Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Decided on : Jul-28-2005
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Ahd.)818
1. Both these appeals by the assessee are against the order of the CIT(A), Baroda, dt. 14th Aug., 2003 and 22nd Feb., 2005, respectively.2. The grounds taken therein are quite argumentative, but at the time of hearing, the parties came to an agreement that the issues involved in these two appeals of the assessee are as under: (i) The first issue relates to the assessee's claim of deduction of an expenditure of Rs. 6 crores claimed to have been paid, as non-compete fees to M/s VBC Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "VBC") and its founder member, Mr. M.V.V.S. Murthy, after having purchased VBC's plant for manufacturing nitric acid and ammonium nitrate situated at Ponnada Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh. (ii) The second issue relates to the consideration of delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF as not deductible under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. (iii) The third issue relates to disallowance of assessee's claim of deduction of the amounts paid on account of emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-08-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Ker58; 2006(4)CTC273; [2006(2)JCR94]; 2005(4)KLT865
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In these cases, questions of law referred to be decided by the Full Bench are:(i) Whether an appeal will lie against the order of a single Judge passed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure;(ii) When such proceedings are under consideration can the learned single Judge pass interim orders; and(iii) If interim orders are passed by the single Judge, whether appeals to the Division Bench can be filed from such interim orders.2. No appeal is specifically provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') against orders passed under Section 24. There is also no specific prohibition in CPC against filing of an appeal against such an order. Therefore, appeal can be filed if it is provided under any other law as right of appeal is a creature of Statute. Sections 104 and 105 of CPC prohibit filing of appeals except by express provision in the CPC or any other law. Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 provides for appeal from the judgment or o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-25-2005
Reported in : (2006)1MLJ542; 2006(32)PTC65(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Wockhardt Limited, a pharmaceutical company, appellant herein, is the holder of Process Patent, EMR and Drug Licence for the manufacture of pharmaceutical preparation, namely, Nadifloxacin 1% Cream.2. Hetero Drugs Limited, first respondent herein, infringing the Patent and EMR granted to the appellant, started manufacturing the same product and selling in the market. On coming to know of the same, appellant filed a suit in C.S. No. 456 of 2005 for permanent injunction, restraining Hetero Drugs Limited, Nicholas Piramal (India) Limited and Adyar Drug House, respondents 1 to 3, from infringing the (i) Patent No. 188847; (ii) EMR granted to it and (iii) restraining the respondents from manufacturing or in any way using the composition, which the appellant invented, for manufacture of Nadifloxacin 1% Cream.3. Pending the suit, similar orders of ad-interim injunction were sought for in O.A. Nos. 544 to 546 of 2005 and, by an order dated 31.05.2005, interim injuncti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-29-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)CTC790
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The present habeas corpus petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu who has been detained as per the detention order dated 13.12.2004, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City. The said order of preventive detention has been passed under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' read with orders issued by the Government in G.O. (D) Ho.258, Prohibition end Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18th October 2004.2. The grounds of detention disclose that the detenu Jaheer Hussain and his associates were engaged in illegal activities of copying and selling of new cinema films and obscene films without copyright and a case had been, registered under Section 292-A, I.P.C. read with 51-B read with 63B and 52A read with 68A of the Copyright...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-05-2005
Reported in : 2005ACJ1840; AIR2005SC3180; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)334; 2005(5)ALD52(SC); 2005(3)AWC2756(SC); III(2005)CPJ9(SC); 2005CriLJ3710; 2005(4)CTC540; 122(2005)DLT83(SC); 2005(85)DRJ330; (
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. Ashok Kumar Sharma, the respondent No. 2 herein filed a First Information Report with police station, Division No. 3, Ludhiana, whereupon an offence under Section 304A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') was registered. The gist of the information is that on 15.2.1995, the informant's father, late Jiwan Lal Sharma was admitted as a patient in a private ward of CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. On 22.2.1995 at about 11 p.m., Jiwan Lal felt difficulty in breathing. The complainant's elder brother, Vijay Sharma who was present in the room contacted the duty nurse, who in her turn called some doctor to attend to the patient. No doctor turned up for about 20 to 25 minutes. Then, Dr. Jacob Mathew, the appellant before us and Dr. Allen Joseph came to the room of the patient. An oxygen cylinder was brought and connected to the mouth of the patient but the breathing problem increased further. The patient tried to get up but the medical staff asked him t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Oct-13-2005
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. In December 2002 the appellant, the Mersey Care National Health Service Trust, as managers of Ashworth Hospital, implemented a written policy governing the seclusion of patients detained at the hospital. The issue in this appeal is whether that policy is unlawful, either because it is inconsistent with the domestic law of England and Wales or because it fails to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Sullivan J at first instance held the policy to be lawful in both respects: [2002] EWHC 1521 (Admin). For reasons given in a judgment of the court delivered by Hale LJ, the Court of Appeal (also including Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR and Latham LJ) declared the policy to be unlawful: [2003] EWCA Civ 1036, [2004] QB 395. In this appeal the Trust challenges that decision. Its legal submissions are supported by the Secretary of State for Health as an interested party. Mr Colonel Munjaz seeks to uphold the Court of Appeal decision. His...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Mar-17-2005
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. I am in complete agreement with it, and for the reasons she gives would allow the appeal and make the order which she proposes. LORD STEYN My Lords, 2. I have read the opinion of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. I agree with it. I would also make the order which she proposes. LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, 3. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. For the reasons which she gives I also would allow the appeal and make the order which she proposes. BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND My Lords, 4. The issue in this case is whether a patient detained for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 can be treated against his will for any mental disorder from which he is suffering or only for the particular form of mental disorder from which he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Oct-20-2005
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. I am in full agreement with it, and for the reasons which she gives would allow the Secretary of State's appeal and make the order which she proposes. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. I agree with it, and for the reasons she gives I too would allow the appeal and make the order which she proposes. LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY My Lords, 3. I have had the privilege of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Baroness Hale of Richmond. I agree with it and, for the reasons she gives, I too would allow the appeal and make the order which she proposes. BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND My Lords, 4. How can a patient who is so severely mentally disordered that she cannot apply to a court or tribunal ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Oct-20-2005
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the privilege of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann. I am in full agreement with it and would, for the reasons he gives, allow the appeal and restore the decision of Jacob J. LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, The invention 2. Paroxetine is a compound used to treat depression and related disorders. It has for some time been marketed in the form of its hydrochloride hemihydrate salt under the name Paxil or Seroxat. These proceedings arise out of the more or less simultaneous discovery in about 1997 by the appellants Synthon BV, a Dutch pharmaceutical company, and the respondents, Smithkline Beecham plc ("SB"), a UK pharmaceutical company, that a different paroxetine salt, paroxetine methanesulfonate ("PMS"), has properties which make it more suitable for pharmaceutical use. It is more stable, less hygroscopic and much more soluble, so that it can be prepared in higher concentrations. The Synthon disclosure 3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Decided on : Aug-25-2005
Reported in : (2005)279ITR41(Ahd.)
1. This is Assessee's appeal against the order of the CIT(A)dated 26-2-2004.2. Ground No. 2 challenging disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure is not pressed, hence dismissed. Ground No. 3 regarding interest is contended to be consequential in nature, which does not require our adjudication, that leaves Ground No. 1, which is as under: "I(a) The learned CIT(A)-VI has grievously erred in confirming depreciation claimed on goodwill for an amount of Rs. 1,89,375/- on misinterpretation of provision of Section 32 since the appellant has fulfilled all the requisites as mentioned in the statute. " 3. Brief facts are - The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee was a partner in M/s. Nodule Cast along with Shri J.B. Vyas, his father and one Shri O.A. Lokhandwala. The firm was dissolved and a sum of Rs. 15.13 lacs was paid as goodwill to Shri Lokhandwala. The aseessee during the assessment proceedings stated that in view of the provisions of Section 32 relevant from A.Y...
Tag this Judgment!