Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL/CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10355 OF2018P. MOHANRAJ & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S. SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._239___ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._1955__ OF2021 (Diary No.32585/2019) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.___240________ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10587 OF2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.__241______ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10857 OF2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.__242_______ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10550 OF2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.__243_______ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10858 OF2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.___244______ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10860 OF2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.____245_____ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10861 OF2019 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.246___ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.10446 OF2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos._247-248_ OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 2109-2110 of 2004 K C Ninan ... Appellant versus Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. Respondents With Civil Appeal No 2108 of 2004 With Civil Appeal Nos 5312-5313 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 5314 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 6587 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 7303 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 6579 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 6593-6594 of 2022 With 1 Civil Appeal No 3018 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No 7169 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6591 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6595 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 6879-6881 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6592 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 7103-7104 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6828 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 7064 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6590 of 2022 And with Civil Appeal No 3640 of 2022 2 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Overview 4 B. Regulatory Regime 5 C. The position in law 10 D. Issues 14 E. Submissions 15 F. Analysis 25 G....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Date of order 07-02-2017 Co.P.No.57/2012 & connected matters IAE International Aero Engines AG and others Vs.United Breweries (Holdings) Limited R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU1244 DATED THIS THE7H DAY OF FEBRUARY2017BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Co.P.No.57/2012 C/W Co.P.No.121/2012, Co.P.No.122/2012, Co.P.No.185/2012, Co.P.No.248/2012, Co.P.No.51/2013, Co.P.No.99/2013, Co.P.No.162/2013, Co.P.No.265/2013 & Co.P.No.148/2016 Company Petition No.57/2012 Between: IAE International Aero Engines AG628Hebron Avenue, Suite 400 Glastonbury Connecticut 06033, USA Represented herein by its Attorney, Mr. Parminder Singh Dadhwal. ... Petitioner (By Mr. Shreyas Jayasimha, for AZB & Partners) And: United Breweries (Holdings) Limited UB City, Level 12, UB Tower 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560 001. ... Respondent (By Mr. Udaya Holla, Senior Counsel for M/s. Holla & Holla, Date of order 07-02-2017 Co.P.No.57/2012 & connected matters IAE International Aero Engines AG and o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)64TTJ(Mumbai)357
ORDERBY THE BENCH:This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1993-94 is directed against the order of the CIT(A) upholding certain additions and disallowances.2. The. assessee is one of the biggest Indian companies in which public is interested' It is highly diversified and largest 'core industries' in India. It produces viscose, staple fibre, rayon, pulp, caustic soda, cement, software, sponge iron, textiles, heavy engineering machinery and chemicals. It employs over 25,000 persons and its plants are located at about 10 places in India.3. In the memo of appeal, several grounds are raised, but during the course of hearing, the first objection taken by the learned counsel for the assessee related to disallowance of part of deduction claimed under s. 80M of the IT Act, 1961 out of dividend income. The assessee during the relevant period received dividends from Indian companies and returns from UTI amounting to Rs. 28,64 crores and distributed dividend approximately Rs. 25. 11 crores. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1989Raj51; 1988(2)WLN487
N.C. Sharma, J.1.This second appeal is directed by the plaintiff-Company against the decree of the Additional District Judge, Kota, dated May 7, 1976 whereby the decree of the Munsif (South) Kota, dated December 16, 1974, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-Company for permanent injunction as against the respondent was confirmed.2. Facts leading of the filing of the second appeal are that M/s. J. K. Synthetics Ltd., Kota, is a public limited company, with its factory at Kota. The plaintiff-Company, manufactures nylon yarn in its factory. The nylon yarn manufactured is winded around the metallic cops and the nylon yarn is sent in this state outside municipal Limits of Kota to its customers. According to the plaintiff-Company, the purchasers of nylon yarn after using the yam return the cops to the Company. The returned cops are again utilised for winding up the nylon yarn for re-sale of the yarn. It was pleaded that it is a condition of sale with the customers that they would return the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1991)37ITD1a(Hyd.)
1. These are two appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the revenue, against the order of the learned CIT( A). As the issues raised in these appeals are inter-laced and inter-twined with each other, the appeals are disposed of in a common order.2. The assessee, Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., was initially incorporated as a private limited company on the 31st day of December 1974, but later the word "Private" was deleted under Section 23(1 A) of the Companies Act, 1956, as per the Corporation's communication dated 21-8-1976. Thus, the assessee has become a public limited company in which public are substantially interested in terms of Section 2(18)(a) of the I.T. Act as the State of Andhra Pradesh is the only shareholder. The objects for which the corporation is established are set out in its Memorandum of Association in Clause 3(a). The main objects of the corporation are as follows :- To engage in, promote, improve, develop, counsel and finance productio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.No.22344 of 2006 31-10-2014 M/s Atlantic Inter-trade Limited with regd. office at 336 Pertwick Road, Wardford Hearts, U.K. and another. ..Petitioners Canara Bank, Industrial Finance Branch,Secunderabad and another. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.V.SURESH for Sri P.KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri K.S.R.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri M.SUDHEER KUMAR : ?. Cases referred:1. 1989(2) APLJ3842. AIR2008SC29063. AIR1974SC21054. (2004) 3 SCC5535. 2013(2) ALT463(DB) 6. (2007) 8 SCC1107. (1999) 8 SCC1108. 1990(2) ALT121(DB) 9. (1978) 1 All.E.R. 976 10. AIR1981SC142611. (1988) 1 SCC17412. AIR1992SC106613. AIR1994SC277814. AIR1997SC164415. (1995) 4 SCC51516. 2007(1) ALD49617. (2000) 6 SCC29318. AIR2008SC258519. (2013) 5 SCC47020. AIR2002SC206THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.No.22344 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails the action of the 1st Respondent-C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1993-94 is directed against the order of the CIT(A) upholding certain additions and disallowances.2. The assessee is one of the biggest Indian companies in which public is interested. It is highly diversified and largest "core industries" in India. It produces viscose, staple fibre, rayon, pulp, caustic soda, cement, software, sponge iron, textiles, heavy engineering machinery and chemicals. It employs over 25,000 persons and its plants are located at about 10 places in India.3. In the memo of appeal, several grounds are raised, but during the course of hearing, the first objection taken by the learned counsel for the assessee related to disallowance of part of deduction claimed under s. 80M of the IT Act, 1961 out of dividend income. The assessee during the relevant period received dividends from Indian companies and returns from UTI amounting to Rs. 28.64 crores and distributed dividend approximately Rs. 25.11 crores. In its return of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1995)53ITD142(Hyd.)
1. The appeals and cross-objection are against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 1987-88,1988-89 and 1990-91. As they involve common grounds they are being disposed of for the sake of convenience by this common order.2. The common dispute in all the appeals is about the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act. For the assessment year 1987-88, the claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer by observing as under : As regards the claim of exemption under Section 11 of the Act, the assessee relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. have held that the income is exempt under Section 11 of the Act, 1961 on the ground that the entire capital has been provided by the Government and that the provisions of Road Transport Corporation Act, provides that the balance of income left after utilisation of the net profi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2005)97ITD125(Ahd.)
These are four appeals two by the assessee and two by the revenue. One appeal by the assessee is against the order of the CIT and the others including two by the revenue are against the orders of the CIT(A). They all relate to assessment year 1993-94 and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.The assessment was completed on 29-3-1996. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order. When the appeal was pending, the CIT on perusal of the record, felt that the order of assessment was erroneous insofar as the same was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue in respect of certain items. The CIT, therefore, gave a notice to the assessee under section 263 and set aside the assessment on various issues with certain directions. The appeal in ITA No. 949/Ahd/1998, is against the revision order of the CIT, Central-II, Chennai. The appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order was disposed of by the CIT(A) on 24-3-1999. Two cross-appeals (IT...
Tag this Judgment!