Court : Patna
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1586 of 2011 (3) dt.24-01-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1586 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Manish Kumar @ Ramesh Singh @ Mukhiya @ Ramesh Yadav S/O Sri Birendra Singh Resident Of - Govind Dih, Police Station- Piro In The District Of Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH24. 01-2012 Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. This application is for grant of bail to the petitioner under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2000. Earlie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Honble Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member: This is an application for revocation of patent No.204322 granted in the name of Valasumani Lathe Works, Sivagiri, Erode District, Tamil Nadu, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) registered under section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the applicant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had applied for a patent for an invention titled IMPROVED THRESHING AND SEPARATING MACHINE, and the same was granted under number 204322 (921/CHE/2004) on 13th February, 2007. Based on this patent, the respondent claimed that he filed a patent infringement suit being OS NO.243/2007 against this applicant which is pending before the District Judge, Erode. 3. The applicant stated that they are the leading manufacturers and marketers of agricultural implements such as paddy threshers, groundnut degadicator, paddy cleaner, de-stoner, neem seed degadicator, paddy threshing machine and so man...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2006AP182; 2006(2)ALT1
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The Petitioner filed O.S.No.20 of 2000 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil judge, at Bodhan, against the respondent, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. She pleaded that she is the daughter of the respondent. In his written-statement, the respondent disputed the very relationship, apart from denying the other allegations, made by the petitioner. The trial Court framed an independent issue, touching upon the relationship. The petitioner filed I.A.No.233 of 2005 for reframing of the said issue. The application was resisted by the respondent. Through order dt.5-10-2005, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application. Hence, this revision2. Sri Balraj Bodhankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue, which was framed by the trial Court, is in such a form, that it would require the petitioner herein to prove the negative. He contends that since the denial, which gave rise to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The revision petitioner in all these three cases is one and the same. A complaint was filed against the petitioner in these three cases for not filing the income tax returns before the statutory due date as per Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and thereby liable under Section 276CC of the Act, 1961.2. In E.O.C.C.No.95 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date i.e., on 31.08.1996 but filed only on 24.03.1999 with a delay of 2 years and 7 months; in E.O.C.C.No.96 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date i.e., on 31.10.1997 but filed only on 26.03.2001 with a delay of 41 months and in E.O.C.C.No.94 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date i.e., on 30.11.1998 but filed only on 26.03.2001 with a delay of 28 months.3. On the side of the prosecution, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and thereafter th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (2008)106CALLT192(NULL)
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This batch of Writ Petitions were heard together as common questions of facts and law are involved and these different Writ Petitions were filed in respect of different assessment years by the Petitioner.2. The Petitioner claims to be a non-Banking Finance Company licensed by the Reserve Bank of India to carry on business in leasing as well as hire purchase, inter alia, of plant, machinery and other equipments.3. On or about. 31st July, 1995 a tripartite agreement was entered between the Petitioner company, and M/s. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited (IMFA) and M/s. Isgee John Thompson CUT'). Under the said agreement IMFA was referred to as the 'user', IJT was referred to as 'supplier I contractor' and the Petitioner as the 'purchaser'.4. IMFA wanted to instal a 90 Ton Per Hour (TPH) Spreader Stoker Water Tube Boiler at its Choudwar Power Plant of M/s. Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. (ICCL), which is a sister concern of IMFA. For in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC845; [1960]3SCR250
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. In accordance with the directives issued by the Prima Ministers of India and Pakistan, on September 10, 1958, the Commonwealth Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and the Foreign Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth, Government of Pakistan, discussed 10 items of dispute between the two countries and signed a joint note recording their agreement in respect of the said disputes and submitted it to their respective Prima Ministers; and with a view to removing causes of tension and resolving border disputes and problems relating to Indo-Pakistan Border Areas and establishing peaceful conditions along those areas, the Prima Ministers, acting on behalf of their respective Governments, entered into an agreement settling some of the said disputes and problems in the manner set out in the said joint note. This agreement has been called the Indo-Pakistan Agreement and will be referred to hereafter as the Agreement. 2. In the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2496
1. This appeal and the connected Criminal Appeal No. 78-SB of 1988 'Balwan v. State of Haryana' arise out of same judgment of the learned trial Court and common questions of fact and law are involved therein. So, this order will dispose of both these appeals. 2. For an occurrence which took place on the night intervening 8/9-6-1987 in village Gari Sampla, the appellants in the two appeals along with their co-accused Balwan and Barketu were sent up to face their trial for offences punishable under sections 302/324/323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide his judgment dated 8-1-1988 acquitted Barketu and Rattan but convicted Balraj for an offence punishable under section 304, Part II and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal and Balwan under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide separate order dated 11-1-1988, Balraj-appellant was sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment and was ordered to pay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC196; 1955CriLJ526; [1955]1SCR1150
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. These are appeals by special leave against the orders of the Punjab High Court made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, reversing the orders of the Special Judge, Delhi, quashing certain criminal proceedings pending before himself against these appellants for alleged offences under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Judge quashed the proceedings on the ground that the investigations on the basis of which the appellants were being prosecuted were in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and hence illegal. In Appeal No. 95 of 1954 the appellants are two persons by name H. N. Risbud and Indar Singh. In Appeals No. 96 and 97 of 1954 H. N. Risbud above mentioned is the sole appellant. These appeals raise a common question of law and are dealt with together. The appellant Risbud was the Assistant Development Officer (Steel) in the office of the Directorate-General...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1706; 2002(81)ECC22; 2002(141)ELT593(SC); JT2002(3)SC551; 2002(3)SCALE349; (2002)4SCC297; [2002]2SCR945; 2002(128)SCT349(SC); [2002]128STC349(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Act'), the only question that falls for adjudication is whether Karbate Tubes made of artificial graphite impregnated with Phenolic resin which are parts of Heat exchangers are classifiable under Tariff Item: sub-heading 6815.10 in First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (in short 'Tariff Act') as held by the Revenue, or under sub-heading 8419.50 as claimed by the assessee- importer.2. Factual scenario needs to be noted in brief. Orders were placed by the assessee on a foreign manufacturer for supply of 14700 Karbate Tubes which were supplied during April and July, 1992. An order was passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraising Group III) classifying the goods under Chapter heading 68.15 and sub-headings 6815.10, whereby the demand raised by the Appraiser was confirmed. Appeal filed before the Collector (Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. Matter was carried...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)111ITD190(Mum.)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee, for the asst. yr. 1996-97. It is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXIV at Mumbai dt. 29th Nov., 2002. The appeal arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a body corporate registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of providing international telecommunication services in India in terms of a license granted by the Government of India, in the Department of Telecommunication.3. The assessee company has filed its return of income for the impugned asst. yr. 1996-97, declaring a total income of Rs. 600,88,54,056. The said return filed on 30th Nov., 1996 was revised on 16th Dec, 1997 restating the total income at Rs. 577.82 crores. The revised return was initially processed under Section 143(1)(a) resulting in an adjustment of Rs. 33,00,000. The intimation was passed on 19th March, 1998. The return was selected for scrutiny and thereafter an assessme...
Tag this Judgment!