Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008MP168; 2008(1)MPHT54
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. This batch of appeals was listed for rectification of default, the same being, the affidavit that has been filed in support of the applicant for condonation of delay preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in each case has been sworn to by the Oath Commissioner instead of Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952. Though the aforesaid matters were listed for rectification of the aforesaid singular default which has been pointed out by the Registry, Mr. A.M. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P.C. Paliwal, Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, Mr. Ashok Lalwani, Mr. Greeshm Jain, Mr. K.N. Fakaruddin, Mr. Ashish Shroti, Mr. Ashish Trivedi, Mr. N.S. Parmar, Mr. D.K. Sharma and Mr. Vipin Sharma, Advocates addressed this Court that the default pointed out by the Registry is absolutely erroneous as such a default does not emerge if the provisions engrafted in various enactments and rules framed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh from time to time are scrutinized in proper pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:- 23-04-2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.Nos.33607 to 33613 of 2012, W.P.Nos. 3835, 3980, 4030, 6095, 6282 and 6882 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 (8 Nos.) 2 (9 Nos.) and 3 (2 Nos.) W.P.No.33607 of 2012: -------------------- Rosary Matriculation Higher Secondary School Represented by its Correspondent Rev. Sr.Lily D'Souza 11, Papanasam Sivan Road Santhome, Chennai 4. .. Petitioner vs.1. The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary Department of School Education Fort St. George Chennai 9.2. The Private Schools Fee Determining Committee Rep. By its Special Officer PTA Building DPI Campus College Road Chennai 6. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition No. 33607 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Committee, pertaining to the order of fixation dated 26.9.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus quashing the proceedings of the first respondent in Rc.A2.9052/02 and 11286 to 11288/04 (1992-93), (1993-94) (1994-95) and (1996-97) respectively dated 6.7.2004, while directing the first respondent not to impose purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as directed by the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Acts Cell.I/Dis.105980/88 dated 9.11.1989 and in D.Dis.Acts.Cell.II/52900/2000 dated 27.12.2000 until withdrawn in Acts Cell.II/6914/2002 dated 28.1.2002.) Common Order 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. In these writ petitions, the petitioner is a Public limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and they are registered as a dealer on the file of the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. J. Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a retired employee of the ICICI Bank and is presently aged 68 years. He is constrained to approach this Court in terms of the proceedings dated 4.8.2016 issued by the third respondent. 3. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner, upon retirement, filed his return of income for the relevant year and the assessment was finalized. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of S. Palaniappan v. I.T.O. [Civil Appeal No. 4411 of 2010 dated 28.9.2015] held that a person, who has opted for voluntary retirement under the Early Retirement Option Scheme shall be entitled to exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Following the said decision, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a circular dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12237-12238_OF2016[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.30884-30885 OF2015 STATE BANK OF INDIA APPELLANT VERSUS SANTOSH GUPTA AND ANR. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12240-12246_OF2016[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.30810-30815 & 30817 OF2015 [SLP (CIVIL) NOS.30810-30817 OF2015 STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS ZAFFAR ULLAH NEHRU AND ANR. ETC. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.Leave granted.1. The Constitution of India is a mosaic drawn from the experience of nations worldwide. The federal structure of this Constitution is largely reflected in Part XI which is largely drawn from the Government of India Act, 1935. The State of Jammu & Kashmir is a part of this federal structure. Due to historical reasons, it is a State which is accorded special treatment within the framework of the Constitution of India. This case is all about the State of Jammu & Kashmir vis`-a-vis` the Union ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3613 OF2016Rajendra Diwan ... Appellant versus Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr. .Respondents WITH AND CA. No.10214 OF2016C.A. No.3051 OF2017JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.This appeal, purportedly under Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act, is against an order dated 1.12.2015 of the Rent Control Tribunal at Raipur, confirming an order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Rent Control Authority, whereby an application filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the appellant tenant under Section 12 of the Rent Control Act has been allowed. 2 2. Appeal against an order of the Rent Control Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act provides:- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, a landlord and/or tenant aggrieved by any order of the Rent Controller shall have the right to appeal in the prescribed manner within the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.154 of 2020 Vinod Dua vs. Union of India & Ors. 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.154 OF2020VINOD DUA PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India prays for following principal reliefs:- a. Quash FIR No.0053 dated 06.05.2020 registered at Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. b. Direct that henceforth FIRs against persons belonging to the media with at least 10 years standing be not registered unless cleared by a committee to be constituted by every State Government, the composition of which should comprise of the Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge designated by him, the leader of the Opposition and the Home Minister of the State. Writ Petition (Criminal) No.154 of 2020 Vinod Dua vs. Union of India & Ors. 22. FIR No.0053 dated 06.05.2020 was registered pursuant to Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977MP68
Singh, J.1. Ramcharan, the respondent in this appeal, was prosecuted under Section 5 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950, on a complaint made by the Station Officer Rehli, District Sagar. The Magistrate First Class, Rehli, by his order dated April 19, 1974 convicted the respondent and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 600/- or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. On an appeal preferred by the respondent, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, by his order passed on March, 8, 1975 acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that the Station Officer Rehli was not empowered under Section 7(1) of the Act to make the complaint. The State preferred the present appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. At the time of admission of the appeal before a Division Bench, the learned Government Advocate produced a copy of Notification No. G. S. R. 1512 of December 24, 1960 under which the Station Officer, Rehli, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977AP250
A. Sambasiva Rao, Ag.C.J. 1. All these matters are placed before a Full Bench in view of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India. There are writ petitions, writ appeals and a Supreme Court leave petition amongst them. These cases cover the entire gamut of Article. 226. which is newly substituted by the 42nd Amendment, the scope and amplitude of Section 58 of the Amendment Act and its impact on pending writ petitions, writ appeals and interlocutory petitions therein as well as petitions seeking leave for appeal to the Supreme Court. More than one Division Bench have referred several of the above cases seeking an authoritative pronouncement of a Full Bench on all these aspects, with the result that we will have to consider now in this judgment the full scope of Article. 226, as substituted by the 42nd Amendment and of Section 58 of that Amendment Act.2. We may also point out that none of the above cases is under Article. 227 and so much so, no arguments have been advanced on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 81CWN699,[1978]114ITR379(Cal)
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This appeal is against tl5e judgment andorder of Sabyasachi Mukharji J. dated November 27, 1975 [Cachar PlywoodLtd. v. Income-tax Officer : [1977]109ITR470(Cal) whereby the connectedrule was discharged.2. The petitioner-appellant is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was being duly assessed till the assessment year 1969-70 by the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Karimganj. The Central Board of Direct Taxes passed the following order in respect of the assessee on December 23, 1972.'FNo. 185/141/72-IT(AI)Central Board of Direct Taxes,New Delhi, 23-12-72.OEDER 3. No. 572-J. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 127 of the IT Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and of all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby transfers the case, the particulars of which are mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule hereto annexed from the Income-tax Officer mentioned in column 4 to the Income-tax Officer mentioned in ...
Tag this Judgment!