Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(5)ALD787; 2008(5)ALT87; 2009LC(AP)790
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions, the common question viz., whether Clause 12 of Regulation 2 of 2006 and Appendix-3 to the said Regulations are applicable to the petitioners, arises for consideration. Hence, all these Writ Petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.2. All the petitioners established non-conventional power generating plants and they hold separate Agreements for Wheeling/Wheeling-cum-Power Purchase, as the case may be. Such agreements were initially entered into with the A.P. State Electricity Board (for short 'the APSEB') and with the creation of A.P. Transmission Corporation (for short 'the APTRANSCO') under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 (for short 'the 1998 Act'), which came into force with effect from 29-7-1998, these Agreements were got transferred in the name of APTRANSCO, being the successor of the APSEB. Subsequently, with the creation of four distribution companies in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.36073610 OF2008M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Limited APPELLANT(S) Vs. The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.41044107 OF2008Tirumala Balaji Alloys Pvt. Ltd. APPELLANT(S) Vs. M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. and Ors. Etc. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA , J.1. These Civil Appeals filed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 arise out of common impugned Judgment dated 07.05.2008 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New 1 Delhi (Appellate Tribunal, for short). By the said judgment, the Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order of respondent No.1 dated 29.11.2005 and cancelled the distribution licence granted to the appellant in C.A. Nos.36073610 of 2008. Hence, these appeals.2. Since the questions of law and facts which arise in both the above captioned Civil Appeals are similar, these appeals are being dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8258 OF2022The Commissioner of Income Tax - 23 Appellant(s) Versus M/s. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.8259 OF2022The Commissioner of Income Tax - 23 Appellant(s) Versus M/s. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.06.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay passed in Income Tax Appeal No.1074 of 2009 (relating to A.Y. 1993- 1 1994) and the judgment and order dated 24.06.2013 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.1174 of 2009 (relating to A.Y. 1994-1995) by which with respect to the same assessee M/s. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills, a partnership firm, the High Court has dismissed the said appeals and has confirmed the respective orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ITAT) deleting the short term capital gains addit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2023 INSC1058IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL WRIT / APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.1099 of 2019 IN RE: ARTICLE370OF THE CONSTITUTION With Writ Petition (C) No.871 of 2015 With Writ Petition (C) No.722 of 2014 With SLP (C) No.19618 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.1013 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1082 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1068 of 2019 1 With Writ Petition (C) No.1037 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1062 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1070 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1104 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1165 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1210 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1222 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.396 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.756 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.398 pf 2018 With 2 Writ Petition (C) No.924 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1092 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1162 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1048 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1268 of 2019 And With Writ Petition (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. ITA Nos. l733/Del/201, 2473/Del/2000, 2474/Del/2000 and 2475/Del/2000 pertaining to asstt. Year 1995-96 to 1998-99 respectively arc directed against orders of learned CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi dated 5.3.2001 and 7.3.2000 in an appeal against assessment framed Under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).1.1 ITA Nos. 820 to 823/Del/2005 are directed against common order of learned CIT(A)XXIX, New Delhi dated 15.12.2004 in an appeal against assessment framed Under Section 143(3) read with Section 250 of the Act.1.2 Cross Objection Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 50/Del/2006 by the Revenue are in respect of ITA No. 1733, 2473 to 2475/Del/2000. C.O. Nos. 51 to 54 of 2006 by the revenue are in respect of ITA Nos. 820 to 823 of 2005.Since common issues are involved in all these appeals and cross objections were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Galileo International Inc. (the 'Appellant'), a resident of USA, is in the business of maintai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975AP58
ORDERObul Reddi, J.1. The main question raised in this batch of writ petitions is that the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Produce and Live-stock Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is repugnant to the two Central Acts viz. (1) the Agricultural Produce (Development and Warehousing) Corporation Act, 1956 and (2) The Food Corporation of India Act, 1964, as the Act made by the State Legislature encroaches upon the legislative power of the Parliament, which has exclusive power to make laws with respect to matters enumerated in the Union List and as such, the levy and demand of market fees by the respective Market Committees is ultra vires. 2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the question involved are these: The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 1845, 1340, 3665 and 1339 of 1972 are all rice dealers in Guntur District. The petitioners in W. P. No. 3827 of 1972 are dealers in groundnut, jaggery and general merchants in Chittoor District. The Market Committees consti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP225; [1959]10STC378(AP)
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. These petitions raise common questions of law and could, therefore, be disposed of together. They are filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State of Andhra Pradesh to refrain from imposing or collecting any tax under the provisions of the Hyderabad Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Regulation, (XXIV of 135S-F). The petitioners are dealers in motor spirit, diesel oil, etc., and have banks situated either in the city of Hyderabad or other places in the State of Andhra Pradesh.They complain that the respondent has been levying and collecting sales-tax on the sales of petrol, purporting to exercise the powers conferred on them under the above mentioned Regulation and are threatening to cancel the licences in the event of failure of the petitioners to comply with the demands of the Sales-tax Department, though such an impost is illegal and ultra vires the powers of the State Government.2. In these petitions, the consti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1999CriLJ635
ORDER1. These eight criminal Misc. Petitions No. 5860-M of 1991, 397-M, 2441-M of 1992, 17558-M of 1993, 5772-M, 8262-M of 1994, 14806-M of 1995 and 318-M of 1997, have been filed under S. 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 46 dated 15-3-1991, Police Station Jagraon, FIR No. 45 dated 28-2-1991, Police Station Kotwali, Ludhiana, FIR No. 187 dated 21-10-1991 Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, FIR No. 62 dated 9-6-1993, Police Station City Ferozepur, FIR No. 83 dated 15-5-1991 Police Station Nur Mahal Distt. Jalandhar, FIR No. 47 dated 8-4-1991, Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, FIR No. 22 dated 1-4-1992, Police Station Longowal and FIR No. 109 dated 28-7-1991, Police Division No. 4 Jalandhar respectively registered under S. 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. In all these petitions, same question of law and fact is involved therefore, these shall be disposed of by a common order. Facts are being taken from Crl. M. No. 58...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2299; 1975(Supp)SCC1; [1976]2SCR347
A.N. Ray, J.1. In Civil Appeal No. 887 of 1975 the appellant is Indira Nehru Gandhi and the respondent is Raj Narain. Civil Appeal No. 909 of 1975 is the cross objection of the respondent. On 14 July, 1975 it was directed that both the appeals would be heard together. The appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated 12 June, 1975. The High Court held that the appellant held herself out as a candidate from 29 December, 1970 and was guilty of having committed corrupt practice by having obtained the assistance of Gazetted Officers in furtherance of her election prospects. The High Court further found the appellant guilty of corrupt practice committed under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act by having obtained the assistance of Yashpal Kapur a Gazetted Officer for the furtherance of her election prospects. The High Court held the appellant to be disqualified for a period of six years from the date o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Per Hon’ble Shri Rakesh Nath, Technical Member: 1. These Appeals 121 of 2007 and 51 of 2009 have been filed by U.P. Power Corporation Limited, the bulk power supplier and the successor of U.P. State Electricity Board after its restructuring. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission is Respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 121 of 2007 and Respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 51 of 2009. NOIDA Power Company Limited (NPCL), a distribution licensee in the area of Greater NOIDA is the other respondent. NPCL is a joint venture company of CESCON, a private sector company and Greater Noida Development Authority. 2. In Appeal No. 121 of 2007 the Appellant has challenged the order of the State Commission dated 26.6.2007 determining bulk supply tariff for supply of power by the Appellant to NPCL for the FY 2005-06 and FY 2006-07. Similarly, Appeal No. 51 of 2009 is against the order of State Commission dated 01.09.2008 determining the bulk supply tariff for the FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09. Though the impugn...
Tag this Judgment!