Search by Keywords x
Indlaw Home                                                                                          contact us contact us | home help
 Welcome Guest | Aug 19 2014
 

HOME

Search By Databases
  

Subject Modules
  down

State Modules
  down

Legal Focus
  down

 

Login

  Subscribe


Latest Updates
Search by Databases
Indlaw Resources
Indlaw Channels

indlaw updates


Judgments

Dr. Sudhir Vithal Medhekar vs Government of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department Mumbai and others  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 14 Aug 2014]

(1) G. Rajendra S/o G. Bharmagowda and others; (2) City Hospital, Shimoga Represented by Proprietors, Dr. Mallesh Hullmani and Dr. Shashikala Malleish and others vs (1) City Hospital, Shimoga Represented by Proprietors, Dr. Mallesh Hullmani and Dr. Shashikala Malleish and others; (2) G. Rajendra S/o G. Bharmagowda and others  [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 13 Aug 2014]

Rhone-Poulenc (India) Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

Union of India Through Director and others vs Mohan P. Gore  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

(1) Vijay Dinkarrao Patil and another; (2) Sheetal Ajit Patil vs State of Maharashtra and others  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation vs Kisan Bhau Satwekar and others  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao vs State of Maharashtra and others  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

State of Himachal Pradesh vs H. H. C. Kashmir Singh and another  [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

Shankarlal vs R. N. Banve  [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

True Zone Buildwell Private Limited, Karnal vs Bhoop Singh S/o Rattan Lal  [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 13 Aug 2014]

Vijay Somany S/o Late R. D. Somany vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Mumbai  [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 13 Aug 2014]

N. M. P. Developers, Thane and another vs Nitin Tukaram Gavankar and another  [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 13 Aug 2014]

Commissioner of Income Tax Central-III, Mumbai vs Valiant Glass Works Private Limited, Mumbai  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]
Income Tax & Direct Taxes - Income Tax Act 1961, ss.260A and 80HHC - Tax computation - Liability - Appeal u/s.260A of the Act was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax challenging the order passed Tribunal dt. 29-7-2011 - A/Y in question was 2003-04 - Tribunal, by the impugned order inter alia held that the amount of deemed credit of Rs.89,34,887/- under the CENVAT incentive scheme was part of the business profits of the assessee, eligible for deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act - Tribunal therefore allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and reversed the order of the CIT (Appeals) on that issue - Appellant contended that the Tribunal had gravely misdirected itself in construing the provisions of section 80HHC of the Act and correspondingly allowing the deemed credit of Rs.89,34,887/- under the CENVAT Incentive Scheme as part of business profits of the assessee eligible for a deduction under the said section - In a nutshell appellant contended that when an assessee, being an Indian company or a person (other than a company) resident in India, was engaged in the business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise to which s. 80 HHC of Act applied, then subject to the other provisions of the said section, the assessee whilst computing it's total income, was allowed a deduction to the extent of profits, referred to in s.80(1-B) of Act thereof derived by the assessee from the export of such goods or merchandise - Appellant submitted that CENVAT Credit was not one of the items included u/s. 80 HHC(3) of Act -

Held, in the instant case, it could hardly be argued that the deemed credit under the CENVAT Incentive Scheme would not reduce the material / manufacturing cost of the goods exported by the assessee - That was not the case of the Revenue also - That being the case, under the provisions of s.80HHC of Act, the assessee would be entitled to a deduction to the extent of the profits referred to in s.80HHC(1-B) of Act thereof derived by the assessee from the export of such goods or merchandise - No other provision was brought to our notice that would justify the disallowance of CENVAT incentive whilst computing the admissible deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act - Thus, HC did not find that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, Tribunal misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that the amount of deemed credit under the CENVAT Incentive Scheme was a part of the business profits of the assessee eligible for a deduction u/s.80HHC of Act despite the fact that it did not specifically find place in s.80HHC(3) of Act - Appeal dismissed.


(1) N. Gopalaswami and others; (2) Manohar Lal Sharma vs (1) Union of India and another; (2) Principal Secretary, Prime Minister Office and others  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]
Accounts & Audits - Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Comptroller and Auditor-General's (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971 -

Appointment - CAG - Challenged - Petitions were filed challenging the appointment of respondent No. 2 as the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) - Petitioners also sought a writ, direction or order commanding the Union of India to frame a transparent selection procedure based on definite criteria and to constitute a broad based non-partisan selection committee, which, after calling for applications and nominations, would recommend to the President of India, the most suitable person for appointment as the CAG - Hence instant petitions - Whether respondent No. 2 suitable for the post of CAG -

Held, HC could not sit in judgment over the suitability of the respondent No. 2 to be appointed as the CAG - Judicial review should be limited to considering as to whether respondent No. 2 was eligible to be appointed as the CAG - Of course, as the high constitutional post of a CAG was an integrity institution, an incumbent should have the qualities of competence and integrity - There was no prescribed criteria as to what qualifications a person should possess before he was considered for the post of the CAG - In fact, there could be none as amply demonstrated by the Constitutional debates referred to by us earlier in instant judgment - Of course, the person being considered for the position of the CAG should have a comprehensive knowledge of the entire administration - There was nothing on record to suggest that respondent No. 2 did not have a comprehensive knowledge of the entire administration - As pointed out by respondents, respondent No. 2 has had about four decades of administrative experience in different departments of the Govt. - Respondent No. 2 has had an unblemished record and, therefore, the integrity aspect could not also be doubted - Only reference in the CAG report with regard to the purchase of helicopters for VVIPs was to be found in two places, none of them, in HC's view, could be regarded as an indictment or implying ineligibility of respondent No. 2 - Thus, neither on integrity nor on competence, was there any material to substantiate the plea of petitioners that respondent No. 2 was not eligible for appointment as the CAG - Manner in which president functions in appointing the CAG was also clear-cut inasmuch as he acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers - Practice adopted for the appointment of the CAG was that a shortlist emanated from the Cabinet Secretary - It was approved by the Finance Minister and placed before the Prime Minister who, then, recommends one name from that list to the President - If the President approve the same, the appointment of the CAG was made by warrant under the hand and seal of the President - There was no disciplinary proceeding pending against him - There was no criminal case pending against him - There was only a supposition on the part of the petitioners that as he had dealt with defence procurements in his various capacities in the past, there might be a conflict of interest when he prepares audit reports in respect of the defence procurements - That was merely a surmise, conjecture and presumption on the part of the petitioners insofar as the audit report in respect of purchase of helicopters was concerned - That, as HC pointed out, already been tabled in Parliament - With regard to conflict of interest, it might be pertinent to note that any civil servant would have served in various departments and Ministries of the Govt. and any of those Ministries could be the subject matter of an audit report of the CAG - Merely because a person served in those departments would not constitute a ground for raising the plea of conflict of interest - HC was of the view that a writ of quo warranto did not lie for quashing the appointment of respondent No. 2 to the post of CAG - Appointment did not, in HC's view, violated the principles of institutional integrity nor was the appointment arbitrary - Petitions dismissed.


Rakesh Kumar vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited and another  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]
Contract & Commercial - Practice & Procedure - LPG distributionship - Correction of error - Rejection application - Justifiability - Petitioner applied for LPG distributionship and his candidature was rejected by impugned order on the ground that petitioner had offered a land for showroom indicating the land in the name of one 'J' - Respondents (Corporation) opined that relationship of 3rd party did not come within the definition of 'Family Unit' as contained in Brochure as such petitioner did not met the eligibility criteria - Aggrieved petitioner filed instant petition - Petitioner contended that there was a valid lease deed duly executed in favour of petitioner and and that it clearly conforms to requirement under the brochure as also under the application form -

Held, name of lessor was incorrectly mentioned as 'J' - It was the name of petitioner that ought to have been mentioned against the column no. 10 of application form - That apparently was an inadvertent error while filling of the application form - According to Brochure Cl. 8.5 such deficiencies in the application form could be permitted to be corrected upon being pointed out through a letter being sent to applicant - Cl. 8.5 of the Brochure allows such a deficiency to be corrected which opportunity did not appear to have extended to petitioner and impugned order was passed rejecting his candidature - Thus, Corporation should give an opportunity to petitioner to correct the said error in the application form as per Cl. 8.5 - Impugned order was set aside - Petition allowed.


Jodhi @ Ayodhya vs State of Uttar Pradesh  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]
Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 324, 376, 452, 511 - Rape - Conviction - Sustainability - Appellant (accused) allegedly attempted to commit rape on prosecutrix and had run away after causing injury by knife and thereby committed offence u/ss. 452, 376, 324, 511 of IPC - Trial Court by impugned judgment found appellant guilty for the offences punishable u/ss. 376, 511, 452 and 324 of IPC and accordingly convicted him - Hence, instant appeal - Appeal contended that due to enmity he was falsely implicated in instant case and that case u/ss. 376, 511 of IPC was not made out and that no independent witness of the fact was examined and because the appellant did not have any opportunity to cross examine the prosecutrix, who had died, thus, her statement could not be read in evidence and that there was no corroboration of the fact that he had attempted to commit rape with the victim, thus, offences punishable u/ss. 376, 511 of IPC was not made out -

Held, there was no rule of law that corroboration was essential before there could be conviction solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix - But as a matter of prudence, the necessity of corroboration should be present to the mind of the Judge - There might be circumstances in a given case which might make it safe to dispense with such a corroboration - On the other hand, there might be factors in a case tending to show that the testimony of prosecutrix suffers from infirmities in a manner so as to make it either unsafe or impossible to base a finding of guilt to the same - Some of the salient factors of that type were (a)circumstances showing on the part of prosecutrix an animus against the accused; (b)where the question of want of consent was materia, circumstances tending to show consent e.g. absence of material showing an attempt at resistance, absence of any marks of struggle; (c) attempt at improvement or exaggeration in the version as attempted by the prosecutrix; (d) conduct on the part of the prosecutrix inconsistency with the credibility of the version e.g. omission to make a disclosure at the earliest opportunity;(e) element of artificiality or unnatural-ness in the story as attempted by the prosecutrix, and (f) absence of signs of rape in the findings of the medical examination or on chemical analysis - In the circumstances of instant case, statement of prosecutrix was not corroborated by any other witness regarding attempt to commit rape - Although there was no rule that corroboration was essential before there could be a conviction solely on the testimony of prosecutrix - In instant case, prosecutrix had died after the examination-in-chief and no cross examination was conducted - Under those circumstances, corroboration of the statement of the victim was required - Witnesses of facts examined by prosecution have specifically stated that they have not seen the accused that he was opening 'Nara' - They have also not stated anywhere that the accused had attempted to commit rape upon the victim - In those circumstances, it was not proved that appellant had attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix -Thus, conviction for offence punishable u/ss. 376, 511 of IPC could not be sustained - Statement of victim regarding house trespass and causing injury was corroborated by statement of PW3 and the statement of PW4 - It was further corroborated by statement of PW6 (Doctor) - There appeared to be no reason to believe that appellant was falsely implicated due to enmity - Moreover, injuries of knife were found on the body of victim - Court did not see any reason as to why prosecutrix would falsely implicate the appellant and would spare the real assailant - prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of appellant for the offences punishable u/ss. 452 and 324 of IPC - Conviction for offences punishable u/ss. 376, 511 of IPC was set aside and conviction u/ss. 452 and 324 of IPC was upheld - Appellant was sentenced to the period already undergone along with a fine - Appeal partly allowed.


Rakesh and another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Aug 2014]

Purshottam Das Tandon Dead by Lrs. vs Military Estate Officer and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Aug 2014]

North Eastern Railway and others vs Tripple Engineering Works  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Aug 2014]

A. Francis vs Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Tamil Nadu  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Aug 2014]

Viman Vaman Awale vs Gangadhar Makhriya Charitable Trust and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Aug 2014]

Regional Director vs Amargit Kapildev  [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

National Insurance Company Limited vs Makwana Nathaji Jawanji and others  [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

Luckyrajsinh Vikramsinh Jadeja and others vs State of Gujarat and another  [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

In Re: (1) Italia Glass Private Limited; (2) Karishma Mosaics Private Limited; (3) Palladio Glass Limited; (4) Poesia Glass Limited and Piccolo Mosaic Limited vs   [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]



 Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer