argued before the House, as explained below. 2. The appellant has not been charged with any offence, and no charge or trial is in prospect. He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2008)113TTJ(Ahd.)918
1. In this appeal, the assessee has objected to the order of the CIT(A)-II, Ahmedabad dt. 26th Feb., 2007 passed for asst. yr. 2003-04, by way of following grounds: 1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in points of law and facts. 2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding that the appellant is not following cash method of accounting. 3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 24,03,33,662 being artificial accrual of interest on various investments. 4. In law and in facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of notional interest of Rs. 77,95,691 on investment in optionally fully convertible premium note of Nirma Industries Ltd. 5. In law and in facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2009]149CompCas129(Bom); [2008]82SCL303(Bom)
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. A founder father, late Dhirubhai Ambani set up the Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) some time in the year 1973, who ventured along with the time, into oil, gas, refining and exploration apart from other textile, yarn, polyester, petrochemicals and communication business and later stages of life, with two sons-Mr.Mukesh and Mr. Anil Ambani. All are aware of these facts and figures specially the shareholders of the respective companies at all material times.2. Some time in the year 1999, the Government announced a New Exploration and Licensing Policy, 1999 (NELP) This policy, for the first time, provided that various petroleum blocks could be awarded for exploration, development and production of petroleum and gas to private entities.3. By virtue of Article 297 of the Constitution of India, the Petroleum in its natural state in the territory waters and the continental shelf of India is vested in the Union of India (The Government). The Oil Fields (Regulation and Dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)1MLJ270; 2007(5)CTC392
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 13.8.2003 passed in W.P.No. 10291 of 2003.2. The issue relates to payment of subsistence allowance payable to the appellant for the period of suspension pending disciplinary action.3. The appellant was placed under suspension by the first respondent on 25.1.1999 pending disciplinary action against him. Alleging non payment of subsistence allowance, the appellant preferred PSA No. 2/02 and 3/02 claiming subsistence allowance for two different periods. By order, dated 12.7.2002, the third respondent ordered a sum of Rs. 12122/- in PSA.No. 2/02 and Rs. 53276/- in PSA No. 3/02 to be payable by the first respondent to the appellant. Both the appellant and the first respondent preferred PAA Case No. 5/02-1 and 5/02 before the second respondent. The second respondent also confirmed the order of the third respondent by his order, dated 24.2.2003.4. Aggrieved against the same, the first ...
Tag this Judgment!