Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003(66)DRJ224
D.K. Jain, J.1. In this third round of litigation with the Sales Tax authorities, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated 20 March 2001, passed by the Deputy Collector (Recovery)/Collector, Sales Tax, New Delhi, holding the petitioner company to be the transferee company, liable to pay the outstanding sales tax dues of the transferor company, namely M/s. Byford Leasing Limited, hereinafter referred as the Byford, in terms of Section 32 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short the Act) and having defaulted in discharging the said liability, liable to be proceeded against under Section 139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short the Land Reforms Act).2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, we shall briefly notice the material facts, which are as follows:The first petitioner is a company incorporated on 9 March 1998 with the main object of carrying on the business of collection, processing an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(4)ALD758; 2003(2)ALT610; (2003)184CTR(AP)596; [2003]262ITR306(AP)
ORDERB. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. These R.Cs., may be disposed of by a common order, since the question referred for the opinion of this Court is common in all theses cases.2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench referred the following question, said to be a question of law, for the opinion of this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the exemption under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Wealth Tax Act in respect of 7 items of jewellery claimed to represent art treasures?'3. In this batch of cases, we are concerned only with the said question.4. In order to express our opinion, it is just and necessary to notice the relevant facts:The issue relates to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87. 5. His Exalted Highness, the late Nb. Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, created 'HEH the Nizam's Jewellery Trust' by the Indenture dated 29-3-1951. The said Settlor specified the names of the beneficiaries, their respective sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : AIR2004Sik11
ORDERN.S. Singh, J.1. In this writ petition, the writ petitioners, five in number, questioned the validity of the impugned notification bearing G.O. Ms. No. 20 dated 8th January 2003 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu as in Annexure-P5 to the writ petition by contending inter alia, that the impugned notification is arbitrary, mala fide, ultra-vires of the scheme of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the said writ petition, the writ petitioners highlighted the following facts :--Sikkim a sovereign kingdom is merged with the Union of India as its 22nd State. Sikkim is a small mountainous State with difficult terrain and no mineral resources worth the name and also has no industries other than few small-scale industries. Since the State of Sikkim has limited resource-generating capacity, it is highly underdeveloped. The petitioner-State has been exploring possibilities to generate and enhance its own revenue by variou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC2351; 2004(3)BLJR1908; (2004)4CompLJ171(SC); JT2004(Suppl1)SC160; 2004(4)SCALE724; (2004)5SCC1; (2004)3UPLBEC2331
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna is seized of a hearing in public interest exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution. The High Court is feeling concerned over the drainage system, the sewerage system, the drinking water supply system, the kerb on the road being in shambles and reallocating of footpaths. The High Court seems to have chosen one road as model habitat area so as to set an example for other roads conforming with the discipline governing urbanization and urban planning according to law and ensuring that future generations get a safer city to live in, a civic city, with civic amenities, for the benefit of civic citizens. The High Court has been issuing orders in the nature of continuing mandamus and has also been monitoring the compliance. On 1.10.2001, the High Court passed an interim order containing the following directions; (a) The street alignment is in a straight or a gentle curve natural to the road a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2005(103)ECC152; 2005(186)ELT3(Raj)
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a limited Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Amongst others, the petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of tyres for which it has its manufacturing facility at Kankroli, Rajasthan. For the purposes of its manufacturing in Rajasthan of such tyres, the petitioner imports Nylon Tyre Cord Fabric (NTCF) from various manufacturers/exporters of other countries including from those situated in Peoples Republic of China. The NTCF so imported is comprised of three different varieties namely, the grey fabric, dipped fabric and Cycle Tyre Cord Fabric (CTC). The petitioner is also a member of Automotive Tyre Manufacturer Association (ATMA). The association represents the collective interest of tyre manufacturers.2. The Association of Synthetic Fibre Industry (ASFI), whose members are the manufacturers of synthetic fibre in India, including NTCF, submitted a written application before the Designated Author...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 100(2005)CLT555; 2005(II)OLR779
M.M. Das, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against an order dated 1.7.2005 of the Learned Single Judge passed in O.J.C. No. 17341 of 2001.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 164 of 1979 against the appellant to set aside a sale deed, which was executed and registered by one Gajendra Acharya in favour of the appellant with respect to the 'A' Schedule property of the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 2000/-. The grounds taken in the plaint were that the sale deed was obtained by playing fraud and coercing the vendor. The appellant's case was that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 realizing that the suit would be dismissed got a compromise petition filed in the suit, which according to the appellant was obtained by the respondent No. 1 by playing fraud on the appellant. However, on the Court causing an enquiry under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, held that the compromise was lawful and the same was made a part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2006)203CTR(MP)287; [2008]296ITR173(MP)
ORDERAshok Kumar Tiwari, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dt. 31st March, 1999 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in Crl. Appeal No. 81 of 1998 against the conviction of the applicants and the sentence imposed on him by the learned 3rd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore. .2. Applicant No. 1 Rameshwar Prasad Sunderlal was a partnership firm and applicant Nos. 2 (since dead) and 3 were the partners of the aforesaid firm. The other partners of the firm namely, Balaram and Janabai has expired during the trial. The aforesaid firm was income-tax payer. The IT returns on behalf of the firm had to be filed for the asst. yr. 1980-81 under Section 139(1) of the IT Act on 30th June, 1980, but the return was filed on 29th June, 1981. Thus, the return was filed after 11 months from the due date. According to the Department this delay was caused wilfully. Therefore, the prosecution was launched against the firm and its partners Jai Narayan, Balaram, Jana Bai and Radh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(2)ALD301
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Heard Sri M Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, Sri E, Ayyapu Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri K. Ravi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent and at their request the writ petition was taken up for final hearing.2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the 1st respondent in R.P.No.1024 of 2004 dated 5.10.2004, upholding the order of the 2nd respondent in LA. No.79/04 in O.A.No.21/ 04, dated 18.8.2004, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and for a direction to quash both the orders.3. Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that petitioners 1 to 6 claim to be the founder trustees of the subject institution - a Hanuman Temple constructed in the year 1984. The said institution, said to have sev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2006)203CTR(Del)550; [2006]283ITR212(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. With the consent of the parties this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 10.2.2005 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') issued by the Income Tax Officer in respect of the Assessment Year 2001-2002. It is also directed against the order dated 17.8.2005 passed by the Income Tax Officer in response to the objections to the said notice of 10.2.2005 filed by the assessed (Petitioner No. 1). By virtue of this order dated 17.8.2005, the assessed's objections have been overruled and its request to drop proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the said Act have been rejected and the reassessment has been directed to be proceeded with. 2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that two issues arise for our consideration in this writ petition. The first issue relates to the maintainability of the writ petition for quashing a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2829
Amitava Lala, J.1. This case is made out basically for conversion of leasehold 'nazul' land to freehold land along with various other reliefs. Therefore, let us first of all know what is 'nazul'?' 'Nazul' means any land or building which, being the property of Government is not administered as a State property under the control of the Land Reforms Commissioner or the Forest or the irrigation Department, or is not under the control of the Military, Postal, Telegraph, Railway or other purely Central Government Department. It means properties i.e., land or buildings in or near towns or villages which have escheated or lapsed to the Government. In further, in absence of appropriate heir, the appropriate State or the Government of India in an appropriate case became the owner of the land. Article 296 of the Constitution of India speaks about the property accruing by escheat or lapse or as an bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner.2. Originally the writ petition was filed by the petition...
Tag this Judgment!