Court : Orissa
W.P.(C) No.17939 of 2013 Present : Mr S. Ray, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr R.P.Kar, Standing Counsel (Revenue).05. 28.01.2014 This petition seeks direction for quashing of the order under Annexures-1 and 13 (which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, may be read as Annexure-10).The order dated 18.7.2013 (Annexure-10) has been passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Cuttack-1 West Circle, rejecting the application of the petitioner for amendment of registration by way of addition to the place of business and change of status from proprietorship to partnership. Relevant observations therein are as follows: .On receipt of enquiry report it is also noticed that the additional place of business at Plot No.2099/2242 corresponding to Khata No.747/364, Mouza-Gunjarpur which is mentioned in the amendment application dt. 30.05.2012, partnership deed dt. 30.05.2012 and the certificate issued by Mutarifa Gram Panchayat dt. 07.07.2012 is No.a fact rather vice mutatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned A.P.P. for respondent No.2/State finally. 2. In this matter, the respondent No.1- complainant filed R.C.C. No.239/2012 against the present applicants (original accused Nos.1 and 3). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon did not issue process against accused No.2 Mrs. Trivenidevi observing that her contribution behind this offence is not well founded and she could not be arrayed as accused. Against the order of issue of process against applicants, the present application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants is relying on the case of National Bank of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and anr., reported in (2013) 2 SCC 488. He submits that, perusal of the complaint shows that the accused persons were not residents of the local jurisdiction of the Court and in view of the amendment to Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short), it was incumbent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. This a plaintiffs second appeal questioning the correctness and legality of judgment and decree passed by Principal District Judge. Ramanagara, in R.A.No.51/2009 dated 18.03.2014 whereunder appeal filed by unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by principal civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Ramanagara, in O.S.No.167/2006 dated 21.03.2009 dismissing the suit of plaintiff for declaration and consequential relief of possession came to be affirmed. 2. This court by order dated 08.09.2015 has admitted the appeal to consider following Substantial Question of law: (i) Whether First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing I.A.No.4 filed by appellant/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on the ground that same is not maintainable before First Appellate Court? 3. Facts in brief which has led to filing of this appeal can be crystalised as under: Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.167/2006 for a judgment and decree to declare plaintiff is the owner having title to suit schedule prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20th May, 2015 whereby the prayer of the petitioner to amend the written statement has been declined, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that impugned order may be set aside and the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC may be allowed. 2. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the petitioner is owner of the suit property and had been in uninterrupted possession of the same prior to the year 2001 till date. The physical possession of the suit property was never handed over at any point of time to Shri B.D.Arora. The trial in the suit is at the initial stage as the respondent/plaintiff is under cross-examination. When the case was listed for cross-examination of the respondent/plaintiff, with a view to avoid any technical objection during cross-examination, the amendment application to seek amendment of written statement has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE10H DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.8574/2016 & W.P.Nos.48997-998/2016 (LR-RES) BETWEEN SMT.MACHI POOJARTHI, AGEDA BOUT73YEARS, D/O LATE MARLI POOJARTHI, HEDDARI MANE, HEMMADI VILLAGE, VANDSE HOBLI, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, PIN CODE:576201. ... PETITIONER (By Sri VENKATESH C. & Sri SHANKAR REDDY C., ADVS.) AND1 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT, PIN CODE-576 201. SRI RANGANATH KAMATH, S/O RAMAKRISHNA KAMATH, AGED ABOUT73YEARS, R/AT GANGOLI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, PIN OCDE:576 201. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1; Sri A.ANANDA SHETTY A., ADV. FOR C/R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.30.11.2015 MADE IN APPEAL6282007 2 VIDE ANNEXURE-M, ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE SAID APPEAL; AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: May 24, 2017 CM(M) 577/2017 AMANPREET SINGH Through: Mr.Sanjay Dewan, Advocate. ........ Petitioner + versus Through: None. KULDEEP SINGH & ANR CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT (Oral) ........ RESPONDENTS CM1994117 1.2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. CM(M) 577/2017 1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 20th April, 2017 whereby the learned Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 14 CPC but dismissed the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.2. The grievance of the petitioner against the impugned order is only to the extent that his prayer to amend the plaint has been declined by the learned Trial Court. CM(M) No.577/2017 Page 1 of 6 3. The application seeking amendment of the plaint has been dismissed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~OS-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of decision:25. 10.2018 CS(COMM) 361/2017 PENTEL KABUSHIKI KAISHA & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr.Saurabh Banerjee and Mr. Afzal versus B. Khan, Advs. M/S ARORA SATIONERS AND ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr.Shailen Bhatia, Ms.Ekta Nayar Saini, Mr.Shivam, Mr.Saltanat and Ms.Vidushi, Mr.H.P.Singh and Mr.Navroop Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) IA No.646/2018 1. This application is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on behalf of defendants No.2 and 3 seeking amendment of the written statement. It is pleaded in the application that the issues have been framed and the present suit is listed for the plaintiffs evidence. In the meantime, it is pleaded that defendant No.3 has received a Certificate of Registration for Design No.282909 in Class 19-06 for the Pen bearing the name MONTEX MASTANI from the Office of Controller of Designs, Design Office Kolkata in respect of the application for registra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t May, 2019. CS(OS) 490/2018 & IAs No.13500/2018 (u/O XXXII R-1 CPC), 13501/2018 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC), 13502/2018 (u/O XI R-14 CPC), 1123/2019 (u/O VIII R-10 CPC) & 3267/2019 (u/O VI R-17 CPC) MUKUL KATARIA (MINOR) & ANR .... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Harsh Kumar, Adv. Versus RAM BHOOL & ANR ...Defendants Through: Mr. C.M. Grover, Adv. for D-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The two minor plaintiffs namely Mukul Katariya and Chhavi, acting through their mother Smt. Pinki, have instituted this suit against their paternal grandfather defendant no.1 Ram Bhool and their father defendant no.2 Deepak, for (i) partition of properties No.32 & 33, Gali No.3, Sarojini Naidu Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi claiming 1/6th share each therein; (ii) rendition of accounts; and, (iii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the said properties and/or from dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1998)(101)ELT272Tri(Chennai)
1. The prayer in the application is for dispensation of pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- levied as penalty on the appellants for the reason that they had evaded duty in respect of the inputs for which Modvat credit was taken and which were cleared as such on paying duty equivalent to the Modvat credit which was earlier taken.2. The learned Chartered Accountant for the appellants has pleaded that the amount of Modvat credit which was taken was reversed at the time when the goods were removed from the factory. Subsequently as a result of audit objection the re-computation of duty was done taking into consideration the value at which the goods were sold by the appellants and additional duty was therefore demanded taking that value into reckoning. He pleaded that the learned lower authority while taking note of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. American Auto Services reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 71 (Tribunal) has stated that in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.2366 of 2010 Mahila Ramkali Devi and others ..Appellant(s) versus Nandram (D) Thr. LRs. and others ..Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M. Y. EQBAL, J.This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 01.03.2005 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which allowed the respondents appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff- Appellants for declaration of title and possession of the suit property.2. The factual matrix of the case is that the suit property was originally owned by Hardayal who had two sons Raghuvardayal and Mahadev Prasad. When Hardayal died, the suit property fell to the share of Raghuvardayal and on his death it passed on to his wife Sumitra and then his son Radhakishan and then Radhakishans wife Ajuddhibai.3. The plaintiff/appellant no.1 filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit property in Gwalior against the deceased Nandram and deceased Kashiram, ...
Tag this Judgment!