Court : Guwahati
Amitava Roy, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 before this Court is a Shareholder/Member and petitioner No. 2, a depositor of the Silchar Co-operative Urban Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') assailed the legality and validity of the communication dated 15.2.2000 and one 23.3.2000 pertaining to winding up thereof as directed by the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'RBI'). This court issued rule on 27.3.2000 but no interim order was passed.2. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the RBI and Mr. A. Thakur, learned State counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5.3. The primary facts in short as can be gathered from the writ petition are that the bank is a registered Society under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has been functioning for the last about a century but had become financial sick due to non-payment of loans by the borrowers. According to the petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC243IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1891-1966 OF2024UNION OF INDIA ...APPELLANT(S) ROMIT NANDAN SAHAI VERSUS M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of the exposition, this judgement is divided in the following parts: - INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX ................................................................................ 2 B. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ... 8 C. IMPUGNED ORDER ............................................................................. 11 D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ....................... 13 E. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT .................... 16 Civil Appeal No(s). 1891-1966 of 2024 Page 1 of 95 F. ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 22 i. Relevant Statutory Scheme and Provisions .............................................. 22 ii. Sco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A.H. Saikia, J. 1. In both these Civil Rules the respective Writ Petitioners mainly challenged the allotment of ceiling surplus land by the State-Respondents in favour of private respondents arrayed in these writ petitions seeking a direction from this Court for quashing of those allotments with a further direction restraining the private respondents from making any construction over the so allotted land in question. Since the question of law based on almost identical facts involved in these writ petitioners are similar, I propose to hear these writ petitions analogously and dispose of the same by this common order.2. Heard Mr. P.C. Deka, learned sr. counsel, Mr. M.K. Choudhury and Mr. N. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Bhattacharyya, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Mr. C. Choudhury, Mr. J. Roy and Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private Respondents. Also heard Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC202; [1972]83ITR197(SC); (1972)4SCC509; [1972]2SCR16
1. These two Appeals are by Special Leave against the Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court answering the Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the assessee-the Appellant. The Appellant who was admittedly a Ruler of the erstwhile Faridkot State challenged the assessments made against him for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 with respect to which the accounting years were Vikram year 2002 and 2003 corresponding to the period 13th April 1945 to 12th April 1946, and 13th April 1946 to 12th April 1947 respectively. The assessment in each of these years was made under Section 34 read with Section 23 of the Act, as the assessee's income from dividends and interest and capital gains earned by the assessee during the relevant accounting year in what was then British India had not been brought to tax. The assessee objected to these proceedings and contended before the Income-tax Officer that he being a Ruler of the Fari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.74 of 1992 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 19, 2014 Ram Tapsya Tiwari ....Appellant versus Jatinder Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH Present: Mr.A.P.Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. Kuldip Singh. J (Oral) Ram Tapsya Tiwari (petitioner).whose claim petition filed under Section 166 Motor Vehicle Act, 1989, for grant of compensation was dismissed, vide Award dated 24.08.1991, has preferred this appeal against the Award of the Tribunal. According to the petitioner, on 07.09.1989, he was engaged on truck at Nagra Godown of Punjab State Ware House Cooperation. After loading the truck, he was standing near the truck with his back towards the truck. The driver of the truck without giving any signal or horn reversed the same and struck the same against the petitioner with force. As a result of the accident, petitioner receive...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this Arbitration Petition, the Petitioner seeks challenge the Award of the sole Arbitrator dated 30 June, 2003. By the impugned Award, the Arbitrator has directed the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.78,19,540.13 along with interest. 2. The Petitioner the Maharashtra Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation is a Corporation set up for the purpose of promoting small scale industries in the State of Maharashtra. The Respondent is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing MS Pipes and related products. It is a small scale industrial unit. 3. The dispute between the parties, which was referred to arbitration, is regarding the interest on delayed payment made by the Respondent to the Petitioner. 4. Before proceeding with narration of the facts of the present case, it will be useful to advert to the developments as regards statutory provisions that govern the dispute. The relevant statue is The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2003)(155)ELT143Tri(Kol.)kata
1. Vide the impugned Order, the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Patna has confiscated 31 bags of betel nuts claimed to be belonging to the appellant.2. As per the facts on record, the Patna Customs seized the 31 bags of betel nuts alleged to be of foreign origin from Farakka Express Train when the same reached Patna Junction. The adjudication order is also in respect of another seizure of 68 bags of betel nuts from Brahmputra Mail and in the present appeal, I am not concerned with the same. As such, I am dealing only with the appellant's claim with respect to 31 bags.2a. After seizure of the betel nuts on 5-11-99, the appellant, Shri Sunderlal vide his letter dated 12-1-2000 claimed ownership of the goods in question and submitted the requisite papers along with the railway receipts to the Revenue. However, it was noticed that the goods were booked by one Shri Niranjan Nath of Silchar and Shri Akash Dev of Delhi. On investigations, neither the consignor nor the consignee could be loc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment and order; dated 31.7.1998, passed, in application No. 329/96, by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, dismissing the claim application of the appellant. 2. The case of the appellant may, in brief, be stated thus: One Shri Kushal Bose booked, on 2.12.1994, at Tinsukia railway station, four boxes of tea seeds weighing 80 kgs for being delivered to the appellant at Siliguri Junction. The appellant made repeated enquiries from the concerned parcel clerk, at Siliguri, about the said consignment, the last such enquiry having been made on 31.12.1994, but even on this day, i.e., on 31.12.1994, the petitioner was informed that his consignment had not reached Siliguri Junction. As the items booked were perishable in nature, the claimant issued a notice, dated 17.3.1995, under Section 78B of the Indian Railways Act, read with Section 80, CPC, cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This RFA is filed U/S 96 Of CPC, against the Judgment and decree dated: 7.12.2009 Passed in OS.No.15077/2003 On the file of the VIII Addl. City Vicil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (Cch 15), decreeing the suit for ejectment, Mesne Profits and Costs.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Court of the VIII Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH.15), Bangalore in O.S.No.15077/2003. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that one Sri K.R.Nagappa Reddy was the owner of the suit schedule ‘A’ property. A portion of ‘A’ schedule property consisting of 2 shops and 4 houses were leased to the appellants. The leased portions constitute suit schedule ‘B’ property. In a family partition, the suit schedule ‘A’ property was given to Sri Nagappa Reddy’s sons, Sriyuts Dhanpal Reddy and Narayana Reddy. The said Narayana Reddy and Dhanpal Reddy filed H.R.C.No.109/2001 seeking the eviction of the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1993Ori257; 1993(I)OLR77
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The core question that arises for determination in thiscase is whether a private educational institution on satisfying the prescribed eligibility criteria for receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government becomes entitled to receive such aid with effect from that date.2. Jalada Dalang Uchha Bidyapiths represented by the Secretary filed this writ application against the State Government in the Education and Youth Services Department; Director of Secondary Education, Orissa and Inspector of Schools, Balasore Circle, seeking direction to the opposite parties to declare the petitioner's school to be eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from the year 1987-88 and to further direct the opposite parties to pay the salary component of the employees of the school with effect from that year,3. The undisputed factual backdrop of the case is that the petitioner's school was established in the year 1979; it was accorded recognition from the academic session 1980; the ...
Tag this Judgment!