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 : Mumbai
(Per S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties and looking to the urgency, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the Union of India, Department of Health and Family Welfare and particularly styled as AYUSH i.e. Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy. 3. By the said order, the Government of India has refused to grant permission for admitting students to the B.A.M.S. (under Graduate) to the P.G. Course (Post Graduate) in Shalakya for the session 201011. For appreciating the challenge to the impugned order, it would be proper to narrate the facts in Writ Petition No. 4965/2011. 4. The first petitioner is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 so also under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 as a public charitable trust. The second petitioner is a Colleg...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)BLJR1397; 2004(2)CTC55; 2004(92)ECC257; 2004(165)ELT386(SC); JT2004(3)SC66; 2004(1)KLT1050(SC); (2004)3MLJ52(SC); 2004(2)SCALE760; (2004)9SCC1
A.C. Lakshmanan, J.1. In these appeals, we are concerned with the question of levy of excise duty on zinc dross and flux skimming arising during galvanization of steel sheets.BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:2. During galvanization of steel sheets, zinc dross and flux skimming arises which the respondent/assessee has declared as by- product in their product manual published by the Marketing Division for information of customers. It has been alleged that zinc dross and flux skimming are being sold by the assessee to various customers without making any declaration in the classification list, without paying any duty on clearance of the above product and without maintaining any records prescribed under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 besides showing them as non-excisable in their Despatch Advices. According to the Department, the assessees have cleared the goods without payment of duty and thus evaded duty in contravention of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and in doing so they did not obtain Centra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
(Per S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties and looking to the urgency, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the Union of India, Department of Health and Family Welfare and particularly styled as “AYUSH” i.e. Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy. 3. By the said order, the Government of India has refused to grant permission for admitting students to the B.A.M.S. (under Graduate) to the P.G. Course (Post Graduate) in Shalakya for the session 201011. For appreciating the challenge to the impugned order, it would be proper to narrate the facts in Writ Petition No. 4965/2011. 4. The first petitioner is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 so also under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 as a public charitable trust. The second petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1971Bom231; (1969)71BOMLR801; ILR1971Bom264
Patel, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the suit should have been stayed under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A few facts leading to the present appeal are as follows: The plaintiff and the defendants were partners. The suit was filed by the plaintifffor a declaration that the Firm was dissolved and for taking accounts of the partnership. This suit was filed on January 20, 1969. On the same day the plaintiff made an application for receiver and for injunction, An ex parte order was granted appointing the Court Receiver to take charge of all books of accounts, vouchers, papers etc., connected with the partnership and in possession of the mediator, K.M.D. Thakersey. An interim injunction was also granted, one particular direction being In a mandatory form regarding the continuance of the supply of steam from the boiler to the plaintiff. The papers of the motion and the plaint were served on the defendants on the same day. The cer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(4)AWC3411
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This Is tenant's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.1991, -passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Allahabad In S.C.C. Suit No. 192 of 1980. The trial court has decreed the suit for eviction of the applicants and also for recovery of water taxes, arrears of rent and damages etc.2. The plaintiff landlord (opposite party) Instituted the suit on the pleas inter alia that the plaintiff Is landlord and owner of the shop Nos. 9, 10 and 11 with their back galleries situate In premises No. 17/33A, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad, on a monthly rent of Rs. 720 besides water taxes payable as part of rent at the rate of 14 per cent wherein the defendants No. 1 and 2 are carrying on the business under the name and style of 'Mercury'. The shops were let out for the purposes of opening of dry cleaner shop. The defendants are in arrears of rent since January, 1980 and the tenancy has been terminated by se...
Tag this Judgment!