Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-01-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC1626; 2002(1)ARBLR691(SC); JT2002(3)SC442; (2002)2PLR225; 2002(3)SCALE248; (2002)4SCC447; [2002]2SCR847
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. These appeals arise out of the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.1999 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in a bunch of appeals preferred by the present appellant before us. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main question that falls for our consideration in these appeals is about the maintainability of appeal before the Division Bench against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, rejecting the application under order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree making the Award Rule of the Court. The other question is as to whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the proceedings for making the award Rule of the Court since the District Courts of Asansol had also been moved by the appellant to issue notice to the Arbitrator, under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940, for filing of the award in the Asansol Court.2. It appears that the appellant, namely the Union of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-30-2002
Reported in : (2003)181CTR(Bom)550; [2003]260ITR401(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. All these four income-tax references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment, as common issues are involved in all these references.2. The questions raised in each of the references are as follows :The questions raised at the instance of the assessee.3. I. T. R. No. 170 of 1987 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the surtax payable by the assessee was not deductible in computing the assessee's income under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' ? 2. (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 8,61,010 incurred by the assessee on what has termed a 'sales, literature and miscellaneous promotional aids' was expenditure on advertisement, publicity and sales promotion and as such includible for disallowance under Sub-sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-03-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Raj63; 2003(2)WLN28
B. Prasad, J.1. These two appeals are filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). With the repeal of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, Section 18 also stands repealed. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Vasna Ram, reported in 2002 (2) WLC (Raj) 383, has taken note of this fact thus:--'This appeal has been preferred under the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). That Ordinance provided inter-Court appeal against the judgment and order of the single Judge passed in writ petitions and also against the judgments in first appeal by the single Judge. The said Ordinance stood repealed by the Judicial Administration Laws (Repeal) Act, 2001 (Act No. 22 of 2001) which received the assent of Hon'ble the President of India on 29-8-2001 and has been published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, dated 29-8-2001....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-18-2002
Reported in : 2003(27)PTC343(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The applicants in O.A. No. 337 to 339 of 2001 are the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 265 of 2001. The applicants in Application No. 4803 of 2001 is defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, who have moved the application to vacate the order of interim injunction granted on 11.4.2001 in O.A. No. 339 of 2001. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed in the suit.2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants or agents or anyone claiming through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs registered patent bearing No. 01301264 by using the offending patents either using the trade mark 'LOVATO' and 'LOVATO AUTOGAS' or the trade mark RAAJAN AUTO GAS or any other mark or marks which are in any way identical with or colourable imitation of the plaintiff's registered patent, bearing the trade mark 'LOVATO' AND 'LOVATO AUTOGAS', either by manufacturing, selling or offering for sale or in any man...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-18-2002
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD460; 2002(6)ALT326; 2003CriLJ1596
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. This Contempt Appeal is directed against the order dated 27-9-2002 made in Contempt Case No. 704 of 2002 by a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge by the said order dated 27-9-2002 punished the appellant herein with imprisonment to stand up in the Court till the Court raises and to pay Rs. 2,000/- as fine within two weeks and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The said order is challenged on various grounds by the appellant. 2. In order to consider the various submissions made on behalf of the appellant herein challenging the impugned order, it may be necessary to notice certain basic statutory features enshrined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). 3. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced in the statute-book for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general and for due and proper administration of justice. It is a powerful weapon in the hands of the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-18-2002
Reported in : (2003)105BOMLR915
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents as well as the other learned Counsel in the above matter including the learned Advocate General to assist us on the issue as to whether Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which has been amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 will be prospective in operation or retrospective in operation. The aforesaid Amendment was brought into force on 1st July, 2002.2. The only issue which has been argued is whether any of the pending Letters Patent Appeals which have already been admitted by this Court are also covered by the said Section 100A as mentioned hereinabove, in the sense whether pending admitted Letters Patent Appeals survive in view of the aforesaid amendment or not.3. To appreciate the contentions with regard to the above issue, it would be relevant to quote Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which for the first time by this Code of Civil Procedure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-21-2002
Reported in : 2002(5)BomCR567; (2002)3BOMLR459; 2002(3)MhLj592
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against an Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated February 1, 2002 in Arbitration Application No. 15 of 2001 making appointment of an Arbitrator.2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Jamdar, a retired Judge of this Court, as an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences between the parties, in the place of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Deshmukh, a retired Chief Justice of this Court.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.4. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the case is governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Certain orders passed under the Act were made appealable only under Section 39 of the Act. Section 39 read thus :'39. Appealable orders. -- An appeal shall lie from the following orderspassed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised bylaw to hear appeals from original decrees of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-18-2002
Reported in : 2002(4)WLC67; 2003(2)WLN298
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 27th January, 1999 rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the award passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sriganganagar, in Civil Reference No. 155/93 Brijlal, Prabhudayal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., on 2nd April, 1998.3. The controversy arose in the following facts and circumstances. By a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Govt. of Rajasthan on 29th September, 1989 made known its intention to acquire 5044 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land, which included the land of the respondents, which is situated in Ganganagar District. The land is sought to be acquired for Union of India. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6(4) and direction under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 were issued o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Aug-22-2002
Reported in : (2002)(83)ECC630
1. This matter has been referred to the Larger Bench in terms of majority order reading as under: 65. In terms of majority order, all the above noted appeals are referred to Hon'ble President for constituting a Larger Bench to decide various issues involved in these group of appeals as noted by Member (Technical), Shri Lajja Ram in his differing order which has been concurred to by Shri Jeet Ram Kait, Member (Technical). The Larger Bench shall also consider the final order which is required to be passed in respect of each of the appellants noted above.2. In the majority order there is a request for deciding various issues involved in the appeals as noted by Member (Technical) Shri Lajja Ram in his differing order.3. Shri Lajja Ram in his differing order which is in para 24 at a page 108 is reproduced as under: 24. The main issue for consideration and decision in these group of appeals relating to alleged violations of the conditions as laid down in the Customs Exemption Notification N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-21-2002
Reported in : (2003)1UPLBEC496
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. We have heard Dr. R.G. Padia, Senior Counsel, Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastave, Sri Arvind Srivastava, Sri Sidhartha, Sri P.R. Mauiya, Sri V.S. Sinha, Advocates, appearing for the appellants and Sri P.S. Baghel, Sri Maneesh Goyal, Advocates and Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, Sri Ranvijai Singh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.2. In all these appeals, the question regarding maintainability of appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been raised. A preliminary objection has been raised by respondents regarding maintainability of the appeal.3. We have heard Counsel for both the parties on the question of maintainability of the appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court and by this common order we arc deciding the question of maintainability along.4. Special Appeal No. 1177 of 2001 is being treated as leading case and facts of that case are being noted in some detail for appreciating the arguments raised by...
Tag this Judgment!