High Court At Bombay Extension Of Jurisdiction To Goa Daman And Diu Act 1981 Section 10 Allocation Of Expenditure Of The Bombay High Court - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: high court at bombay extension of jurisdiction to goa daman and diu act 1981 section 10 allocation of expenditure of the bombay high court Page 1 of about 740,945 results (0.972 seconds)Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay Vs. Amandi Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Reported in: JT1993(2)SC181; 1994(38)KarLJ94; 1993(1)SCALE779; 1993Supp(2)SCC322; [1993]90STC167(SC)
the afore-mentioned question to the High Court for decision. The High Court shall consider the reference in the light of the drawn our attention to the judgment of the same High Court, delivered just a day earlier, in the case of Commissioner as defined by Clause (II) of Section 2 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 19592. The High Court rejected the application a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. The decision of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside by upon an application made to him by the assessee under Section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, that the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTTechni-glass Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: 1990LC539(Bombay); 1981(8)ELT147(Bom)
would be encompassed in the expression 'glassware'. 8. The Orissa High Court was required to consider the expression 'glassware' in State was similar as the entries earlier considered by the High Court at Nagpur and glassware was required to be given the that the learned Collector of Central Excise exercising his appellate jurisdiction has passed the order in a manner that does not strained meaning to an expression used in ordinary parlance or acted in a manner not warranted by settled rules of interpretation Glass shells, glass globes andChimneys for lamps and lanterns. ... 10% '(4) Other glassware including tableware ... 15% '' A perusal
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTParshotam Sarup Aggarwal Vs. the Collector of Stamps and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi155; 9(1973)DLT429; 1973RLR406
it fit to refer that matter suo motu to the High Court and In which the petitioner had also not requested first question of law posed for the opinion of this Court is :- (I)Whether C.C.R.A. is bound to make a reference of this application by its order dated February 20,1968. The Authority was of the opinion that it was not bound to a special document which is defined in the Indian Stamp Act by subsection (21). of section 2 as including any instrument of Stamp Duty Reference No. 2 of 1 68 under section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act made by Chief Controlling be not recovered from him. By his order dated April 10, 1967, the Collector was of the opinion that the mortgage
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMohammed Salim Mohammed Yunus Shaikh Vs. Kamudchandra Keshavlal Patel ...
Court: Gujarat
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1399
inviting adverse public opinion for quite sometime and, therefore, the High Court has issued instructions contained in the said circular, which that if disposal of old cases assigned to a concerned Court is not found to be satisfactory by the District Judge No. 453 of 1990 would, therefore, obviously fall within the scope of the said Circular dated 17.5.2002. The preamble of the J.1. This is an application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that the order dated 16.2.2006 passed by respondent State scrupulously. It is also mentioned in paras 8 and 10 of the said Circular that if disposal of old cases
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTErumeli Estate Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ144Ker
Section 17 and the provisions of Section 17A it is highly desirable that the award is published within the time mentioned by Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar delivering judgment on behalf of the Court. Regarding the scope of Section 18, at pp. 247-248 the 48 of 1958. In particular, the learned Counsel attacks the jurisdiction of the tribunal to embark upon an enquiry, which is period mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act. The award itself is dated 25 June 1960 and it Mr. K.F. Abraham, learned counsel, based upon the provisions of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. That is, according to the jurisdiction will not extend to such matters under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. I am not inclined to
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTRam Shankar Bhattacharjee Vs. Gauhati High Court and ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Reported in: AIR2005SC245; 2005(1)CTC73; [2009(104)FLR309]; [2005(1)JCR151(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC98; 2004(10)SCALE288; (2005)9SCC702
he was transferred to the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court on 14.3.1988 in a resultant vacancy that was caused Gauhati High Court, the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court was pleased to adjust him as a member of the I. The claim of the appellant was that on his transfer to the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court, the Private Secretaries are entitled to a special pay of Rs. 100. The Private Secretaries (Grade I Stenographers) in different benches of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTY.C. Simhadri, Vice Chancellor, B.H.U. and ors. Vs. Deen Bandhu Pathak
Court: Allahabad
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2688; (2001)3UPLBEC2373
of Judges appointed to the High Court collectively constitute the High Court.Again, while exercising original jurisdiction under Contempt of Courts Act, of the said Act provided, inter alia, that several High Courts are courts of record and have all such powers and into account Clause 15 of the letters patent of the Bombay High Court which corresponds to Clause 10 of the letters part-heard case. The Chief Justice has the authority and the jurisdiction to refer even a part-heard case to a Division Bench or Judges, under Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915, read with Section 223 of the Government of India of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The jurisdiction that this Section confers is on the 'High Court' and not on any powers respectively at the commencement of the said Act. Section 108 of the said Act reads as follows :'108 (1) Each has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows not only
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTChiranji Lal Vs. NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All568
reference to this, their Lordships say:Their Lordships agree with the High Court. The onus to prove minority is on the defendant the date of the execution of the promissory note. The court below has held that this defence fails as the defendant be defeating the provisions of Section 11 of the Contract Act with reference to minors. Nothing of the kind is true. decreeing this claim we shall be defeating the provisions of Section 11 of the Contract Act with reference to minors. Nothing
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMustafa Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)128
1,000/- to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of the High Court at Jaipur to maintain peace and to be of to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of the High Court at Jaipur to maintain peace and to be of good appearing on behalf of the State has not opposed the extension of the benefits of the provisions of Section 360, CrPC CrPC read with Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused appellant.5. Having considered the entire set of benefits of the provisions of Section 360, CrPC read with Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused 2 x 2 cm on left index finger root6. Bruise 10 x 4 cm on right elbow joint and lower end
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTNaraIn Singh Vs. Chiranji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Reported in: AIR1924All730; 79Ind.Cas.945
reference to this their Lordships say:Their Lordships agree with the High Court. The onus to prove minority is on the defendant to this their Lordships say:Their Lordships agree with the High Court. The onus to prove minority is on the defendant who be defeating the provisions of Section 11 of the Contract Act with reference to minors. Nothing of the kind is true. decreeing this claim we shall be defeating the provisions of Section 11 of the Contract Act with reference to minors. Nothing v. Girdhari Lal 13 Ind. Cas. 956 : 9 A.L.J. 103 The matter appears to us to be concluded against the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>