Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1971]27STC373(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The applicant, Messrs Indian Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., is a dealer registered under the Act. The Commercial Tax Officer, for the assessment year ending on the 31st March, 1953, by an order dated the 11th 'January, 1956, made an assessment for sales tax with regard to the following' transactions of the applicant during the relevant assessment year:--(i) sales of coke-breeze to staff for Rs. 42,314,(ii) supply of stores to the colliery staff amounting to Rs. 21,068, and (iii) value of stores supplied to staff amounting to Rs. 1,372. 2. The applicant's appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes failed. The applicant filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It was submitted to the Commissioner that coke-breeze and stores were supplied to the applicant's staff at concessional rates only to provide amenities to them and there being no motiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)2PLR393
Permod Kohli, J.1. This Regular Civil Second Appeal arises out of a suit for declaration challenging a compromise decree dated 31.08.1979 passed by the learned Sub Judge, IInd Class, Jagadhri, in Civil Suit No. 203 of 1979, titled Gian Chand v. Smt. Shanti. The compromise decree referred to above, has been challenged on the ground of fraud, coercion, misrepresentation etc. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 07.08.1982, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant. The learned Lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 22.02.1985 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court.2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, it came to the notice of this Court that the compromise decree challenged in the suit was passed on 31.08.1979 and the suit came to be filed on 06.12.1979. On noticing these dates, I found that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of the specific bar contained in Order 23 Rule 3-A o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. Appeal No. 20 of 2007 impugns the order dated October 18, 2006 of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission in the matter of Universal Cables Ltd. v. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. Against the same order, the appellant Universal Cables Ltd. filed a review petition. The review petition was dismissed vide an order dated April 03, 2007. The appeal 77 of 2007 challenges the order dismissing the review petition dated April 03, 2007. On filing of the appeal 77 of 2007, the appeal No. 20 of 2007, which had been adjourned sine die, was also revived. We have also heard the arguments on both the appeals.2. The facts leading to the filing of the two appeals are as under: The appellant No.2, M/s. Satna Cement Works, established the captive power plant of aggregate capacity of 46.5 MW. Satna Cement Works has been consuming more than 51% of the power generated by this captive power plant. The appellant No.1, Universal Cables Ltd., is located adjacent to Satna Cement Works and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2012(3)ILR(Ker)528; 2012(3)KLT709
1. A common question arises for consideration in these writ petitions. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. WP(C) No.15448 of 2008 is treated as the main case and unless otherwise specified, the documents referred to are those produced therein. 2. The petitioner in these writ petition belong to Wayanad district. All of them claim to be members of the Pathiyan community, which is a scheduled caste in the State of Kerala. The petitioners applied to the Tahsildar, Sultan Bathery Taluk for the issuance of a caste certificate to the effect that they belong to the Pathiyan community which is recognized as a scheduled caste in the State of Kerala. He in turn informed them that persons belonging to the Pathiyan community in Wayanad district are not members of a scheduled caste community, but are included only in the list of Other Eligible Communities and therefore, they should move the Village Officer concerned for caste certificates. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2010Raj86,RLW2010(2)Raj1418
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. The controversy involved in these writ petitions is identical, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The inspection report dated 20.7.09, provisional assessment order dated 31.7.09 issued by the Assistant Engineer (Vigilance), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited ('AWNL'), Kankroli directing the petitioners to deposit the electricity charges assessed under provisional assessment order without passing final assessment orders in terms of Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'the Act'), are impugned in each of these writ petitions.3. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the electric connections were released by the AWNL to the petitioners industrial establishments. On 20.7.09, a vigilance checking was made by the respondent No. 2 at the premises of the petitioners industrial establishments and the checking reports were prepared. As per the checking reports, the petitioners were found indulged in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1974)2MLJ179
M.M. Ismail, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode in O.S. No. 144 of 1964. The former appeal has been preferred by defendants 8 and 4 therein, while the latter appeal has been preferred by persons who were not parties to the proceedings, but who had obtained the permission of this Court to file an appeal against that judgment.2. The controversy relates to a Mutt called Sri Thiruvalangadu Immudi Agora Dharma Sivachariar Ayira Vysia Mutt, situate at Nerinjipettai, Bhavani Taluk, Coimbatore District. The history of this suit has been elaborately set out in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Erode, dated 24th December, 1958 in O.S. No. 155 of 1956 on his file. The plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 10 in the suit are the disciples of the said Mutt which is admittedly an ancient institution. The Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, settled a scheme for the administration of the Mut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:11. 12.2018 Pronounced on:10. 04.2019 + W.P.(C) 11467/2018, CM APPL. 44376-44378/2018 MAHINDRA ELECTRIC MOBILITY LIMITED AND ANR. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ....... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioners ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ....... RESPONDENTS versus versus TATA MOTORS LIMITED & ANR COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS + W.P.(C) 6610/2014 + W.P.(C) 6634/2014, CM APPL. 20409/2014 + W.P.(C) 7087/2014, CM APPL. 16614/2014, CM APPL. 39827/2018 + W.P.(C) 7121/2014, CM APPL. 16680/2014, CM APPL. 31959/2018 + W.P.(C) 7186/2014, CM APPL. 16889/2014 + W.P.(C) 7306/2014, CM APPL. 17096/2014 + W.P.(C) 7321/2014, CM APPL. 17118/2014 SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD UNION OF INDIA & ORS. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT LT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order delivered on: December 19, 2013 C.R.P. 87/2011 & CM No.12360/2011 (for stay) UTOPIAN BUILDERS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Atul Sahi, Advocate. versus RAKESH GANDHI Through ..... Respondent Mr. Ram Mehar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present petition under section 115 CPC has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18th February, 2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Central), Delhi, whereby the leave to defend application of respondent was allowed.2. Brief facts for adjudication of the present matter are that petitioner filed a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII CPC against the respondent. It was stated that respondent offered his services to the petitioner company for searching and finalizing a collaboration deal for construction of residential flats in R block, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and demaned `4 lac for his services as a temporary deposit. It was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.275 OF2014[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4857 of 2008]. Vishal Agrawal & Anr. ............ Appellant(s) Versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & Anr. .............Respondent(s) JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.1. Leave granted.2. A pure question of law which arises for consideration is: whether the amendment in Section 151of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act]. which empowers the Court to take cognizance of an offence upon a report made by the police under Section 173 of the Code of Civil Procedure [hereinafter referred to as the Code]., would be applicable to the pending complaints filed before the aforesaid amendment. To answer this question, scope and interpretation of Section 151, as it stood prior to the amendment, also needs to be considered. This issue has arisen in the following set of facts:3. The respondent, viz. Chhattisgarh State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2706-2716 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos. 20539-20549 OF 2009.NOVARTIS AG .APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2728 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.32706 OF 2009.NATCO PHARMA LTD. .APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2717-2727 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos. 12984-12994 OF 2013.SLP(C)../2011 CC Nos.6667-6677 M/S CANCER PATIENTS AID ASSOCIATION .APPELLANT Versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Aftab Alam, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.3. What is the true import of section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970?. How does it interplay with clauses (j) and (ja) of section 2(1)?. Does the product for which the appellant claims patent qualify as a new product which comes by through an invention that has a feature that involves technical advance over the existing...
Tag this Judgment!