Court : Guwahati
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. The power and jurisdiction of the High Court in an application under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the judgment and order of the Family Court disposing of the application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., 1973 is akin to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.2. Heard Mr. S. Rupachandra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. R. K. Nokulsana Singh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. R. K. Milan, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2, Shri Akham Joykumar Singh.3. The short fact which gives rise to the filing of the present application is that petitioner No. 1, Shri Akham Ibodi Singh, aged about 74 years and petitioner No. 2, Smt. Akham (Ongbi) Chaobi Devi, aged about 71 years are the parents of the respondents. The respondent No. 1, Shri Akham Biradhwaja Singh is the eldest son of the petitioners and he was educated up to M.Sc. (Phys...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 146(2008)DLT455
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In Petition No. I (CW 24105/2005) Star India Pvt. Ltd. has prayed for a certiorari quashing the proviso to Section 2(1)(k) of the TRAI Act; a certiorari for quashing Tariff Orders dated 15.1.2004, 1.10.2004, 1.12.2004 and 29.11.2005 and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation, 2004 It has further been prayed that the Court should declare that TRAI is not competent to regulate broadcasting services as also another declaration to the effect that these impugned Orders and impugned Interconnect Regulations are vocative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) and (g) as also Articles 301 to 307 of the Constitution. In Petition No. II (CW 5332/2006) Star India Private Limited has prayed for the setting aside an order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 12(C) of 2005 titled Grahak Hitvardhani Sarvajanik Sanstha v. TRAI and (b) issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the Telecommunication (Broadcasting an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)IILLJ938Guj
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Payment of Gratuity Authority on 24.10.1997 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity on 28.10.1998.2. This Court has admitted the petition and rule was issued on 25.10.1999.3. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner had joined the respondent No. 3 Factory in the year 1962 and left the said organization on 31.07.1995 by tendering his resignation. The petitioner was employed as Works Manager of a factory at Surat owned by the respondent Company, registered office of which is at Bombay. The petitioner has applied for gratuity vide his application dated 02.09.1995. Since the respondent Company has not taken any concrete action except for giving assurances, the petitioner has preferred an application dated 25.02.1997 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC155; (1954)56BOMLR280; [1954]25ITR50(SC); [1954]1SCR444
Mahajan, J.1. This is appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay delivered on a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, whereby the High Court answered the first referred question in the negative.2. The assessment in question concern the year 1943-44. A Hindu undivided family was carrying on business in Bombay, Madras and the Mysore State. Its business was taken over by a registered firm on March 17, 1942. For the purpose of this appeal however this circumstance is not material. The case has been dealt with on the assumption that a single assessee carried on business from October 10, 1948, to November 8, 1942, the relevant accounting year. According to the accounts of the assessee, during this period the Mysore branch purchased goods from the Bombay head office and the Madras branch of the value of Rs. 2,45,455. The Income-tax Officer estimated these purchases of the Mysore branch in British India at Rs. 3,00,000 and its profits at Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Limited against the Order-in-Original No. 87/2002-RP dated 31.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Bulk Horlicks falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 1901.92 of the Central Excise Tariff. They are availing Modvat credit on the inputs namely Hydrochloric Acid, caustic Soda Lye and Malted barely, Hydrochloric acid and caustic soda lye are common inputs for manufacture of horlicks which is dutiable, and ghee and husk are chargeable to NIL rate of duty. As per rule 57 C(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, modvat credit is not allowed on such quantity of inputs which is used in the manufacture of final products which are exempt from the whole of the duty of Excise or are chargeable to NIL rate of duty. according to Rule 57C(2) of Central Excise Rules, where a manufacturer avails of the credit of specified duty on any inputs and is engaged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR33
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of the respondent who was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act for having contravened Section 18(2) of the same Act in that he did not send copies of the accounts in respect of three money-lending transactions dated 24-12-57 27 and 30-12-57 relating to loans advanced by him to Kisnad Group Co-operative Multi-purpose Society. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Broach who tried the case acquitted the respondent on the ground that a loan to a Co-operative society was not included in the definition of loan contained in Section 2(9) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act. On this ground he acquitted the respondent although according to the Magistrate all the facts about the advancing of the loans were admitted by the respondent who was accused.2. In appeal it is contended by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that the view taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2006Raj128; I(2006)DMC667; RLW2006(1)Raj612; 2006(1)WLC648
V.K. Bali, J. 1. Sudarshan Bhatia, born and brought up in the State of Rajas-than, but stated to be a Canadian citizen, died on 21.4.1989 in Germany leaving behind considerable movable and immovable properties. Poonam Bhati his wife and Smita Bhatia, minor daughters, said to have been born out of the wedlock of Sudarshan Bhatia and Poonam Bhatia, successfully sought succession certificate with regard to the movable properties of deceased Sudarshan Bhatia, details whereof have been given in the application under Section 372 of the Indian succession Act itself as the same was allowed vide orders dated 6.12.1999 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Whereas Surendra Bhatia brother of Sudarshan Bhatia resisted grant of succession certificate to Poonam Bhati and her daughter Smita on the basis of Will dated 17.4.1989 (Ex.A.l) said to have been executed by Sudarshan Bhati, his sister resisted the same on the ground that movable properties owned by Sudarshan Bhatia were made from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2006(1)CHN297
D.K. Seth, J. The preliminary objection : Maintainability of the appeal:1. Mr. Santanu Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the respondent, had taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal. According to him, the decree was passed on 20th December, 2001. Against the said decree, a review application was preferred on 3rd/4th January, 2002. This review was partly allowed by an order dated 15th July, 2002. Therefore, when the appeal was preferred on 11th September, 2002 against the judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2001, there was no judgment and decree, which stood modified by reason of the order dated 15th July, 2002, being the decree against which the appeal could have been preferred. The subsequent dismissal of the review application or rejection thereof on account of not being pressed by the applicant would not alter the situation and would still affect the maintainability of the appeal. In support of his contention. Mr. Mukherjee had relied upon a decision i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC36IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9695 OF2013ASMA LATEEF & ANR. APPELLANTS VS. SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J.The Challenge 1. Respondents 1 to 3 had filed an objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC, hereafter) in an execution application filed before the Executing Court by the appellants. It was urged, based on the case pleaded therein, that the decree put to execution was inexecutable. The Executing Court, on 19th March, 2008, allowed the objections of the respondents 1 to 3, resulting in dismissal of the execution application. 12. A revision was carried by the appellants from the order dated 19th March, 2008 before the Revisional Court which, vide its order dated 21st February, 2009, dismissed the objection filed by the respondents 1 to 3 and directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution of the decree whilst treating such objection as non-maintainable.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The present appeal, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereafter the Act ?) is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge, dated 17.02.2010 in OMP 40/2000. The impugned judgment dismissed the objections of the appellant (hereafter MMTC ?) to the majority award of a three member Arbitral tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal ?) dated 23.08.1999. The award had directed payments to the claimant/respondent (hereafter Belcom ?) by MMTC. 2. The facts relevant for this case are that on 14.10.1991, Contract No.35 was executed between MMTC and Belcom for sale of 50,000 metric tonnes of Muriate of Potash (MOP) at a price of Rs. 2,766.50 per metric ton. This was an F.O.B. contract.. The said contract contained a payment clause by which MMTC was to open a Letter of Credit with the Bank for Foreign Trade of USSR, Minsk “ Bank of Foreign Economic Affairs [hereafter BFEA ?], valid for a period of 90 days. The relevant portion of t...
Tag this Judgment!