Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1964]52ITR524(SC)
GAJENDRAGADKAR C.J. - These four appeals arise from four writ petitions filed by the appellant, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, in which it claimed a writ of prohibition restraining them from collecting any tax, or taking any proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act against them. In its writ petitions, the appellant further claimed an order, writ, or other appropriate direction quashing the assessment orders passed by respondent No. 1 on the 29th February, 1960, for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. For the first year, a tax of Rs. 13,60,963.86nP. has been imposed for the period January 11, 1958, to March 31, 1958, and for the latter year, a tax of Rs. 34,44,430.48nP. has been levied for the period April 1, 1958, to March 31, 1959. After hearing the parties, the High Court has dismissed the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1486; [1964]34CompCas473(SC); [1994]52ITR524(SC); [1964]7SCR17
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. These four appeals arise from four writ petitions filed by the appellant, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax, Hyderabad, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, in which it claimed a writ of prohibition restraining them from collecting any tax, or taking any proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act against them. In its writ petitions, the appellant further claimed an order, writ, or other appropriate direction quashing the assessment orders passed by respondent No. 1 on the 29th February, 1960, for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. For the first year, a tax of Rs. 13,60,963.86nP. has been imposed for the period January 11, 1958, to March 31, 1958, and for the latter year, a tax of Rs. 34,44,430.48nP. has been levied for the period April 1, 1958, to March 31, 1959. After hearing the parties, the High Court has dismissed the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1089 of 2004 1. Mahendra Nath Maity @ Satyendranath Maiti, son of late Dharanidhar Maiti, Manager, Reservoir Operation, M.R.O., DVC Maithon, Dhanbad 2. Suvinay Sidhant, Ex-Chief Engineer (Civil) DVC, Maithon, Dhanbad .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Forester, Nirsa Forest Area, Dhanbad Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Satish Kumar Ughal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP --- Order No. 07 Dated January , 2016 1. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with B.F. Case No. 05 of 2004 (P.C. No. 69 of 2003-04) including the order dated 23.2.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, by which cognizance has taken for the offence punishable u/s 33 Indian Forest Act ('the Act' for short).2. The allegation made in the prosecution report is to the effect that on ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4881 OF2010DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. By this appeal maintained under Section 125 of the Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2003), the appellant seeks to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). 1 BACKGROUND FACTS2 The appellant is a statutory body constituted under the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the DVC Act). It was entrusted with multifarious functions. One of the functions it was entrusted was that it was duty bound to carry out generation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy both hydro electrical and thermal. It was also called upon to, op...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2007(1)BLJR840; [2007(1)JCR598(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner M/s. Atibir Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd has prayed for quashing the order dated 3.3.2006 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Giridih Circle, Giridih, whereby petitioner's application elated 27.1.2006 for cancellation of registration certificate issued under Rule 4 of the Bihar Electricity Duty Rules, 1949 and for refund of the amount realized by way of electricity duty has been rejected and a direction has been issued to the petitioner to make payment of electricity duty together with surcharge.2. The petitioner is an industry having Induction Furnace and Rolling Mill at Mohanpur in Giridih said to have been set up in 1998. The petitioner purchases electricity from Damodar Valley Corporation for the purposes of its industry under the agreement executed between the Damodar Valley Corporation being the licensee and the petitioner company. The petitioner-company started its commerci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(4)JCR371(Jhr)]
ORDERGurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as the Corporation) is a Body corporate and a Corporation under the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The present writ petition has been filed by the said Corporation and its Chief Engineer (Commercial) against Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Electricity Board') for issuance of appropriate writ or direction and restrain the Electricity Board from wrongful and illegal supply of electrical energy to its consumers-respondents 5 and 6 at 30,000 volts or more without permission of the Corporation and beyond the scope of the provisions of the Act.2. The Corporation generates and supplies power through its different power stations in the State of Jharkhand to different consumers governed under the Act for 30,000 volts and above. For voltage below 30,000 i.e. ranging between 230 volts upto 11,000 volts power are being ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(3)JCR793(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, CJ.1. This is an appeal by respondent No. 6 WP (C) No. 1514 of 2002 on the file of this Court. That writ petition was filed by the Damodar Valley Corporation (herein after referred to as DV Corporation) praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Jharkhand State Electricity Board to stop illegal and wrongful supply of electrical energy to its consumers at 30,000 volts or more, without permission of the DV Corporation and to restrain the illegal supply of electricity in violation of the provisions of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948, to consumers and especially to a defaulting consumer respondent No. 5 in the writ petition. The writ petition having been allowed by the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed by respondent No. 6 challenging that decision. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of ingots by melting sponge iron and pig iron. In October, 2000, the appellant approached the DV Corporation, which generates and supplies electricit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)2CALLT244(HC)
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated October 11, 1991 delivered by N. K. Mitra, J. of this Court whereby the writ application was finally disposed of by the learned Judge by directing the respondents to allow 91 persons (who affirmed supplementary affidavits and had been able to prove the authenticity of their respective titles) to be absorbed without any delay, by Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter referred to as D.V.C.).2. The facts leading to the moving of the writ petition by the Damodar Valley Displaced Employees' Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union), and the others are set out hereinbelow.3. Petitioner No. 1 the Union and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who were added as petitioners, moved this joint writ petition, inter alia, praying for writ in the nature of Mandamus upon the respondents concerned, to give appointment to the 'displaced persons' not only from the 'existing approved panel in existing formation' as per office ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2001(88)FLR21],(2000)IILLJ1445Cal
Barin Ghosh, J.1. This writ petition is by three petitioners seeking a mandate upon Damodar Valley Corporation to absorb them in the post of driver against sanctioned posts in which they are working:2. The undisputed facts of the case may be summarised thus. The Damodar Valley Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') is a statutory Corporation incorporated by and under the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948. Section 7 of the said Act provides that the pay and other conditions of service of the officers and servants of the Corporation shall as respects the Secretary and Financial Advisor, be such as may be prescribed, and as respects the other officers and servants be such as may be determined by the regulations. Section 60 of the said Act empowered the Corporation to make regulations with the previous sanction of the Central Government, by publishing such regulations in the form of notification in the Gazette pf India, for carrying out its functions under the Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1960Cal549
Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows : The Damodar Valley Corporation, the respondent No. 1 in this case, is a statutory corporation which came into existence as a result of the passing of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, being Act XIV of 1948, which came into operation on the 7th July, 1948. On the 8th April, 1950 the petitioner was offered the post of Assistant (Mechanical) Engineer in the work-charged establishment of the said Corporation, by the Director of Personnel. On the 19th August, 1950 he was appointed to the post of the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) with effect from the 1st July, 1950. On the 20th June, 1951 he entered into articles of agreement with the Corporation, a copy whereof is annexure 'X' to the affidavit in opposition affirmed by Sohan Lal. The terms and conditions of his appointment are set out in the said articles. It was stated therein that his appointment would be for a term of three years commencing from 1st July, 1950 extensible at ...
Tag this Judgment!