Capital gains --Computation of capital gains--Cost of acquisition of capital asset--Valuation of land by District Valuation Officer based on comparable sale instance--Valuation accepted by other co-owners--Computation of capital gains based on such valuation--Justified--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Prabhu Dayal Rangwala v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 596
PFA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CW 3672/2003
P.D.SHETH and ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajesh Tyagi
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI and ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Kailash Gambhir for R-1,2 and 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI
O R D E R
28.05.2003
It is strange that in Public Interest Litigation, petition is filed without pointing out to the Court as to whether the respondent no.4 is possessing adequate qualifications or not ? When we put the pointed question to the Advocate, he was not in a posi
tion to point out from the contents of the petition and about the essential qualifications and experience possessed by respondent no.4. In view of the Apex Court's judgment reported in BALCO EMPLOYEES UNION (REGD), VS. UNION OF INDIA and OTHERS , 2002 (2)
SCC 333, a case must be made out that the petitioner is entitled to file PIL. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
:2: CW NO.3672/2003
If the proper petition is filed, the Court will examine the matter.
CHIEF JUSTICE
A.K.SIKRI, J
MAY 28, 2003
PC.
CW 3672/2003
P.D.SHETH and ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajesh Tyagi
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI and ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Kailash Gambhir for R-1,2 and 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI
O R D E R
28.05.2003
It is strange that in Public Interest Litigation, petition is filed without pointing out to the Court as to whether the respondent no.4 is possessing adequate qualifications or not ? When we put the pointed question to the Advocate, he was not in a posi
tion to point out from the contents of the petition and about the essential qualifications and experience possessed by respondent no.4. In view of the Apex Court's judgment reported in BALCO EMPLOYEES UNION (REGD), VS. UNION OF INDIA and OTHERS , 2002 (2)
SCC 333, a case must be made out that the petitioner is entitled to file PIL. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
:2: CW NO.3672/2003
If the proper petition is filed, the Court will examine the matter.
CHIEF JUSTICE
A.K.SIKRI, J
MAY 28, 2003
PC.
'Profit refund' inappropriate remedy for Takeover Code violation, directs public announcement
SEBI directs promoter group ('Noticees') to make public announcement and consideration payment at 10% p.a. for non-compliance of Takeover Regulations, 1997 for acquiring shares in Target Co. (PH Trading Ltd) and breaching prescribed threshold; Observes that between Aug.-Nov.2009, acquirers acquired 9.11% [exceeding 5% creeping limit under Reg. 11(2) of the Regulations] shares of target co. through off-market transactions, for which noticees failed to make prescribed public announcement; Notes that share were acquired by the Noticees at very low price (Rs. 3.71 per share), but if public announcement was made, the open offer price as per Takeover Regulations would be have been higher (and double) at Rs. 7.83 per share, accordingly SEBI concludes that shareholders were deprived of exit opportunity at best offer price; With respect to sale of acquired shares at profit, SEBI rejects Noticees' proposal to return the profits gained to buyers of shares, observes sale was through off-market transactions at negotiated price & not in transparent manner wherein the identity of buyers was undisclosed; SEBI relies on SAT observations in Rajesh Toshniwal v. SEBI and Nirvana Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v SEBI:SEBI
'Govt civil-construction services' unsubstitutable market, different from other construction work
CCI confirms Director General's report that there was no abuse of dominance by opposite party viz. Kerala State Construction Corporation Limited ('KSCCL') in relevant market for 'procurement of services for civil construction work by tendering in the state of Kerala', absent its dominant position in presence of other competing contractors; Also denies informant's [Builder Association of India (Kerala Chapter)] allegation that other opposite parties, i.e, State of Kerala, Kerala Public Works Department acted in collusion in floating tenders and inviting bids for construction of public works in Kerala and gave preferential treatment to KSCCL; Observes that KSCCL was established by Kerala State Govt. to prevent the prevailing unethical practices of private contractors, thus KSCCL was backed by policy mandate, also notes that opposite parties were not engaged in similar/ identical trade or business to be covered under section 3 (3) of Act; With regard to delineation of relevant market, CCI observes that service of contractors for civil construction work of Government could not be substituted with any other similar services, as process of awarding civil construction work by Government is different from that of private parties; CCI also distinguishes services of contractors for civil construction work from other construction work as it requires specialised skill, expertise as well as different equipments and technology:CCI
Samsung copied Apple:US Court;Govt proposes single-window FDI-nod; CCI considers economic legislations' 'competition assessment'
Samsung copied Apple:US Court;Govt proposes single-window FDI-nod; CCI considers economic legislations' 'competition assessment'
In a recent case, the Delhi High Court, in Google Inc. & Ors Vs CCI & Anr. [LSI-457-HC-2015-(DEL)] held that the CCI has the power to review / recall its orders of investigation u/s 26(1) of Competition Act, though it is not an inherent power or expressly provided under the Act.
In this article, Nishith Desai Associates Team analyses the Delhi High Court judgment. The authors state that the judgment is a breeze of fresh air allowing parties to challenge decisions at preliminary stage despite no appeal being allowed under the Act. While analyzing the Delhi HC ruling, the authors state that "the judgment would definitely encourage CCI to improve administration of its own functions as it is granted flexibility to recall its orders where the circumstances warrant a modification".
The authors opine that CCI may challenge this ruling before Division Bench of the Delhi HC. However, as the judgment stands today, companies may choose to exercise the option and in appropriate cases, challenge an order directing investigation, which would help in effectively concluding investigations that do not meet the threshold required under the Act.
Click here to read their article titled, "Breather for Google, Order 'recall' power for CCI"
Best Regards,
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment