Court : Uttaranchal
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The present special appeal has been filed by the State of Uttarakhand against the judgment dated 30th September, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 180 of 2008 (M/S) by which the learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Collector under Section 166 & 167 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the UPZA & LR Act).2. The facts leading to the filing of the Special Appeal is that Dr. Vijay Singh Pal and Arun Singh, belonging to the Scheduled Tribes community, sold plot Nos. 15, 16 and 17 measuring 15 naali and 12 muthi (0.315 hectares) by means of a sale deed dated 24.04.1996 to the writ petitioner M/s Ski & Snow Resorts Pvt. Ltd., which is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and which is engaged in tourism and hospitality business. Subsequent to the sale deed, the land was declared non-agriculture under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act, u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CP-205-2013 (O&M) :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Company Petition No.205 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision :24. 03.2014 In the matter of amalgamation Kool Breweries Limited ...Petitioner Amalgamating Company with Carlsberg India Private Limited ...Amalgamated Company Present : Mr.Arun Kathpalia, Advocate with Mr.Anirudh Das, Advocate and Mr.Rohit Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner company. Mr.D.P.Ojha, Official Liquidator 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.This second motion petition has been filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act') by Kool Breweries Limited (petitioner amalgamating company) seeking sanction of the scheme of amalgamation of the petitioner company with Carlsberg India Private Limited (amalgamated company-'Carlsberg' for short) and their respective share holders.2. The registered office of the petitioner company is at D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1983)LC430DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision Application filed before the Central Government (hereinafter called Appeal) which, under Section 35-P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to this Tribunal and is to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before it.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants, who are manufacturers of cotton fabrics, had filed before the Central Excise authorities a classification list, as required under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in respect of Sort No. 3289 manufactured by them describing the fabric as "Dyed, mercerised, printed (Brasso) polyester, cellulosic, cotton shirting, wash and wear, pre-shrunk finish". They had also declared the terene contents as 28% at the grey stage and 31.8% at the processed stage. The appellants sought classification of the fabric under Item No. 19-1(2) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (C.E.T.) which was allowed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bomba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1986)(9)ECC61
1. The four appeals under consideration were earlier subject matter of proceedings before the Government of India, in one case by way of revision application and in other three cases by way of review proceedings under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act as applicable at the relevant time. These now stand transferred as if these were appeals before the Tribunal.2. The issues involved in these appeals are common and relate to the classification of goods, namely (i) cotton fabric; (ii) paper; and (iii) glass fabric, each impregnated with phenol formaldehyde and described as 'Prepreg' 'C' or 'P' or 'G' respectively. These are intended for making laminated sheets, tubes etc.3. For the sake of easy reference relevant particulars in regard to these appeals are listed as under :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------S.Appeal No. Description Classification Classification ClassificationNo. of goods as held by as upheld by as claimed origina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ford v. Surget - 97 U.S. 594 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Ford v. Surget, 97 U.S. 594 (1878) Ford v. Surget 97 U.S. 594 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus 1. The court reaffirms the doctrine in Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 176 , that an enactment of the Confederate States, enforced as a law of one of the states composing that confederation, is a statute of such state within the meaning of the act regulating the appellate jurisdiction of this Court over the judgments and decrees of the state courts. 2. A., a resident of Adams County, Mississippi, whose cotton was there burnt by B. in May, 1862, brought an action for its value against the latter, who set up as a defense that that state, whereof he was at that date a resident, was then in subjection to and under the control of the "Confederate States;" that an act of their congress, approved March 6, 1862, declared that it was the duty of all military commanders in their service to destroy all cotton...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR66
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 11-3-1991, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 54 of 1991. dismissing the revision petition filed by the present writ petitioner No. 1. In the aforesaid revision petition, an order dated 14-2-1991 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kannad in C.R. No. 113 of 1990 of Pishore Police Station was challenged.2. Police-sub-Inspector, Pishore had lodged an F.I.R. on 18-12-1990, stating that on receipt of an information on that day, that the present petitioner No. 1 was purchasing cotton illegally from the agriculturists for the purposes of selling the same outside the State in contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) Act, 1791, a raid was organized and it was found at village Padli, that cotton was being weighed and loaded in a truck. The petitioner No. 1 was nothing down the weights and on int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(2)ALD387; 2000(2)ALT465
1. The writ petition is filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent and his subordinates in not stopping unauthorised vehicles plying from the notified route as arbitrary and illegal and contrary to Sections 86 and 207 of Motor Vehicles Act and for consequential direction.2. The petitioner is the Road Transport Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It is the case of the Corporation that the Government of Andhra Pradesh notified several schemes to nationalise the bus routes in the State and almost 95 per cent of the bus routes were nationalised conferring mere monopoly to APSRTC to operate the stage carriage on the nationalised routes.3. It has been operating the buses to the total satisfaction of the commuters. It has also received number of awards for its performance at national level. It is the grievance of the Corporation that number of private jeeps, vans, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2551; (1971)1SCC477; [1971]3SCR573
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree dated 3 August, 1965 of the High Court of Allahabad decreeing the respondent's suit for the sum of Rs. 4,11,367.92.2. The respondent filed the suit on 16 May, 1953 against the appellant for the recovery of Rs. 4,11,367.92 with interest and costs.3. The respondent's case in short was that the respondent on 30 September, 1942 deposited a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 with M/s. India Supplies whereof the appellants were the partners on the condition that interest would be payable @ 7/9 percent per month and that the respondent would be entitled to withdraw the deposition demand.4. The suit was filed in the court of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur. The evidence was concluded before the Civil Judge, Kanpur. Thereafter by an order dated 12 May, 1964 of the High Court at Allahabad the suit was transferred to the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction. The High Court heard the suit and on 3 August, 1965 decreed the suit in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(3)SC647; 1993(2)SCALE373; 1993Supp(3)SCC546; [1993]2SCR874
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing an application filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act. The question which the Revenue wanted to raise reads thus:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt of Rs. 1,38,577/- realised @1/- per bilty per customer through the bills and credited to a separate account called 'DHARMADA' was not assessable to tax as revenue receipt?2. The case of the Revenue briefly stated is to the following effect: the assessee is a private Ltd. company engaged in the business of transport. During the accounting period ending January 31, 1970 relevant to the assessment year 1970-71, the respondent collected an amount of Rs. 1,38,577/- on account of DHARMADA. The Income Tax Officer called upon the respondent-assessee to explain why the said amount should not be treated as its trading receipt....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1983]140ITR95(Raj)
Sidhu, J.1. Kistoormall and Gyanmal, sons of Kanmal Nahta, filed the present writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on March 17, 1967, against the ITO, Central Circle-I, Jaipur, Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan, at New Delhi, and the Union of India, respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, for bringing up and quashing the notices, Ex. H-I to H-5, dated March 21, 1963, issued to their father, Kanmal Nahta, deceased, by the ITO, Special Investigation Circle-A, Jaipur (hereafter called 'the Jaipur ITO'), under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereafter called 'the new Act') for the assessment years 1946-47 to 1950-51, and for an injunction restraining the respondents from taking any proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the said notices.2. A few facts, which are material for the decision of this petition, may be recapitulated here. Kanmal Nahta, who died on June 26, 1964, was an assessee within the jurisdiction of 3rd ITO, C-...
Tag this Judgment!