Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5946-5947 OF2014KALYANI MATHIVANAN ... APPELLANT VERSUS K.V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. ... RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6455-6456 OF2014AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8602-8603 OF2014 JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against a common judgment and order dated 26th June, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in Writ Petition (MD) No.11350 of 2012 and Writ Petition (MD) No.3318 of 2013. The aforesaid writ petitions were preferred by K.V. Jeyaraj and I. Ismail respondents/writ petitioners praying for issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing the appellant - Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan to show cause under what authority she continues to hold the office of the Vice- Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University.2. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan did not satisfy the eligibility crite...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. Tills Appeal has been preferred by the State of Karnataka against the order of learned Single Judge who has issued a prerogative writ directing that the age of retirement of all Professors/Teachers in all Colleges in the State of Karnataka. regardless of whether they are serving in Central Universities or Educational Institutions directly funding by the Central Government/University Grants Commission should be increased to 65 years. 2. A piquant situation has arisen because two conflicting judgments has been passed by two co-ordinate Single Benches of this Court. The earlier decision emanates from the Circuit Bench at Oulbarga, rejecting the prayer for passing appropriate directions to the State and its Universities and Colleges increasing the age of retirement/superannuation of Professors and Teachers up to the date on which they attain the age of 65 years. The impugned Order which arrives at a diametrically and incompatibly opposite conclusion, has been passed by the learned Singl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals are filed under Section-4 of the Karnataka High court Act praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition Nos.13449-453/2011, 13454/2011, c/w. 19712-718/2011, 20777/2011, 17650-652/2011, 17661-665/2011, 14269-270/2011, 17667/2011, 17726/2011, 17862-863/2011, 17874-876/2011, 8850/2011, 1229-300/2011, 11910-011/2011, 15005-15/2011, 15052/2011, 15530/2011, 15531-538/2011, 15777-785/2011, 15906/2011, 16004-009/2011, 18003-004/2011, 18364-366/2011, 18834/2011, 19074/2011, 19072-073/2011, 17605/2011, 17604/2011, 16312-316/2011, 15422-423/2011, 16326-332/2011, 16464/2011, 16467/2011, 16626/2011, 16683 and 16685/2011, 16684/2011, 16690-91/2011, 16075/2011, 17302/2011, 17458-463/2011, 17593/2011, 17918-920/2011, 19211/2011, 18302/2009, 20021/2011, 21110/2011 and W.P. Nos. 21548-549/2011, dated 22.06.2011.) VIKRAMAJIT SEN, AG.C.J. 1. This Appeal has been preferred by the State of Karnataka against the order of learned Single Judge who has issue a prerogative wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITON (CIVIL) NOS. 13825/2009 and 7699/2010 Reserved on: 22nd November, 2011 % Date of Decision:24th January, 2012 REGENCY SORAJ INFRASTRUCTURES ...Petitioner Through Mr. Porus F. Kaka, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divesh Chawla, Mr. Arvind Gupta and Ms. Shiny Varghese, Advocates. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA and OTHERS .....Respondents Through Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Ms. Sonia Mathur and Ms. Riya Kaul, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kiran Babu, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.: The petitioner- Regency Soraj Infrastructures is a joint venture between M/s Flower Valley Properties and Buildcon and M/s L.K. Corporation. Pursuant to permission granted by the District Industrial Centre vide letter dated 3rd January, 2005 and the commencement certificate dated 7th January, 2005 issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation, they have constructed W.P. (C) Nos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.21876-87/2010 dated 07.01.2011.) 1. In all these appeals, the question raised relates to the competence of the State to levy Sales Tax/VAT on telecommunication service, interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and upholding the rule of law. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed off by this common order. 2. For the purpose of clarity, the facts pleaded by appellants/petitioners in each of these cases are set out in brief. FACTUAL MATRIX W.A.Nos.654/2011, 817-828/2011, 789/2011, 790/2011, 805-816/2011, 792-803/2011, 791/2011 and 829-840/2011. 3. The appellant in all these appeals – M/s. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short herein after referred to as the ‘BSNL’) is wholly owned Government of India undertaking providing all types of telecom services in the country except the met...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :26. 06.2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition Nos.29398 of 2010, 482, 483, 1361, 7887, 17245, 28040 of 2011 231, 832, 2138, 2947, 3144, 4904, 5777, 5900, 5902, 5904, 5906, 6220, 31291 of 2012 1676, 1777, 3362, 6575, 15259, 16461 and 17223 of 2013 W.P.No.29398 of 2010: -------------------- M/s.AGS Entertainment Private Limited, Flat No.B-2, First Floor, Shoba Flats, No.12, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083 rep. by its Director. .. Petitioner vs. 1.Union of India, Secretary Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. 2.The Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. 3.The Commissioner of Service Tax, MHU Complex, No.692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. .. Respondents W.P.No.482 of 2011: ------------------ Ananda Pictures Circuit rep. by its Proprietor L.Suresh, 4th Floor, Raheja Complex, 834, Anna ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.06.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.Nos.16400/2013, 23983/2009, 16789/2008, 16790/2008, 21564/2008, 23355 & 23356/2008, 24234/2008, 25280-25286/2008, 27820-27823/2008, 27917 & 27918/2008, 28021 & 28022/2008, 29188/2008, 662/2009, 747 & 748/2009, 2766-2770/2009, 3995/2009, 6346/2009, 8562/2009, 8613/2009, 8827-8846/2009, 9251/2009, 10494/2009, 10997/2009, 11024-11027/2009, 12016/2009, 12268 & 12269/2009, 16251/2009, 17238/2009, 18287/2009, 18795/2009, 19995-20013/2009, 20524/2009, 20580/2009, 21035/2009, 21041/2009, 21046/2009, 21173/2009, 21182/2009, 22663/2009, 22687/2009, 23109/2009, 23144/2009, 23231/2009, 3977/2010, 26377/2009, 26515/2009, 26886/2009, 402/2010, 1141/2010, 1251/2010, 2210-2212/2010, 2676/2010, 2685/2010, 3085/2010, 3522/2010, 4039/2010, 4100/2010, 4544/2010, 6114/2010, 6288/2010, 14116/2010, 14886 & 14887/2010, 16610 & 16...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC491; [1972]83ITR346(SC); (1972)4SCC526; [1972]2SCR309
1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Kerala High Court in an Income tax Reference. Originally C.A. 1111/69 had been brought by certificate but the same has been found to be defective for want of reasons and has, therefore, to be revoked. Special leave was sought and has been granted.2. The facts may be succinctly stated. The assessee's main source of income was salary from a limited company, '(A. V. Thomas & Co. Ltd). In the previous year ending on 30th March 1964 his total income from salary amounted to Rs. 42,900/-. In making the assessment the Income tax Officer levied surcharge and additional surcharge in accordance with the rates prescribed by the Finance Act 1963. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was contended before him on behalf of the assessee that the provisions of the Finance Act 1964 did not permit the Income tax Officer to levy surcharge and additional surcharge in accordance with the provisions of Finance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005(190)ELT295(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These two writ petitions are by assessees under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [for short, the Act] in the context of denial of what is known as Modvat credit which the petitioners had availed of in respect of high speed diesel (HSD) oil, which according to the petitioners was used as an input in the production of electricity at their units wherein they manufacture cement. The scheme of availment of Modvat credit under the Act is governed by the provisions of Rules 57A, 57B, 57C to 57V of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 [for short, the Rules].2. In the case of writ petitioner in W.P. No. 35766 of 2000, the dispute arose in the context of Modvat credit that had been availed by the petitioner on the HSD oil used as input for production of electricity in turn used for manufacturing cement during the period December 1997 to March 1998, which credit though availed of by the petitioner was directed to be reversed in terms of endorsement dated 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)288ITR226(Hyd.)
1. This reference arises out of the appeal, against the assessment order passed by the DCIT, Central Circle-I, Hyderabad under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act for the block period from 1.4.1989 to 18.11.1999, dated Nil, stated in the brief facts of the case by the assessee as completed on 27.4.2001, filed with the Tribunal on 13.12.2001, challenging the levy of surcharge of Rs. 3,65,680 on the tax of Rs. 86,56,800 levied at the special rate of 60%.2. At the outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the reasons furnished by the Division Bench, which led to the constitution of the Special Bench. Its reasons are extracted below: 2 The short issue in this appeal is whether the levy of surcharge in terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 2002, is valid in a block assessment made under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act. The tax has to be charged in a block assessment in terms of Section 159BA(2) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 113 of the said Act. .1. The undisclosed inc...
Tag this Judgment!