Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1995]214ITR453(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This petition is preferred by the Gujarat Tractor Corporation Ltd. The petitioner is a Government company, Hindustan Tractors Ltd., and was taken over by the Central Government under the provisions of the Hindustan Tractors Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1978. With effect from the appointed day, i.e., April 1, 1978, the undertaking of the company, namely, the Hindustan Tractors Ltd., and its right, title and interest in relation to its undertakings stood transferred and vested in the Central Government under section 3 of the Act. As per the provisions of section 4 of the Act, the whole assets, rights, leaseholds, powers, authorities and privileges, and all the property, movable and immovable, including lands, buildings, workshops, stores, instruments, machinery and equipment, bank balances, cash balances, cash on hand, reserve funds, investments and book debts and all other rights and interests in, or arising out of, such property as were immedi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1986]160ITR952(Raj); 1985(2)WLN142
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' herein), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated December 10, 1979, passed in ITA No. 764/JP/1978-79 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 11,039 incurred by the assessee on the tour of its managing director to the U.S.A. was allowable as revenue expenditure '2. The assessee (non-petitioner) is a private limited company. It derives income from selling tractors, luna mopeds, godrej steel furniture, etc. For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 11,039 on the foreign tour of the managing director, Shri P.S. Murdia. The case of the assessee is that the tour was undertaken to the U.S.A. mainly on the following two grounds :' 1. To take dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC554IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 4056-4064 of 1999 Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. Appellants Versus M/S Steel Authority of India & Anr Etc. Respondents With Civil Appeal No.7937 of 2019 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.512 of 2018 With Civil Appeal No.7938 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.7936 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.6221 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.5250 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.729 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1029 of 2019 With Special Leave Petition (C) No.16028 of 2021 With Civil Appeal No.4286 of 2023 1 With Civil Appeal No.5682 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No.1295 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.874 of 2013 With Civil Appeal Nos. 8269-8271 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8268 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8267 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.6135 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8272 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.9458 of 2013 With Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18600 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE24H DAY OF AUGUST2021PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.A.No.1105 OF2019(LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.11209-212 of 2019 (LA-KIADB) C/W W.A.No.2392 OF2017(LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.41641-642 OF2015(LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4053 OF2017(LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.2907/2015 & 46915/2016 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4054 OF2017(LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.59461-462 OF2014(LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4055 OF2017(LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.35461 OF2014(LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4056 OF2017(LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.58807-809 OF2015(LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4057 OF2017(LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.32416 OF2015(LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4058 OF2017(LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.49228 & 50925-936 OF2013(LA-KIADB), 2 W.A.No.4059 OF2017(LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.30920 OF2013(LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4060 OF2017(LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.18861 OF2013(LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4061 OF2017(LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.20367-373/2013 & W.P.Nos.20375-380 & 20382/2013 & W.P.Nos.20384-388/2013 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4062 OF2017(L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4476 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4210 of 2018) 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD.) & ORS. APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT CIVIL APPEAL No.4478 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4652 of 2018) CIVIL APPEAL No.4477 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4239 of 2018) CIVIL APPEAL No.4479 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4659 of 2018) CIVIL APPEAL No.4481 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4816 of 2018) WITH WITH WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4480 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4720 of 2018) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.368 OF2019WITH1JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J.1.2. Leave granted. This batch of appeals and writ petition raises questions as to the applicability and construction of Section 396 of the Companies Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.494 OF2012JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) AND ANOTHER .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.151 OF2013TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.152 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.833 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.829 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.1797 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.932 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.1796 OF2013CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.144 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.494 OF2012IN TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.313 OF2014TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.312 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.2524 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.37 OF2015Writ Petition (Civil) No.494 of 2012 & c onnected matters Page 1 of 567 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.220 OF2015CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.674 OF2015WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.829 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.921 OF2015CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.470 OF2015WRIT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... 12. on the other hand, in the case of an acquisition for a company, the compensation has to be paid by the company. in such a case there can be an agreement under section 41 for transfer of the land acquired by the government to the company on payment of the cost of acquisition, as also other matters. the agreement contemplated by section 41 is to be entered into between the company and the appropriate government only after the latter is satisfied about the purpose of the proposed acquisition, and subject to the condition precedent that the previous consent of the appropriate government has been given to the acquisition. section 6 is in terms, made subject to the provisions of part vii of the act. the declaration for acquisition for a company shall not be made unless the compensation to be awarded for the property is to be paid by a company. in the case of an acquisition for a company ..... compressors and ancillary equipment. the importance of this undertaking to a state such as the punjab which has ..... made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values and it was ..... any, of the land and on all such persons known or seem to be interested therein etc. in case the person interested resides elsewhere notice has to be sent by post to the last known address or place of business which has not been followed in the instant case. in my opinion the service of personal notice is mandatory as required under section 9(3) of the act. non-compliance of the provision would render .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: Crl. A. No.835/2014 is filed Under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Advocate for the Appellant/Accused No.1 Praying that this Honble Court may be Pleased to set aside the Judgment and Order of Conviction and Sentence Both Dated: 27.09.2014 Passed by the 36th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha and Others) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004 Convicting the Appellant/Accused No.1 for the Offence Punishable Under Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and the Appellant/Accused No.1 is Sentenced to Undergo Simple Imprisonment for a Period of Four Years, and to pay a Fine of Rs.100 Crores. In Default to pay the Fine Amount, she shall Undergo Further Imprisonment for One Year For the Offence Punishable Under Section 13(1)(E) read ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order C.P. Nos.172 of 2010 and batch are filed, under Section 433 (e) read with Section 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking winding up of the respondent company. The petitioners are all individuals who had sought allotment of flats in an apartment complex known as “Hill County” situated at Bachupally village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District. Agreements of sale were entered into, between the petitioners and the respondent, during the years 2006 to 2008. All the petitioners herein have admittedly paid a substantial part of the sale consideration running into several lakhs each. All of them also claim to have terminated the agreements of sale in accordance with the conditions stipulated therein. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act with its registered office at Hyderabad. Its authorized share capital is Rs.75 Crores divided into 75 lakh equity shares of Rs.100/- each. Its paid up capital is said to be Rupees Five lakhs co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present three petitions have been preferred by the petitioners KSL and Industries Ltd. (KSL), Jay Bharat Textile and Real Estate Ltd. (Jay Bharat) and Eskay K „n‟it (India) Ltd. (Eskay) under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to seek the following reliefs: (a) Stay of the letter dated September 14, 2010 issued by respondent, terminating the MOU dated November 14, 2008 entered into between each of the three petitioners and the respondent National Textile Corporation Ltd. (NTCL). (b) A direction to NTCL not to create any third party right/interest in, and not to dispose off any land machinery and/or any fixed assets of the 11 Textile Mills covered by each of the MOUs (5 covered by the MOU with KSL, 4 covered by the MOU with Eskay and 2 covered by the MOU with Jay Bharat) (c) Direct the NTCL to take all such steps that are necessary to preserve the value of the 11 textile Mills and to furnish a full and complete discharge of all i...
Tag this Judgment!