Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: recent Year: 2006 Page 98 of about 5,322 results (0.901 seconds)

Patnana Venkataramana Vs. Mutnuru Venkataramana

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(1)ALD104; IV(2007)BC526

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 243 of 2003 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, against the petitioner, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,600/-. After contest by the petitioner herein, the trial Court decreed the suit on 15-9-2004. The decree became final, since the petitioner did not prefer any appeal. Thereupon, the respondent filed E.P. No. 1 of 2005 under Rule 37 of Order XXI CPC, stating that despite possessing adequate means, the petitioner did not pay the decretal amount. He ultimately prayed for the arrest of the petitioner. After following the procedure prescribed, the trial Court allowed the E.P. on 5-12-2005, recording a finding to the effect that despite possessing adequate means, the petitioner did not pay the decretal amount and ultimately directed his detention in civil prison. The same is challenged in this civil revision petition.2. Sri K. Subrahmanyam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that except making a vagu...

Prakash Chandra Debnath Vs. Bhadrabati Roy and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... from the suit land. the suit land, thereafter, was acquired by the land acquisition collector (for short 'l.a. collector') by a notification dated 15.3.1979 under section 6 of the land acquisition act. the defendant-respondents herein, filed t.s. no. 91/1991 in the same court of civil judge, jr. division, west tripura, agartala claiming the compensation awarded by ..... compensation. learned first appellate court upon perusal of the two notices (ext. 2 and ext. 3) observed that the l.a. collector after making the award under section 11 of the land acquisition act asked the plaintiff-appellant to receive the amount awarded. nowhere the plaintiff-appellant clarified why he did not receive the money or why he did not contest the .....

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sherwani Sugar Syndicate Ltd.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (2007)207CTR(All)146

..... valuing the closing stock and instead applied the principle of cost price and market price whichever is lower. in the order dated 14th december, 1989 passed under section 254(2) of the act, the tribunal in paragraph 7 has held that the mistake pointed out by the assessee is partly apparent from the record regarding valuation of free sugar in ..... at cost price or market price, whichever is lower. the tribunal has no power to review its earlier order in the garb of exercising the powers under section 254(2) of the act. he, thus, submitted that the order dated 14.12.1989 is wholly without jurisdiction. in support of his aforesaid plea, he has relied upon the following ..... r.k. agrawal, j.1. the income tax appellate tribunal, allahabad has referred the following two questions of law under section 256(2) of the income tax act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for opinion to this court1. whether, in law and on facts of the case, the i.t.a.t. has not exceeded its jurisdiction by omitting .....

Commissioner of Commercial Tax Vs. Shah Gordhandas Bhikharidas

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : (2007)10VST349(MP)

..... would not form part of the sale price.17. though the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are attractive, but as per definition in section 2(h) of the cst act, the sale price excludes cost of freight or delivery if such cost is separately charged, which position emerges in this matter also, but the apex court ..... hindustan sugar mills ltd. v. state of rajasthan [1979] 43 stc 13.7. the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per the definition under section 2(h) of the cst act, it is very specific that the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation if separately charged is not included in the sale price. when ..... order dated august 2, 1996, as question involved in both the appeals was common.3. the question before the board was in respect of interpretation of section 2(h) of the central sales tax act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the cst') that the freight which was shown in the bills separately, but was not charged from the purchasers, though .....

Uttam Chand Kothari Vs. Gauri Shankar Jalan and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... supra), has held..admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under section 58 of the evidence act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. the former class of ..... viii, rule 5 permits the court to insist on a plaintiff to prove a fact notwithstanding an implied admission, which the defendant might have made, even section 58 of the evidence act makes it clear that notwithstanding a defendant's admission, express or implied, made in his written statement, a court may, in its discretion, require the ..... rented premises in an urban area, there cannot be, and there is, in fact, no dispute that the suit is governed by section 5 of the assam urban areas rent control act, 1972. this act makes it clear that a court, before granting decree for ejectment of a tenant, must be satisfied that the defendant is a defaulter .....

Hyundai Motors (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Reported in : (2007)5STR221

..... , 2004. one of these provisions is rule 2(r) which defines "provider of taxable service" as including a person liable for paying service tax. with reference to section 65(7) of the finance act, 1994, learned counsel submits that "a person liable for paying service tax" is an assessee and that the appellants have been recognised as an assessee for the purpose ..... the material facts. admittedly, the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period of limitation. the provision for invoking the extended period of limitation was inserted in the finance act, 2004 on september 10, 2004. even from that date, the department took more than one year to issue the show cause notice and, that too, on the ground of suppression .....

Dr. K. Aravind, M.B.B.S. M.S., (General Surgery) S/O Sri K. Ganapathy ...

Court : Karnataka

..... w.e.f. 22.05.2006. they arc framed by the state government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 r/w section 8 of the karnataka state civil services act, 1978. they are known as the karnataka medical education department (deputation of in-service candidates to post graduate super-specialty courses ..... case of the state government and the university that the 2006 rules framed by the state government in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3 of the karnataka civil services act, 1978 govern the selection of the candidate to the post graduate super-specialty course. these rules, produced vide annexure-'j', have come ..... candidates to post graduate super speciality courses) rules, 2006 do not govern selection to the super speciality courses in question nor would section 3 or section 8 of the karnataka state civil services act. 1978 under which the 2006 rules are passed to enable any criteria being prescribed for selection to such courses.iii) that, keeping .....

B. Krishnappa, S/O Late Bommaraje Gowda Vs. Smt. ChandrikA. G. D/O T. ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2006KAR4704; 2007(1)KarLJ468; ILR2006(4)Kar4704; 2007(1)KLJ468; 2007(3)KCCR1689; 2007(1)AIRKarR150

..... to value the suit and pay the court fee on the market value of the schedule premises as required under the provisions of section 29 of the act. since the plaintiff had invoked section 29 of the act, the plaintiff cannot retract his steps to contend otherwise. he therefore, supports the impugned judgment.10. from the facts referred to supra ..... was urged before the learned judge but the learned judge declined to entertain the said plea and proceeded to consider the suit only under the provisions of section 29 of the act. further, it was pointed out that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiff could not have brought this suit for possession ..... rs. 20,000/- as mentioned in the plaint or more than the that amount. in this regard, the learned judge has referred to the provisions of section 50 of the act, which governs valuation for jurisdiction of the court and to record a finding has considered evidence the plaintiff had originally filed the suit before the city civil .....

A.V. Kamath S/O Late A. Vittappa Kamath Vs. the Commercial Corporation ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2007(1)KLJ616; 2007(1)AIRKarR79

..... defendant, without raising such a plea or objections to that effect before the trial court ?(2) whether the suit is bad for agreement of wager under section 30 of the contract act ?(3) whether there was any genuine sale of lottery tickets in question in favour of the plaintiff by m/s. lakshmi venkatesh agency, on 16. ..... maintained in the ordinary course as asserted by the plaintiff - appellant, he would definitely have produced the same and hence, an implied adverse inference under section 114(g) of the evidence act had been drawn by the trial court holding that, either no such documents are maintained or if maintained and produced before the court, will be ..... failed to substantiate his case by producing any documentary evidence or by raising any substantial question of law involved in the instant case nor any ground for interference under section 100 of code of civil procedure.9. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the regular second appeal filed by the .....

Group CaptaIn L.G.i. Subramanian S/O Late Sri. L.A. Gangadhara Iyer Vs ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2007(1)Kar96; ILR2007(1)KarSN13; 2007(2)KLJ630

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Air Force on 31.12.1958. After 25 years of service in various assignments, he was promoted as Group Captain. He was selected for deputation from the Air Force to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited for two years. After completion of the period of deputation he was offered permanent absorption - which he accepted with effect from 21.5.1986. The petitioner's premature retirement on permanent absorption was communicated by an order dated 27.5.1986. It is contended that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence by letter dated 19.12.1986 stated that for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of the Departments letter dated 17.3.1986. The said letter indicated that premature retirement would not entail forfeiture of service for the purpose of retirement terminal benefits. The letter also did offer an option to receive a lumpsum amount in lieu of monthly pro-rata pension. The...