Goa Daman And Diu Judicial Commissioner S Court Declaration As High Court Act 1964 Repealed Section 5 - Judgment Search Results

Kailash Moudgil Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in : (2000)72ITD97(Delhi)

special bench order fortunately we came across a decision of goa daman amp diu judicial commissioner s court clarifying the meaning bench order fortunately we came across a decision of goa daman amp diu judicial commissioner s court clarifying the meaning of fortunately we came across a decision of goa daman amp diu judicial commissioner s court clarifying the meaning of the word administrative tribunals such as special security and industrial tribunals have judicial rather than administrative functions sin cc their sole task is officers not below the rank of assistant commissioner or dy commissioner or asstt director or dy director therefore the intention of following passage it must however be borne in mind that courts have generally read into the provisions of the relevant sections of fact when the law dealing with the subject has declared those findings as final and conclusive secondly it was contended member has been given a right of appeal to the high court under section 22a of the act to exercise his results may not involve immediate legal consequences may lead to acts or orders which did so in this case the protection requirements of section 6 of the income tax management act 1964 under the provisions of which the late assessments to which computation of undisclosed income for the block period is given section 158bc sets out the procedure for making block assessment it were passed in 1955 their lordships interpreted regulation no 5 5 the question was whether in a promotion of post a

Shri Sanjay Z. Rane, Vs. Smt. Saibai S. Dubaxi (Since Deceased Through ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR2668

..... all on 16 5 1964 goa daman and diu commissioners court declaration as high court act 1964 was brought into force and as per sub section 1 this act was deemed to have come into force on the date of commencement of goa daman and diu judicial commissioners court regulation 1963 .....

Jose Da Costa and anr. Vs. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1975SC1843; (1976)2SCC917

..... act 16 of 1964 the act took effect from 16 12 1963 it declares the judicial commissioner s court for goa daman and diu to be a high court for the purposes of articles 132 133 and 134 of the constitution vide section 3 section 5 ..... in goa daman and diu as corresponds to the cpc v of 1908 shall stand repealed as from the coming into force of this act in goa daman and diu provided that the repeal shall .....

State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. R.C. Misra and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj155; 2003(1)WLN371

..... has also conveyed its no objection to the proposal to repeal this act for the repeal of the goa daman and diu judicial commissioner s court declaration as high court act 1964 it was stated that since it has since long been ..... s case supra 98 part v of the slate reorganisation act 1956 deals with high courts sec 69 of the state reorganisation act 1956 contained in part v and it clearly lays down .....

Meghalaya Plywoods Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation this principle of law finds its place in a apex court rendered in shrimati tarulata shyam and ors v commissioner of income tax west bengal reported in 1977 108itr345 sc v nandalal jaiswal and ors 1987 1scr1 that the high court in exercising its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy aforementioned show cause notice dated 8 12 86 and for declaration that such show cause notice is illegal unjust unconstitutional and the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained the high court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise shillong the petitioner also challenged the validity of the entire action of the respondents in the matter under this writ petition del 1989 42 elt338 sc 1983 elt 1342 sc air 1964 1 gau fb 1968 1scr148 1994 2 glr 239 gau is illegal being made in violation of the provisions of sections 100 103 105 1 110 165 210 and 353 of and accordingly it is dismissed with a cost of rs 50 000 rupees fifty thousand only which shall be paid by

Meghalaya Plywoods Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation this principle of law finds its place in a apex court rendered in shrimati tarulata shyam and ors v commissioner of income tax west bengal reported in 1977 108itr345 sc should not appropriately be tried in writ petition the high court may decline to try a petition same thing happened in aforementioned show cause notice dated 8 12 86 and for declaration that such show cause notice is illegal unjust unconstitutional and the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained the high court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise the preventive branch of the central excise department made an action plan and simultaneously raided the relevant places all over india del 1989 42 elt338 sc 1983 elt 1342 sc air 1964 1 gau fb 1968 1scr148 1994 2 glr 239 gau and 18 of the central excise and salt act and sections 103 105 i 110 165 210 and 353 of the is resisted and contested by the respondent nos 1 to 5 by filing counter affidavit and contending inter alia that the

Mrs.N.Ratnakumari Vs. State of Odisha and Others

Court : Orissa

such act shall come into force in the states of goa himanchal pradesh and maharastra and in all the union territories hours of such arrest so that an independent authority exercising judicial powers may without delay apply its mind to his case completion of medical treatment the requisition was made to the commissioner of police visakhapatnam city to provide escort party on 17 when such a complaint petition is filed before the competent court the complaint case procedure as laid down under chapter xv of mangalabag p s case of 98 2014 filed an affidavit on 7 7 2014 indicating inter alia that on the pending the final disposal of his habeas corpus petition the high court will no doubt take all the relevant facts into notification appoint and in any other state which adopts this act under clause 1 of article 252 of the constitution on respects any state to which it applies be amended or repealed by an act of the legislature of the state thus either article 22 2 of the constitution of india or section 57 cr p c 49 in view of the above person to appear before him or at such other place 53 as may be specified in the notice on the basis

Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Advocate Vs. Daler Singh and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

the court this view has been reiterated in state of goa v sanjay thakran 2007 3 scc 755 and chandrappa v the order dated 07 12 2010 passed by the learned judicial magistrate ist class malerkotla i have heard learned counsel for sangrur it was set aside by the orders of deputy commissioner sangrur vide order dated 26 04 2001 and it was mis reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate court was inclined to take a different view could not be the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration report of ballistic experts etc the appellate court is competent of that fir passed by hon ble punjab and haryana high court 11f thus whole of this discussion proves that the of atrocities act hereinafter referred to as the sc st act aggrieved against the summoning order the accused went in revision complaint under section 298 500 504 34 ipc and under section 3 4 s c s t prevention of atrocities act to face trial for the offences punishable under sections 323 506 ipc and 3 of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes

Sudarshan Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Guwahati

judicial authority vi the petitioner has annexed all the said judicial orders with the writ petition and also made specific averment ayrshire punman motor services and d m rihie v the commissioner of inland revenue 1929 14 tax case 754 at 763 court to interpret a statute strictly to help the evasion court s duty is to construe in a manner which will for the purposes of analogy only column 9 contains the declaration as to the nature and extent of the expenses without i not maintainable as there is alternative remedy the bombay high court i paragraph 5 of the judgment pointed out as of merit inasmuch as already i have found that the action of the respondents does not have any support in law reveal that the power under section 11a is independent v section 11a provides a complete code and is an independent provision 29 7 1983 175marine remanding eleven appeals order 65 86 58 86 annx j pg 72 86 after de novo 179

M.i. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow

Reported in : (2008)117TTJLuck42

passed by the ld cit a who is a quasi judicial authority is not a reasoned order she has confirmed the due approval was obtained by the assessing officer from the commissioner there are proper order sheet to that effect and the can make the assessment 24 the hon ble allahabad high court in cit v metal goods manufacturing co pvt ltd held supported enlarged or strengthened by subsequent material no outside material affidavit could be imported to throw light on such reasons for the assessee assigned to them 25 the hon ble calcutta high court in ito v ashoke glass works held that there apply his mind before according approval is baseless he had actually applied his mind before according approval to the issuance of merits the learned d r submitted that in spite of repealed notices and opportunities assessee did not produce the books of mind before according approval to the issuance of notice under section 148 1 the assessing officer has dealt with the objection assessment year 96 97 at a loss of rs 23 572 for the assessment year 97 98 at a loss of