Advanced Search Results

The Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited vs Union of India

Court : Karnataka

forest land or portion thereof for,-(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants;(b) any purpose other than … the period of lease granted before the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, where mineral is used for captive purpose, shall be extended and be deemed to have been extended … State of Karnataka and others, which was Writ Petition (Civil) No.562 of 2009. On 10th February 2014, the Apex Court passed interim stay order, “In … construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, water holes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes.”3.7.2 Section 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 deals with the period for which Mining Leases

State of Kerala vs M/S Eastern Treads (P) Ltd

Court : Kerala

SRO 753/2011 and the question is, whether the denial of exemption claimed for the inter-State sale of tread rubber for want of 'C' Forms is proper or not.2. The specific question was considered and answered in favour … of 2015 dated 14.09.2018, considering both the aforesaid SROs as also the amendments made to Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956, which … the assesseein O.T.Rev.No.115 of 2015 dated 14.09.2018, considering both the aforesaid SROs as also the amendments made to Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956, which empowers the State to grant exemption. We do not find … 16-02-2016 OF KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH,ERNAKULAM [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10] REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: STATE OF KERALA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM

M/S Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Acquisition Act or, is there anything in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of 1984) making that rule inapplicable or not wholly applicable?.” The issue in the said question was … Ernakulam in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 196, 199, 205 and 208 of 2009 (filed against the order dated 15.10.2008 of the learned Sub-Judge, Ernakulam-the Execution … the solatium and pay to the appellant within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy … JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7034-7037 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NOS. 29463-29466 of 2012) M/S PERIYAR & PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD. …… APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF KERALA …… RESPONDENT JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.Leave granted. These appeals by … the denial of the interest payable on the component of solatium under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) read with Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition

Bilski Vs. Kappos

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

such as computer programs are always unpatentable. See id., at 192-193 (majority opinion) (holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter). Section 101 is a “dynamic provision designed to … v. Kappos - 08-964 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 BILSKI V. KAPPOS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED … as we have used it, is synonymous with the phrase “useful arts” as it appears in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution’ ”); Paulik v. Rizkalla , 760 F. 2d 1270, 1276 (CA Fed. 1985) (explaining that … “monopolies.”[ Footnote 24 ] Indeed, at the ratification conventions, some States recommended amendments that would have prohibited Congress from granting “ ‘exclusive advantages of commerce.’ … for determining whether a claimed invention was a patentable “process” under Patent Act, 35 U. S. C. §101- i.e., whether the invention produced a “useful,

A.M.Rahman, vs State of Kerala,

Court : Kerala

[KVAT Act/CST Act] for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The petitioners are dealers of rubber and registered as such under the KVAT Act and CST Act. They purchase raw rubber from registered dealers … long as Annexures-I and II notifications were in force and operational. The amendments to the said notifications in 2019, with retrospective effect, only enable those … percent:”3. In the case of the petitioners, it is not in dispute that theypaid CST in accordance with Section 8(1) of the CST Act, and hence, under normal circumstances, they would have been entitled to take input tax

A.M.Rahman vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

[KVAT Act/CST Act] for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The petitioners are dealers of rubber and registered as such under the KVAT Act and CST Act. They purchase raw rubber from registered dealers … long as Annexures-I and II notifications were in force and operational. The amendments to the said notifications in 2019, with retrospective effect, only enable those … percent:”3. In the case of the petitioners, it is not in dispute that theypaid CST in accordance with Section 8(1) of the CST Act, and hence, under normal circumstances, they would have been entitled to take input tax

A.M.Rahman vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

[KVAT Act/CST Act] for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The petitioners are dealers of rubber and registered as such under the KVAT Act and CST Act. They purchase raw rubber from registered dealers … long as Annexures-I and II notifications were in force and operational. The amendments to the said notifications in 2019, with retrospective effect, only enable those … percent:”3. In the case of the petitioners, it is not in dispute that theypaid CST in accordance with Section 8(1) of the CST Act, and hence, under normal circumstances, they would have been entitled to take input tax

Shabeer Babu T.P. vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

[KVAT Act/CST Act] for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The petitioners are dealers of rubber and registered as such under the KVAT Act and CST Act. They purchase raw rubber from registered dealers … long as Annexures-I and II notifications were in force and operational. The amendments to the said notifications in 2019, with retrospective effect, only enable those … percent:”3. In the case of the petitioners, it is not in dispute that theypaid CST in accordance with Section 8(1) of the CST Act, and hence, under normal circumstances, they would have been entitled to take input tax

Shabeer Babu T.P. vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

[KVAT Act/CST Act] for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The petitioners are dealers of rubber and registered as such under the KVAT Act and CST Act. They purchase raw rubber from registered dealers … long as Annexures-I and II notifications were in force and operational. The amendments to the said notifications in 2019, with retrospective effect, only enable those … percent:”3. In the case of the petitioners, it is not in dispute that theypaid CST in accordance with Section 8(1) of the CST Act, and hence, under normal circumstances, they would have been entitled to take input tax

Commissioner of Custom, Icd, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Chandra Prabhu Interna ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

was CUSTOM. A. 3/2013 Page 5 inserted by Finance Act, 2004, and that the amendment thereto by Finance Act, 2009 applicable retrospectively with effect from 01.01.1995 will apply in this case?.7. It was argued on behalf of the … also relied on a previous order of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (ICD) v. M/s Relaxo Rubber and Anr., under Civil Appeal No.7180 and 7181 of 2001, where the Court held that the CESTAT’s conclusion … with the rules made under sub-section (6); or CUSTOM. A. 3/2013 Page 8 (b) the cost of production of the said article in the country … EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. This is an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, against the Final Order No.C/240/2011 CU