.....by which the earnest money deposit (emd) submitted by the petitioner for a particular work has been forfeited after terminating the contract.2. the facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, who is a contractor, is awarded with a work in terms of ext.p1 dated 08.12.2006. as per the terms of the work order, work has to be completed by 3 months from the date of handing over the site. ext.p2 is the schedule of work. petitioner also has deposited the earnest money for carrying out the terms and conditions of the work.3. in ext.p3, it is stated that though the work was awarded in favour of the petitioner, he did not turn up to reply. in fact, his rate originally was 49% above the estimated rate. the contractor submitted that he is w.p.(c).no.14248 of 2007 2 willing to carry out the work at 20% above the estimated rate as accepted by the chief engineer. he also extended the firm period of his tender up to 31.12.2006. selection notice was therefore issued to the contract on 8.12.2006 and he was directed to attend the office for executing agreement on or before 23.12.2006. he did not turn up for executing agreement and therefore the work was terminated. the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....allowance at the rate of 30%. by ext.p2, the deputy commissioner of income tax (circle -1) alappuzha, while assessing the income tax, under section 143(1) of that act, allowed depreciation allowance only at the rate of 15%. in the assessment order ext.p2 it was held that the assessee is a contractor employed by/engaged in supply/transport of goods and in the tds certificate, the nature of payment was w.p.(c). no.15013 of20122 noted as "payment to contractor". the assessing authority held that the payment received by petitioner was not hire charges but it was only a contract receipt for letting out lorries on hire and therefore depreciation allowance at the rate of 30% is not admissible.3. the petitioner submitted a revision petition before the commissioner of income tax. the commissioner of income tax by ext.p5 rejected the same and upheld the findings of the assessing authority. the contention of the petitioner before the commissioner was also that the petitioner was engaged in the business of letting out lorries and therefore depreciation allowance at the rate of 30% should have been allowed. however, the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), without going into the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....that there was some complaint against her. the petitioner filed annexure-a3 objection before the first respondent/state, referring to the actual facts and figures. the petitioner also approached the kat challenging the order of transfer by filing o.a. 1495 of 2014, which was disposed of as per annexure-a4 order, directing the first respondent to consider the representation preferred by the applicant and to have it finalised affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also the person by name lassy.b., who has been transferred from sro, agaly to ottappalam, which post the petitioner was holding at the time of transfer.3. it is seen from the proceedings that, based on annexure-a4, the first respondent/state considered the matter and passed annexure-a5 order dated 22.11.2014 declining interference and rejecting the representation preferred by the o.p.(kat)no.203 of20153 petitioner. with intent to substantiate the facts and figures, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities by resorting to the remedy under the rti act and procured necessary data, copies of which have been produced as annexures-a6 to a9 and as exts.p3 to p5, produced along with i.a.no.8746.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....at the rate of 35,000/- p.m allowed. e.p closed. d.h can get the e.p revived in the same number upon two consecutive defaults." 2. now the relevant facts: the petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract. later, he limited his claim for recovery of money only. the suit was decreed for a sum of rs.10,60,000/-. ext.p1 is the decree. tenor of the decree is that the amount is to be paid in lump. the respondent/defendant preferred an appeal before this court. that appeal was rejected for o.p.(c).no.3863 of 2013 2 non-payment of court fee, as per ext.p2 judgment. ext.p3 is the execution petition filed before the lower court for sale of the properties belonging to the respondent for realisation of the decree amount. in that matter, the impugned order happened to be passed.3. the legal question arising for the determination is whether the court below is justified in allowing the defendant/respondent to pay the decree amount in instalments without taking legal recourse? 4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent.5. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below violated the law.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation.4. on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, i find that as per the provisions of rules 77 and 79 of part i ksr, an employee would be entitled to a maximum of earned leave of 180 days. it is not in dispute that, if the provisions of the ksr are applicable to the respondent corporation, then the petitioner would be entitled to the earned leave surrender, that was initially granted to him by ext.p2 order. the only issue that remains to be considered is whether the reliance placed by the respondent on ext.p7 circular, to cancel ext.p2 order, was justified. ext.p7 circular, which was relied upon by the respondent for denying the benefit of earned leave surrender to the petitioner reads as follows: "in the circular first cited it was clarified that candidates provisionally recruited through employment exchange are not eligible for surrender leave salary at the time of termination of service. as temporary officers, officers appointed on contract basis and re-employed pensioners are also governed by the same.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to the definition of 'evidence' under section 3 of the indian evidence act, 1872 read with section 2(t) of the information technology act, 2000. the authority has to verify the fact that the petitioner has used the software which reflects their true account of tax liability. the authority did not state any w.p.(c) no.17294 of 2015 4 reasons for rejecting the electronic means. it appears that the petitioner has been shut out in proving the accounts through electronic means. thus, the impugned orders are vitiated. accordingly, the same are set aside.10. the authority is directed to verify whether the petitioner has maintained electronic means of accounting in the manner prescribed under the rules. the authority shall also verify whether the petitioner had intimated about the use of electronic means in advance before the assessing authority. if the petitioner has not maintained the accounts as above, the authority shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to produce in manual form. the petitioner shall appear before the respondents on 20.07.2015 at 11.00 a.m. this writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- a.muhamed mustaque, judge. av
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....by which the earnest money deposit (emd) submitted by the petitioner for a particular work has been forfeited after terminating the contract.2. the facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, who is a contractor, is awarded with a work in terms of ext.p1 dated 08.12.2006. as per the terms of the work order, work has to be completed by 3 months from the date of handing over the site. ext.p2 is the schedule of work. petitioner also has deposited the earnest money for carrying out the terms and conditions of the work.3. in ext.p3, it is stated that though the work was awarded in favour of the petitioner, he did not turn up to reply. in fact, his rate originally was 49% above the estimated rate. the contractor submitted that he is w.p.(c).no.14248 of 2007 2 willing to carry out the work at 20% above the estimated rate as accepted by the chief engineer. he also extended the firm period of his tender up to 31.12.2006. selection notice was therefore issued to the contract on 8.12.2006 and he was directed to attend the office for executing agreement on or before 23.12.2006. he did not turn up for executing agreement and therefore the work was terminated. the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to the definition of 'evidence' under section 3 of the indian evidence act, 1872 read with section 2(t) of the information technology act, 2000. the authority has to verify the fact that the petitioner has used the software which reflects their true account of tax liability. the authority did not state any w.p.(c) no.17294 of 2015 4 reasons for rejecting the electronic means. it appears that the petitioner has been shut out in proving the accounts through electronic means. thus, the impugned orders are vitiated. accordingly, the same are set aside.10. the authority is directed to verify whether the petitioner has maintained electronic means of accounting in the manner prescribed under the rules. the authority shall also verify whether the petitioner had intimated about the use of electronic means in advance before the assessing authority. if the petitioner has not maintained the accounts as above, the authority shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to produce in manual form. the petitioner shall appear before the respondents on 20.07.2015 at 11.00 a.m. this writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- a.muhamed mustaque, judge. av
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....by which the earnest money deposit (emd) submitted by the petitioner for a particular work has been forfeited after terminating the contract.2. the facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, who is a contractor, is awarded with a work in terms of ext.p1 dated 08.12.2006. as per the terms of the work order, work has to be completed by 3 months from the date of handing over the site. ext.p2 is the schedule of work. petitioner also has deposited the earnest money for carrying out the terms and conditions of the work.3. in ext.p3, it is stated that though the work was awarded in favour of the petitioner, he did not turn up to reply. in fact, his rate originally was 49% above the estimated rate. the contractor submitted that he is w.p.(c).no.14248 of 2007 2 willing to carry out the work at 20% above the estimated rate as accepted by the chief engineer. he also extended the firm period of his tender up to 31.12.2006. selection notice was therefore issued to the contract on 8.12.2006 and he was directed to attend the office for executing agreement on or before 23.12.2006. he did not turn up for executing agreement and therefore the work was terminated. the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to the definition of 'evidence' under section 3 of the indian evidence act, 1872 read with section 2(t) of the information technology act, 2000. the authority has to verify the fact that the petitioner has used the software which reflects their true account of tax liability. the authority did not state any w.p.(c) no.17294 of 2015 4 reasons for rejecting the electronic means. it appears that the petitioner has been shut out in proving the accounts through electronic means. thus, the impugned orders are vitiated. accordingly, the same are set aside.10. the authority is directed to verify whether the petitioner has maintained electronic means of accounting in the manner prescribed under the rules. the authority shall also verify whether the petitioner had intimated about the use of electronic means in advance before the assessing authority. if the petitioner has not maintained the accounts as above, the authority shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to produce in manual form. the petitioner shall appear before the respondents on 20.07.2015 at 11.00 a.m. this writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- a.muhamed mustaque, judge. av
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT