Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Feb-06-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the benefit of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Scott of Foscote. I am in full agreement with his reasoning and his conclusions and therefore, like him, I would dismiss the appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. The Statement of Facts and Issues, agreed and signed by counsel for both parties, identifies two issues of construction of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (“the 1996 Order”) for your Lordships to decide. One of these your Lordships must decide; the other, in my opinion, does not arise on the facts of this case. It is convenient, therefore, before describing the issues, to outline the relevant facts. The facts 3. At arraignments on 8 January 2002 and 15 January 2002 the appellant, Mr Maye, pleaded guilty to various counts of obtaining property by deception. Sentencing was adjourned in order, inter ali...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-06-2008
Reported in : (2008)(128)ECC199
1. The factory of the respondents herein who are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE pipes and fittings falling under Chapter 39 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, was visited by preventive officers of central excise on 8.9.1998 and on verification of the stock of finished goods, shortage of stock compared to the balance recorded in the RG1 register was detected. The finished goods, i.e. HDPE pipes of various qualities involving duty of Rs. 3,75,791/-, were found short. The assessee paid central excise duty on such shortage. Further scrutiny of records revealed that the assessees cleared their goods, viz. HDPE pipes sprinkle irrigation, to various depots all over India, from where they finally sold to customers/dealers. Price declaration of the finished goods was filed by the assessees and it was noticed that the assessees had charged a higher price for sprinkler coupler than declared in annexure-II. It was also found that they were charging their customer fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-04-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)AWC2045
B.S. Chauhan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. Heard Shri Lihazur. R. Khan on behalf of the petitioner; Shri P.S. Baghel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri H.N. Singh for respondent No. 3, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Shri U.N. Sharma learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Amit Sthalekar on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 and 7.2. The Hamidia Girls Degree College, Allahabad is a Girls Institution established and managed by Muslim Minority. The said Degree College is an Associate College of the University of Allahabad. The petitioner Nasreen Ara was appointed as a Lecturer in the said College with the approval of the Vice Chancellor of the University on 30/4/1988. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 19/1/2005, to which she submitted reply. Enquiry proceedings were held by the Officer so appointed. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report which was forwarded to the petitioner under letter of the Manager dated 09th May, 2005 calling upon the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Feb-02-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ411
Bashir A. Kirmani, J.1. Way back in December, 1968 petitioner herein instituted a civil suit against respondents their predecessors in interest for partition of moveable and immoveable property comprising of a three storied house 24' x 16' and land measuring 134 kanals and seven marlas situated at Buchwara, Srinagar under of Khewat No. 16 and Khasra No. 104, 151 to 155 158,169, 180, 18, 218, 228, 240, 278,281,303,308,311,272,373,287,452,516 and 520 (old), Khewat No. 14, survey Nos, 104, 591/151,153,593/152, i54,165, 168, 631/169,180,187,238, 240, 272, 278. 281, 634/303, 677/613/387, 678/613/387, 679/613/387, on various grounds mentioned in memo of plaint mainly based on inheritance. While the suit was being tried in this Court on original side with issues framed as far back as in August, 1969 and plaintiff leading her evidence, under interim order of 9.12.1970 while observing that there were chances of amicable settlement this Court deferred the trial and on application of parties appo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jan-31-2008
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)528
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) passed in Appeal No. DEL/CIT-A2/2002-03/161 dt. 7th March, 2003 on as many as 16 grounds.2. Ground Nos. 1 and 17 are general in nature hence no adjudication is required from our side.3. Ground Nos. 2 to 6 relating to various legal issues as stated in the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee were not pressed by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee before us; accordingly, the same are rejected as not pressed.4. Ground No. 10 relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 93,546 on account of commission earned by the assessee and ground No. 1 relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 25,45.575 by the CIT(A) out of the total addition of Rs. 28,28,902 made by the AO as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Ground No. 12 relates to upholding of the addition of Rs. 9,75,000 by the CIT(A) relating to share application money and ground No. 13 pertains to confirmation of addition of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-31-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR686; 2008(5)BomCR234; 2008(4)MhLj106
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Common question of law arises for consideration in the present writ petition and other two connected writ petitions. Thus, all the three writ petitions can be disposed of by this judgment. 2. In all these cases, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the `Corporation') claims to be the owner of the different premises wherein the petitioners in these petitions have their offices. For example, in Writ Petition No. 1278 of 2007, the petitioner has office on the third floor of East West Building, 49/55, Bombay Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai of which the Corporation is the owner. In this writ petition, petitioner No. 2 is a partnership firm of which petitioner No. 1 is the partner. In another writ petition being writ petition No. 1797 of 2007, National Insurance Company is the petitioner. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 in writ petition No. 1278 of 2007 are stated to be in possession of different parts of the premises and, according to the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jan-30-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. Mr Duffy, the appellant, is a member of the Garvaghy Road Residents’ Coalition. He applied for judicial review to challenge the appointment by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 30 November 2005 of two new members of the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland. Those members are Mr David Burrows and Mr Donald Mackay (who has since resigned from the commission). Mr Duffy’s challenge was based on a number of grounds directed to the suitability of Mr Burrows and Mr Mackay to be members of the commission and to the process leading to their appointment. His challenge was upheld, on a limited ground, by Morgan J but was rejected by a majority of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (Kerr LCJ and Campbell LJ, Nicholson LJ dissenting) in the judgment now under appeal ([2006] NICA 28, [2007] NI 12). Background 2. The holding of public parades, processions and marches has long been cherished by adherents of both the main traditions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jan-30-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. These six appeals all raise the question of whether claims for sexual assaults and abuse which took place many years before the commencement of proceedings are barred by the Limitation Act 1980. The general rule is that the period of limitation for an action in tort is six years from the date on which the cause of action accrues. This period derives from the Limitation Act 1623 and is now contained in section 2 of the 1980 Act. All the claimants started proceedings well after the six years had expired. It follows that, if section 2 applies, their claims are barred. But sections 11 to 14 contain provisions, first introduced by the Limitation Act 1975, which create a different regime for actions for “damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty", where the damages are in respect of personal injuries. In such cases the limitation period is three years from either the date when the cause of action accrued or the “date of knowledge” as defi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jan-30-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I too would allow this appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury and am in full agreement with the reasons he has given for allowing this appeal. LORD RODGER My Lords, 3. I have had the advantage of considering in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I agree with it and, for the reasons which he gives, I too would allow the appeal. LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE My Lords, 4. I have had the advantage of considering in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I agree with it and, for the reasons which he gives, I too would allow the appeal. LORD NEUBERGER OF ABBOTSBURY My Lords, 5. The s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jan-30-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I would allow this appeal and make the order which he proposes. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 2. This is an appeal against the grant on 25 April 2007 by the Divisional Court (Smith LJ and Irwin J) of a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to the respondent, Farid Hilali, on the ground that his detention in custody while he was awaiting extradition under a European arrest warrant had become unlawful due to a fundamental change in circumstances since the making of the extradition order: [2007] EWHC 939 (Admin); [2007] 3 WLR 621. 3. On 29 April 2004 the appellant, the Central Court of Criminal Proceedings No 5 of the National Court, Madrid, issued a European arrest warrant seeking the extradition of the respondent to Spain for the purpose of his being prosecuted there for participation in a ...
Tag this Judgment!