|
||||
| February 26,2010 | Condonation of Delay - Four Years - Set aside |
Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Civil Appeal No.2075 of 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10965 of 2009) Whether the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court was justified in condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal by the respondents ….. the High Court committed grave error by condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal ignoring the judicially accepted parameters for exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act |
2010 STPL(Web) 148 SC | |
| February 26,2010 | Income Tax - Foreign Currency Loan - Roll over Charges |
Assst. C.I.T., Vadodara Vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 2057 of 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8363 of 2009 ) with Civil Appeal No. 2058 of 2010 (arising out of SLP(C) No.8898 of 2009) Civil Appeal No. 2059 of The A.O. disallowed an amount of Rs.8,86,280/-, being the roll over premium charges paid by the assessee in respect of foreign exchange forward contracts to Citibank N.A. on the ground that the said charges were incurred in connection with the purchase of a capital asset (plant and machinery), hence, it was not admissible for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) or under Section 3 37 of the Act ….. According to Indian Accounting Standards by Dolphy D'Souza, roll over charges are indicative of the increase or decrease in the liability of the company in the next specified period, generally of six months. Roll over charges represent the difference arising on account of change in foreign exchange rates. Roll over charges paid/ received in respect of liabilities relating to the acquisition of fixed assets should be debited/ credited to the asset in respect of which liability was incurred. However, roll over charges not relating to fixed assets should be charged to the Profit & Loss Account. [See page 325] ….. Accordingly, the civil appeals filed by the Department are allowed with no order as to costs |
2010 STPL(Web) 147 SC | |
| February 26,2010 | Sales Tax - Concessional rate |
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vam Organic Chemicals Limited Civil Appeal No.1929 of 2004 with Civil Appeal Nos.1930 of 2004, 1931-1932 of 2004, 1933 of 2004, 2810-2938 of 2004, 4298 of 2009, 4299 of 2009 and Civil Appeal No. 2056 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.6979 of 2010 @ CC 2279 of 2009 These respondents have been given central registration under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and also Recognition Certificate under Section 4-B of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, for purchase of high speed diesel oil at concessional rate ….. According to the Department, in the present case, the notified goods consisted of chemicals and not electricity, hence, HSD was not used in the process of production of chemicals directly ….. we find that Recognition Certificates have been issued as far back as in 1980. For the reasons given hereinabove, we remit all these cases to the Assessing Authority with a direction to treat the show-cause notice(s) issued for the purposes of amending the existing Recognition Certificate(s). Each assessee will be given a hearing. Each case for amendment of Recognition Certificate will be decided in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 4-B(4)(ii) of 1948 Act. The Assessing Authority will decide each case on it's own merits |
2010 STPL(Web) 146 SC | |
| February 25,2010 | SEBI - Amendment - Procedure - Retrospective Effect |
Securities & Exchange Board f India Vs. Ajay Agarwal Civil Appeal No.1697 of 2005 restraining the respondent from associating with any corporate body in accessing the securities market and prohibiting him from buying, selling or dealing in securities ….. Thus, the question arose whether any direction can be issued under Section 11-B for the alleged misconduct said to have been committed prior to introduction of Section 11-B. The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that the provision of Section 11-B cannot be invoked in respect of the alleged misconduct which took place at a point of time when Section 11-B was not on the statute book ….. It is nobody's case that Board has exercised those powers in respect of a proceeding which was initiated prior to the enactment of those provisions. In fact Board has issued the show cause notice in terms of Section 11-B and considered the reply of the respondent. In such a situation, there has no infraction in the procedure ….. Therefore, the entire basis of the order of the Appellate Tribunal that provision of Section 11- B cannot be applied retrospectively has been passed on an erroneous basis, as discussed herein above ….. Provisions of Section 11-B being procedural in nature can be applied retrospectively |
2010 STPL(Web) 145 SC | |
| February 25,2010 | Sexual Harassment at work Place |
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Vs. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal Civil Appeal No.2050 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15458 of 2007) the Hon'ble High Court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the University in respect of action taken against those respondents on the basis of the allegations of 5th and 6th respondent of s*xual harassment at the work place ….. The main question on which the matter was argued by the appellants was that the High Court was in error in deciding that the Grievance Committee constituted under Section 53 of the said Act, has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any complaint filed by the 5th and 6th respondent, as they are not approved teachers of the respondent college ….. this Court is constrained to hold that the Hon'ble High Court possibly fell into an error by holding that the Grievance Committee has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints made by 5th and 6th respondent since they are not approved teachers |
2010 STPL(Web) 144 SC | |
| February 25,2010 | Service Law - Appointment - Seniority |
A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Prasada Rao Civil Appeal Nos. 2043-2046 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 284-287 of 2008] with Civil Appeal No. 2047 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 504 of 2009] We direct that the select list which was prepared by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission pursuant to the judgment and order of this Court dated 14.09.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 2006 and which is contained in the official records of the Public Service Commission is restored and that appointment shall be given effect to by the competent authority in terms of the seniority position ascribed in the said select list as contained in the official records of the Public Service Commission but subject to the condition |
2010 STPL(Web) 143 SC | |
|
|
||||
| February 26,2010 | Condonation of Delay - Four Years - Set aside |
Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Civil Appeal No.2075 of 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10965 of 2009) Whether the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court was justified in condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal by the respondents ….. the High Court committed grave error by condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal ignoring the judicially accepted parameters for exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act |
2010 STPL(Web) 148 SC | |
| February 26,2010 | Income Tax - Foreign Currency Loan - Roll over Charges |
Assst. C.I.T., Vadodara Vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 2057 of 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8363 of 2009 ) with Civil Appeal No. 2058 of 2010 (arising out of SLP(C) No.8898 of 2009) Civil Appeal No. 2059 of The A.O. disallowed an amount of Rs.8,86,280/-, being the roll over premium charges paid by the assessee in respect of foreign exchange forward contracts to Citibank N.A. on the ground that the said charges were incurred in connection with the purchase of a capital asset (plant and machinery), hence, it was not admissible for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) or under Section 3 37 of the Act ….. According to Indian Accounting Standards by Dolphy D'Souza, roll over charges are indicative of the increase or decrease in the liability of the company in the next specified period, generally of six months. Roll over charges represent the difference arising on account of change in foreign exchange rates. Roll over charges paid/ received in respect of liabilities relating to the acquisition of fixed assets should be debited/ credited to the asset in respect of which liability was incurred. However, roll over charges not relating to fixed assets should be charged to the Profit & Loss Account. [See page 325] ….. Accordingly, the civil appeals filed by the Department are allowed with no order as to costs |
2010 STPL(Web) 147 SC | |
| February 26,2010 | Sales Tax - Concessional rate |
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vam Organic Chemicals Limited Civil Appeal No.1929 of 2004 with Civil Appeal Nos.1930 of 2004, 1931-1932 of 2004, 1933 of 2004, 2810-2938 of 2004, 4298 of 2009, 4299 of 2009 and Civil Appeal No. 2056 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.6979 of 2010 @ CC 2279 of 2009 These respondents have been given central registration under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and also Recognition Certificate under Section 4-B of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, for purchase of high speed diesel oil at concessional rate ….. According to the Department, in the present case, the notified goods consisted of chemicals and not electricity, hence, HSD was not used in the process of production of chemicals directly ….. we find that Recognition Certificates have been issued as far back as in 1980. For the reasons given hereinabove, we remit all these cases to the Assessing Authority with a direction to treat the show-cause notice(s) issued for the purposes of amending the existing Recognition Certificate(s). Each assessee will be given a hearing. Each case for amendment of Recognition Certificate will be decided in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 4-B(4)(ii) of 1948 Act. The Assessing Authority will decide each case on it's own merits |
2010 STPL(Web) 146 SC | |
| February 25,2010 | SEBI - Amendment - Procedure - Retrospective Effect |
Securities & Exchange Board f India Vs. Ajay Agarwal Civil Appeal No.1697 of 2005 restraining the respondent from associating with any corporate body in accessing the securities market and prohibiting him from buying, selling or dealing in securities ….. Thus, the question arose whether any direction can be issued under Section 11-B for the alleged misconduct said to have been committed prior to introduction of Section 11-B. The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that the provision of Section 11-B cannot be invoked in respect of the alleged misconduct which took place at a point of time when Section 11-B was not on the statute book ….. It is nobody's case that Board has exercised those powers in respect of a proceeding which was initiated prior to the enactment of those provisions. In fact Board has issued the show cause notice in terms of Section 11-B and considered the reply of the respondent. In such a situation, there has no infraction in the procedure ….. Therefore, the entire basis of the order of the Appellate Tribunal that provision of Section 11- B cannot be applied retrospectively has been passed on an erroneous basis, as discussed herein above ….. Provisions of Section 11-B being procedural in nature can be applied retrospectively |
2010 STPL(Web) 145 SC | |
| February 25,2010 | Sexual Harassment at work Place |
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Vs. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal Civil Appeal No.2050 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15458 of 2007) the Hon'ble High Court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the University in respect of action taken against those respondents on the basis of the allegations of 5th and 6th respondent of s*xual harassment at the work place ….. The main question on which the matter was argued by the appellants was that the High Court was in error in deciding that the Grievance Committee constituted under Section 53 of the said Act, has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any complaint filed by the 5th and 6th respondent, as they are not approved teachers of the respondent college ….. this Court is constrained to hold that the Hon'ble High Court possibly fell into an error by holding that the Grievance Committee has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints made by 5th and 6th respondent since they are not approved teachers |
2010 STPL(Web) 144 SC | |
| February 25,2010 | Service Law - Appointment - Seniority |
A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Prasada Rao Civil Appeal Nos. 2043-2046 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 284-287 of 2008] with Civil Appeal No. 2047 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 504 of 2009] We direct that the select list which was prepared by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission pursuant to the judgment and order of this Court dated 14.09.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 2006 and which is contained in the official records of the Public Service Commission is restored and that appointment shall be given effect to by the competent authority in terms of the seniority position ascribed in the said select list as contained in the official records of the Public Service Commission but subject to the condition |
2010 STPL(Web) 143 SC | |
|
