Advanced Search Results

State of Gujarat Vs. Sayaji Mills No. 1

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Sales Tax/VAT

Acts : Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 - Sections 2(12), 45(6), 62 and 69; Companies Act, 1956

Reported in : (2008)11VST650(Guj)

Advocate for Respondent : Jagdish S. Joshi, Adv.

J.M. Panchal, J.1. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal at Ahmedabad has referred the following questions of law for decision of this court under Section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ('the Act', for short).(1)...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Doshi Exports

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (1993)45ITD417(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the DCIT(A), for the assessment year 1989-90. The grounds raised are: (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in...

Shri S.S. Shah, Shri S.P. Dabir and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Right to Information

1. Shri V.S. Nankani, learned advocate appeared on behalf of Shri J.Bhuta. Shri M.L. Grover, learned advocate appeared on behalf of Shri S.S. Shah. Shri S.P. Dabir appeared in person. The learned counsel, Shri Nankani submitted...

Shri Chandrakant Kantilal Shah Vs. National Refinery Private

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Subject : Company

Reported in : (2004)51SCL387

1. The substantive allegations in this petition filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act") in relation to the affairs of M/s. National Refinery Private Limited ("the Company") are that the...

inox India Ltd. Vs. I.D.B.i. Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : BankingCommercial

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : (2002)2GLR1265

Advocate for Respondent : Mahesh Thakar,; D.S. Aff. and; Sunit S. Shah, Advs.

Sharad D. Dave, J.1. With the consent of the learned Advocates, the matter is heard finally.2. The original plaintiff has filed this Appeal From Order under Section 104 and Order 43 Sub-clause (r) of the Civil...

In Re: Ispat Industries Limited

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 433, 434 and 434(1)

Reported in : 2005(2)BomCR94; [2005]58SCL485(Bom)

Advocate for Respondent : S.S. Shah, Adv., i/b., ;Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co.

Vazifdar S.J., J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition for the winding up by the Court of the company Deepak Machineries Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the...

G.K. Lath Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (1998)(102)ELT444Tri(Chennai)

1. These are ten appeals filed by the appellants against the orders passed by the Collector in Order No. 147/94, dated 19-4-1994. In terms of that order, he allowed the goods to be redeemed on payment...

ispl Inds. Ltd., Vishrut Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Excise

1. These 7 appeals have common facts and arise out of the same order.They are therefore being disposed of vide this common order.2. M/s. ISPL Inds. Ltd. manufactured excisable goods their factory in Thane. This activity...

ispl Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (2002)(145)ELT121Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These 7 appeals have common facts and arise out of the same order.They are therefore being disposed of vide this common order.2. M/s. ISPL Inds. Ltd. manufactured excisable goods from their factory in Thane. This...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Vraj Agency

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2007)10STJ280CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 13/10/2006, vide which the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent by the adjudicating authority.2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite...