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 : 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 : Privy Council
Lord Wright: The appellant is the Official Assignee of Madras in whom the property vested in insolvency of C.K. Narayan Ayyar and Sons (who will be referred to hereafter as the insolvents); The question in the appeal is whether the appellant or the respondents are entitled to the proceeds of certain consignments of ground nuts; the primary issue is whether the respondents who had advanced moneys on the security of the railway receipts in respect of these ground nuts obtained a valid pledge of the goods. Certain further or alternative questions will be dealt with subsequently. The appellant succeeded before Waller, J.; his decision was, however, reversed on appeal by the High Court of Judicature of Madras, Appellate Jurisdiction; the appellant now appeals to His Majesty in Council. There is little dispute about the facts. The insolvents did a large business in ground nuts, which they purchased from the up-country growers; the nuts were then despatched by rail, arrived in Madras by one o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973MP26
Tare, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a Contractor, who took the Contract of purchase of Tendu leaves from the Government for the year 1970 under the M. P. Tendu Patta (Vvapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964, and the M. P. Tendu Patta, Nivamavali, 1965 and 1966, and by this petition, he seeks a renewal of the contract for the Years 1971 and 1972 on the same terms.2. A State monopoly was created by enactment of the M. P. Tendu Patta (Vvapar Viniyaman) Adhiniym, 1964, which received the assent of the President on 23-11-1964 and which came into force from 28-11-1964. It will be necessary o consider some relevant provisions of the Act later on. The appellant Firm had purchased the right of collection of Tendu leaves for the year 1970 which provided for a renewal clause for a further period of two years on certain terms. It may be relevant to reproduce Condition No. 25 of the Tender Notice which is as follows:--'25. (1) Unless earlier determined under th...
Tag this Judgment!