Advanced Search Results

Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 10(2)

Reported in : [1979]119ITR387(Bom)

Advocate for Appellant : I.M. Munim, Adv.

Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred to us for determination in this reference made by the Tribunal under s. 66(2) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922, runs thus : 'Whether, on the facts...

Rampal Garg Vs. Shrimad Dayanand Orphanage

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Tenancy

Reported in : 1969WLN601

C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment as well as arrears of rent and mesne profits. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated...

Mysore Construction Co. (Prop. Mycon Construction Ltd. Represented by ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Sales Tax/VAT

Acts : Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Sections 1[4], 2(27), 2[34], 2[36], 2(37), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 3(24), 4, 4(3), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 15(1), 15(2), 15(3), 15(4), 15(5), 36, 39(1) and 72(2); Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2007 - Sections 4(3); Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948; Sale of Goods Act; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 19(1), 20, 21 and 366(29A); Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules - Rules 135, 136, 138, 139, 142, 143 and 144

Reported in : ILR2009KAR2657; (2009)24VST250(Karn); 2009(3)KCCRSN123; 2009(6)AIRKarR141

Advocate for Appellant : G. Rabinathan and ;M. Thirumalesh, Advs. in W.P. Nos. 9757 of 2007 and 8212 of 2008, ;A. Satyanarayan, Adv. in W.P. Nos. 5038, 5240, 8807 and 10880 of 2008, ;A. Rama, ;D. Venkatesh, ;Vikram and ;Alur,

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners are all traders who have transactions in the nature of sale of goods. Petitioners are all registered dealers under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for...

Sri Srihari Reddy. Vs. Sri K Prabhakar Reddy So Sri Sundararama Reddy

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1908 [CrPC] - Section 397, 401, 200, 357(3); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138

Advocate for Appellant : Sri Satyanarayan Chalke, Adv

ORDER 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 [CrPC] by the second accused CC No 18762 of 2010, on the file of Court of XII...

Paras Nath Rai and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Subject : Property

S.K. Katriar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.12.1999 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No. 151 of 1978, Revision Case No. 15 of 1975,...

Madhusudan Tukaram Kulkarni Vs. State

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Defence of India Rules, 1962 - Rule 30 (1)

Reported in : AIR1967Bom65; (1966)68BOMLR246; ILR1966Bom1092

Advocate for Appellant : M.D. Pathak, Adv.

(1) This petition has been filed under section 491 of the Criminal Procedure code and Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order of detention passed against the petitioner on 25th November 1964, under Rule...

Madhusudan Tukaram Kulkarni Vs. State

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 1967CriLJ318

Tarkunde, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order of detention passed against the petitioner on 25th November 1964, under...

Satyanarayan Vs. State

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 323, 376, 457 and 458; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313

Reported in : 2000CriLJ2529

Advocate for Appellant : S.S. Dhillon, Adv.

ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. Satyanarayan through this appeal calls in question the judgment dt. 15-2-97 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu convicting him under-Section 458, 376 and 323, IPC and sentencing him as follows :-All...

M/s. Flemingo (Duty Free Shop) Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. The Commissio ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Prakash Shah

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. This Writ Petition (WP/1830/2013) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order...

Raoji Bhavdu Vs. the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR1936Bom274; (1936)38BOMLR514

Macklin, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are a firm of commission agents in Nandurbar. In March, 1928, they bought on behalf of the firm Raghunathmal Satyanarayan & Co. a quantity of castor seeds and sent...