Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003VIIAD(Delhi)510; 2003(3)ARBLR673(Delhi); 110(2004)DLT340; 2003(71)DRJ644; 2004(1)RAJ187
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has prayed that the impugned judgment dated 26.11.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge limited to the aspect as to the applicability of the Arbitration Act,1940 be set aside. It is also prayed that an independent and impartial sole arbitrator be appointed. The short controversy involved in this petition is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Arbitration Act,1940 would be applicable or the controversy is required to be adjudicated by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.2. Brief facts which are not in dispute are recapitulated as under. The petitioner, M/s Continental Construction Limited entered into a contract for construction of sub-structure including well foundation and prestressed concrete box girders for road upper-structure with contractor's own design in connection with the construction of rail link between Chhitauni (U.P) and Bagah (Bihar). Certain disputes had arisen between the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3162
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8-11-2004, passed by Deputy Inspector General (Stamps) and Collector Stamps, Kota whereby the learned Collector held that an order passed by a High Court under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1959, (`the Companies Act' for short) permitting amalgamation of two companies is covered under the definition of word 'conveyance', contained in Section 2(xi) of Rajasthan Stamps Act,1998 (`the Act' for short). Therefore, the petitioner company is liable to pay the stamp duty. The Learned Collector had also directed the Sub-Registrar (Stamps) to calculate the extent of stamp duty payable. He further directed the Sub-Registrar to recover the stamp duty in case the petitioner company does not deposit the requisite stamp duty. The petitioner company has also challenged the order dated 21-6-2006, passed by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (`the Board' for short), whereby the learned Board has upheld the order dated 8-11-2004.2. The factual ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987WLN(UC)720
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has challenged his transfer from Panchayat Samiti Jhotwara, Jaipur to Chauhtan (Barmer) under order (Ann. Ex. 1)dated 11-6-1984. The petitioner was initially appointed as Gram Sewak in the year 1957 before coming into force of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959 (for short 'the rules'). In the year 1974 he was transferred to the Panchayat Samiti Bassi from Panchayat Samiti Fagi District Jaipur and again in the year 1975 he was transferred from the Panchayat Samiti Bassi to Panchayat Samiti Jhowtara, Jaipur. The challenge to the aforesaid order (Ex. 1) and also (Ex. 2) order dated 4th August, 1984 is on the ground that Rule 29 of the Rules 1959, is arbitrary and invalid and even procedure prescribed in the Rule 29 has not been followed.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment to the post of Village Level Worker is made districtwise and therefore, there cannot be inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1995(79)ELT411(Mad)
ORDER1. The above writ petition had been filed for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent in Ref. C. No. V/19/15/17/74, dated 24-2-1977 which was confirmed by the second respondent in his proceedings date 4-3-1980 and in turn modified by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 17-12-1984 rejecting the claim of the petitioner challenging the demand made of the duty and penalty in the following circumstances. 2. The petitioner was a firm of partners carrying on business at Nos. 142 and 143, Pension Lines Road, Gugai, Salem. The Central Excise Officers appear to have inspected the place of business on 9-11-1974 and found that 16 power-looms were installed in the premises and the actual manufacturing process was going on, manufacturing cotton furnishing fabrics in about 12 of the said powerlooms. The petitioner appears to have not taken any central excise licence for the manufacture of cotton furnishing fabrics on power-looms in the said pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 13.3.2007 (under Annexure-G to the writ petition) passed by the respondent and direct the respondent to pay to the petitioner all the terminal benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment etc., together with interest at 15% per annum from 6.3.2007 till date of payment and also issue him an order of relief relieving him from the services of the Bank at the end of office hours on 5th March 2007 as mandated by para 522(2) of the Sastry Award.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The facts are as follows:- The petitioner was working as a Clerk in the services of the respondent-Bank. The petitioner is said to have issued a notice of resignation dated 31.1.2007 whereby it was indicated that he be relieved from the services of the Bank at the end of Office hours on 5th March 2007. This according to the petitioner wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: October 21, 2013 + OMP No.21/2013 TRANSAIR & ORS. Through ..... Petitioners Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Ms. Garima Malhotra, Ms. Tushar Singh and Mr. Indresh Kumar and Ors. Versus M/S KUWAIT AIRWAYS AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Ms. Veronica Mohan, Mr. Arpit Shukla and Mr. Pallav Mongia, Advs. for R-1, Mr. Abhijat Adv. with Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Mr. Harsh Hariharan & Mr. P. Kumar, Advs. for R-3 and R-4 AND O.M.P. No.24/2013 VANDANA GUPTA AND ANR Through ..... Petitioners Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Abhijat, Adv. with Mr.Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Mr. Harsh Hariharan & Mr.P.Kumar, Advs. Versus KUWAIT AIRWAYS LTD AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Mamta Tiwari, Ms.Veronica Mohan, Mr.Arpit Shukla and Mr.Pallav Mongia, Advs. for R-1. Mr.Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Vaibhav Gaggar, Ms.Garima Malhot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: October 21, 2013 + OMP No.21/2013 TRANSAIR & ORS. Through ..... Petitioners Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Ms. Garima Malhotra, Ms. Tushar Singh and Mr. Indresh Kumar and Ors. Versus M/S KUWAIT AIRWAYS AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Ms. Veronica Mohan, Mr. Arpit Shukla and Mr. Pallav Mongia, Advs. for R-1, Mr. Abhijat Adv. with Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Mr. Harsh Hariharan & Mr. P. Kumar, Advs. for R-3 and R-4 AND O.M.P. No.24/2013 VANDANA GUPTA AND ANR Through ..... Petitioners Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Abhijat, Adv. with Mr.Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Mr. Harsh Hariharan & Mr.P.Kumar, Advs. Versus KUWAIT AIRWAYS LTD AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Mamta Tiwari, Ms.Veronica Mohan, Mr.Arpit Shukla and Mr.Pallav Mongia, Advs. for R-1. Mr.Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Vaibhav Gaggar, Ms.Garima Malhot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 227/2018 and CM APPL. 927-929/2018 Reserved on:10. 01.2018 Date of decision:19. 01.2018 IN THE MATTER OF: PAWAN KUMAR * + Through:... Petitioner in person. ........ Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND ORS versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HIMA KOHLI, J.1. The petitioner, working on the post of Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) [hereinafter referred to as LEO(Central)]. in the office of respondent No.2/Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) [hereinafter referred to as 'CLC (Central)']. is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissing O.A. No.3052/2016, filed by him for quashing an order dated 15.01.2016 passed by the respondents/Ministry of Labour and Employment UOI, transferring him from Ranchi to Chennai, his relieving order dated 26.05.2016 as also the order dated 21.06.2016, posting another C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:14. 11.2014 Date of Decision:29. 05.2015 + CM(M) 572/2011 & CM No.9312/2011 MAHINDER KAUR & ANR. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. versus PAMELA MANMOHAN SINGH & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Mahender Rana, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns an order dated 05.02.2011 (hereafter impugned order) passed by the Additional District Judge (for short Appellate Court), whereby the petitioners application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short Act) was dismissed. Consequently, the petitioners appeal also, bearing No.RCA No.7/2010, against the order dated 30.03.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, was dismissed as barred by limitation. Background facts 2. The respondents, being Decree Holders (for short DHs) in Suit No.1080/79, had sought execution of the same. The petitioners resisted the same...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2000)73ITD344(Hyd.)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee, which is a company, in which public are substantially interested. The relevant assessment year is 1990-91. As per the return of income filed by the assessee-company for the relevant assessment year, there was no taxable income, according to the computation made under the provisions of Chapter-IV of the IT Act, 1961. The AO had to examine the applicability of s. 115J for the purpose of assessment, as the assessee is a company. The P&L a/c of the assessee-company disclosed a net loss of Rs. 67,27,701. In this context, the AO has found that the assessee-company has debited an amount of Rs. 3,28,13,931 as depreciation in its P&L a/c, before arriving at the net loss. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, the assessee-company had revalued its assets to a higher extent on the basis of an expert valuation report (EVR). The amount of depreciation that has been debited in the P&L a/c was the amount worked out on the basis ...
Tag this Judgment!