Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965AP457
Venkatesam, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, in O. S. No. 8 of 1958. The facts necessary for the determination of the questions arising in this case are as follows : - The plaintiff J. Kuppanna Chetty, Ambati Ramayya Chetty and Company of Kadiri, is a firm carrying on business as groundnut and mundy merchants. They took on lease a groundnut decorticating factory at Kadiri, known by the name of Vittal Seshappa Chetty Sons, Groundnut Factory. The factory was under the management of one of the partners, Kuppanna Chetty. Vittan Subbayya Chetty, son of Seshayya Chetty was in arrears of Income-tax relating to the year 1951-52 and 1952-53 to the extent of Rs. 20,921-10-0 and Rs. 9,035-4-0, respectively. The Income-tax Officer issued a certificate under S. 46 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to the Collector of Bellary for realisation of the said arrears. The Tahsildar, Kadiri, was directed by the Collector to attach the said facto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(84)ELT127TriDel
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 17-7-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The respondents are M/s. Thermax Pvt. Ltd., Pune.2. The matter relates to the eligibility of the goods for Captive Power Plant of M/s. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. ('GHC' for short), under exemption Notification No. 71/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985. The GHC were engaged in the manufacture of soda ash. For their energy requirements, they wanted to instal a Captive Power Plant. The Respondents - M/s.Thermax Pvt. Ltd. has imported boilers and accessories for use in the Captive Power Plant of GHC. Under exemption Notification No.71/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985, the goods falling under Heading No. 84.66 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred as the Tariff) when imported for the Power Projects attracted nil rate of customs duty. The respondents had applied for registration of Contract under Heading No. 84.66 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1987)20ITD768(Hyd.)
1. These two appeals are against the consolidated order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') setting aside the assessments made by the ITO under Section 147 of the Act and directing him to redo the same afresh. The prejudice caused to the revenue was on account of the omission of the ITO to consider whether two businesses done under the names of Pillai Enterprises and Sagar Enterprises were the concerns of the assessee or not. We are asked to decide in substance one question of law, that is, (7) whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise assessment order admittedly made under Section 147 and (2) a question of fact whether there were materials report that two businesses really belong to the assessee.2. The original assessments for these two years had a chequered history. The assessment for the year 1971-72 was made on 11-11-1971.The income declared by the assessee-firm was accepted as correct.However, this assessment was reopened under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.37 OF1992ABHIRAM SINGH .APPELLANT VERSUS C.D. COMMACHEN (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. .RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.8339 OF1995NARAYAN SINGH .APPELLANT VERSUS SUNDERLAL PATWA & ORS. .RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The foundation for this reference relating to the interpretation of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to a Bench of seven judges has its origins in three decisions of this Court.2. In Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen[1]. the election in 1990 of Abhiram Singh to the No.40, Santa Cruz Legislative Assembly Constituency for the Maharashtra State Assembly was successfully challenged by Commachen in the Bombay High Court. While hearing the appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, a Bench of three learned Judges expressed the view that the content, scope and what constitutes a corrupt practice under sub- sections (3) or (3A) of Section 123 of the Repres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR3620; 1998(6)KarLJ667; (1999)IILLJ552Kant
K.R. Prasada Rao1. These appeals have been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 5517 and 5518 of 1998, dated 4-3-1998 confirming the ex parte stay order dated 24-2-1998 staying the operation of the order of transfer of respondent 2-Deputy Manager (TTC) from the Technical Training Centre to its Regional Office, Calcutta under Office Memorandum No. FPA TRF 97 384, dated 27-11-1997 issued by the appellant (Annexure-EE to the writ petitions) and rejecting the application filed by the appellant-Company for vacating the stay order dated 24-2-1998.2. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge has been challenged by the management of the appellant-Company on two grounds which are (1) the writ petitions filed by the respondents in the writ appeals are not maintainable, as the appellant-Company is not a 'State' or other authority within the sweep of the expression used in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and (2) the order of transfer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(130)ELT500TriDel
1. In these five appeals, arising out of a common Order No.32/92-Collr., dated 30-6-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai, the issue involved is whether the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE., dated 1-3-1986 is available to the excisable goods manufactured by M/s. Swicon Micro System Pvt. Ltd. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Swicon Micro System Pvt. Ltd. manufacture electronic testing and measuring instruments, electrical machinery, mechanical appliances, etc. On 26-2-1989, Central Excise Officers intercepted a vehicle No. MTF 2936 carrying electronic testing and welding instruments and temperature controllers valued at Rs. 1,78,337.50. The goods were affixed with brand name 'APLAB' which was concealed with stickers of 'Swicon'. The Officers also found 5 meters and 6 power supply valued at Rs. 22,000/- unaccounted in their factory premises. All the goods were seized by the Officers. A show cause notice dated 24-8-1989 was issued to them alleging tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. All these Writ Petitions are listed before this Bench by a Special Order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice for decision. The subject matter of all these petitions is identical though one of the writ petition is by way of public interest litigation. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in W.P.No. 66920/2010 herein are the member shareholders of the Doodhganga Krishna Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Chikkodi. It is a Co-operative sugar factory registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. It was established to cater to the needs of the sugarcane farmers in and around Chikkodi, Raibagh and Athani Taluk in Belgaum District. Later it was converted into a Multi-State Co-operative Society under the Karnataka Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, by extending its area of operation to more than one State (Karnataka and Maharashtra) Earlier, they were having crushing capacity of 2500 TCD...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2001(76)ECC151; 2001(129)ELT48(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The issue requiring our consideration is as to whether Modvat credit is available to a manufacturer in this case a manufacturer of Viscose Rayon in respect of the wires and cables which are used for the transmission of the electrical energy from the Sub Station within the premises of the manufacturer to the blowers which are used to take out Sulphur dioxide gas generated in the manufacturing process employed in the factory, unless that noxious gas is removed, it will not be possible for the workmen to continue to work within the premises of the factory, as the gas is generated in the process of manufacture, the workmen being engaged in operating, the machines employed in that process.2. The Modvat credit so claimed was not granted on the ground that those wires and cables are not used in the process of manufacture and, therefore, do not constitute capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, as it stood in the year 1994. Though the Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.403
1. In these three matters Rules were issued on the same day practically based on the same fasts. They arise out of some boring operations in Mouzah Parsundi comprising of about 5,000 bighas of land (4,906 according to the Revenue Survey). The Iron and Steel Company, who are the first party in the proceedings under Section 145 initiated on the 10th July 1919, obtained as petitioners, Rule No. 847 on the following allegations, namely, that the Maharaja of Burdwan was the Zemindar of the Mouzah and sole owner of the minerals and mineral rights therein. On the 9th September 1839 he granted a putni settlement of the Mouzah to certain persons shortly referred to as the Chatterjees and Misras. On the 5th April he authorised one E.J. Seth Sam on behalf of the Parsundi Mining Syndicate to go on with boring operations in the Mouzah pending execution and registration of a formal document and Seth Sam in his turn on the 12th April 1918 authorised the petitioners to carry on boring operations there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:23. 05.2017 CS(COMM) 1124/2016 INDURE PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate and Mr Prashant Mehta and Mr Gaurav Malik, Advs. versus HEIDELBERG CEMENT LIMITED AND ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Soli J.Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate with Mr Krishnendu Datta, Mr Ajay Goyal, Mr Bikash Mohanty, Mr Amit K. Singh and Mr Shantanu, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT IA Nos. 16649/2013 (O. 39 R. 1 and 2 CPC) 1. This order shall dispose of the IA No.16649/2013 (O. 39 R. 1 and 2 CPC) of the plaintiff. The defendants filed the reply and sought vacation of the interim stay dated 19.102013.2. In this application, the plaintiff has prayed for the stay of invocation of the bank guarantee. CS (COMM) 1124/2016 Page 1 3. The admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff and the defendant had executed a Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 25.01.2013. Subsequently, an agreement dated 20.02.2013 was enter...
Tag this Judgment!