Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jan-08-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Considering the nature of controversy and as requested by the parties, matters have been heard finally at the stage of admission by issuing Rule, and making it returnable forthwith. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners before this Court are dealers within the meaning of said term as defined in Section 2[16A] of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, (Act No. LIX of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation Act? for short). The Local Body Tax (LBT) is being charged on goods imported by them within city limits of respondent no.2 Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The tax is assessed on goods imported by them for use, consumption or sale within the city limits. As they are dealers whose annual turnover exceeds Rs. 50 Crores, the tax is being recovered from them. Other dealers whose annual turnover is less than Rs.50 Crores, are exempted from paying any tax on such goods. 3. Petitioners state that they are required to pay the local body tax at 8.5% and hence,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-18-2016
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6223 OF2016|LANCO ANPARA POWER LIMITED |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 29105-29106 OF2011 W.P. (C) No.64 OF2012W.P. (C) No.848 OF2013W.P. (C) No.385 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.6569 OF2014T.P. (C) No.342 OF2014T.C. (C) No.29 OF2015W.P. (C) No.174 OF2016W.P. (C) No.311 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL No.6571 OF2014T.C. (C) No.38 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.26363 OF2016 W.P. (C) No.698 OF2016AND CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.26330 OF2016 JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 29105-29106 of 2011, SLP (C) No.26363 of 2016 and SLP (C) No.26330 of 2016. Since pure question of law is involved, we allow the transfer petition and transfer cases and also take up, along with these appeals, the writ petitions which were filed before the respective High Courts. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-04-2016
| REPORTABLE | IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.869 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.1903 of 2015) JAYA BISWAL & ORS. APPELLANTS Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.Leave granted. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2014 passed in F.A.O. No.472 of 2013 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, wherein the learned single Judge reduced the amount of compensation awarded to the appellants by the learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation from Rs.10,75,253/- to Rs.6,00,000/- and also waived the award of 50% penalty with interest. The brief facts of the case required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated here under: The elder son of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 worked as a truck driver with one Bikram Keshari Patnaik (respondent No.2 herein). On 19.07.2011, he met with an accident while o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Sep-02-2016
1 W.P.(L)No.2283of2011 INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(L)No.2283of2011 Marwari Kanwar Sangh, a Trust duly registered under the provision of Trust Act, having its Dharamshala at Meghlalpuri Lane,DeogharthroughitsSecretaryShreeMahabirPrasadSharma, sonofLateMohanLalSharma,ResidentofKanutola,Deoghar. Petitioner Versus 1. Employees'ProvidentFundsOrganization,EPFO,RegionalOffice, Ranchi. 2. AssistantProvidentFundCommissioner,Employees'ProvidentFund Organisation,EPFO,RegionalOffice,Ranchi. 3. EnforcementOfficer,EmployeesProvidentFund,havinghisoffice atoppositeMunicipalOffice,CourtRoad,Deoghar. 4. TheAssistantProvidentFundCommissioner,Bhagalpur 5. RegionalProvidentFundCommissioner,EmployeesProvidentFund Organisation, having his office at Bhabhisiya Nidi Bhawan, Road No.6,RBlock,Patna1 6. The Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal,7thFloor,SkylakBuilding,NehruPlace,Delhi110019. ...Respondents. PRESENT HONBLEMR.JUSTICEAPARESHKUMARSINGH F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-26-2016
(Prayer: These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P. No. 58103/2015 dated 2.3.2016.) 1. These writ appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 2nd of March, 2016 in W.P.No.58103/2015 dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant as not maintainable and consequently dismissing five interlocutory applications which were listed before him on that day. 2. The appellant is presently the incumbent Upa-Lokayukta in the State of Karnataka. His case is after a span of over 20 years of law practice, he was appointed as a Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the year 2006. He was appointed as Upa-Lokayukta in the year 2013 under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short hereinafter referred as the Act ) and he continues to hold the said office since then. 3. It is his further case that a notice of motion signed by 78 members of the Karnataka Legislative ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-26-2016
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE26H DAY OF APRIL2016PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT APPEAL Nos.599 600/2016 (GMRES) BETWEEN : Justice Subhash B. Adi, S/o Late Shri Bashetty Adi, Age 64 years, R/at:94. A, 9th Cross, 10th Main, R.M.V.Extension, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore-560 080. ...APPELLANT (By Sri B.V.Acharya, Senior Counsel, a/w Sri Ashok B Patil, Adv.) AND :1. 2. The Secretary, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 233. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Public Administrative 2 Reforms, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 233. RESPONDENTS (By Sri Madhusudhan R Naik, Advocate General, a/w Sri D.Nagaraj, AGA) . . . . These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P. No.58103/2015 dated 2.3.2016. this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following: These writ appeals coming on for prelimina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2014, dated 22.01.2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Neyveli.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. C.M.A.No.1382 of 2016, is filed by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division-I) Ltd., Villupuram, to set aside the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2014, dated 22.01.2016, on the file Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Neiveli, by which, the Tribunal, fixing negligence on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN 21 N 1473, awarded compensation of Rs.23,70,000/-, with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation. 2. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed a separate appeal in C.M.A.No.979 of 2016, for enhancement. As facts and submissions, in both the cases, are co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in O.A. No. 615 of 2010 dated 28.02.2013 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order made in O.A. No. 615 of 2010 dated 28.02.2013, by which, the Central Administrative Tribunal, while setting aside the order dated 19.09.2006 passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pollachi, vide proceedings in Memo No.F1/4-1/2002-2003, modified the punishment of dismissal from service, into that of stoppage of one increment for a period of five years with cumulative effect. The Tribunal has further directed that the second respondent shall not be eligible for any back wages for the period from the date of dismissal from service, to the date of reinstatement i.e., for the period during which he was out of service. The Tribunal has directed that the entire period would be counted for pens...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-18-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 04.02.2014 passed in C.M.A.No.122 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. The above Civil Revision Petition arises against the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.No.122 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The revision petitioner was an employee in Integral Coach Factory (ICF). While the petitioner was in service, he was allotted a Type-II Quarters in South Colony for him to reside. On 22.08.2012, he was dismissed from service and was asked to vacate the Quarters within one month from the date of dismissal. By letter dated 25.08.2012, he was asked to handover vacant possession of the Quarters on or before 22.09.2012 without fail. As he failed to vacate the Quarters, the allotment of the said Quarters was cancelled by order dated 22.09.2012 and his occupation was treated as un-authorised. As per the said co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-03-2016
Common Order 1. While Criminal Original Petition No. 31504 of 2014 has been filed to direct the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, to efface the evidence recorded on 05.03.2013 and 06.03.2013 in S.C. No.34 of 2005, Criminal Original Petition No.6439 of 2015 has been filed to withdraw and transfer the case in S.C. No.34 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem, to any other District and Sessions Court. Criminal Original Petition Nos. 6941 and 7356 of 2016 have been filed to set aside the common order in C.M.P. Nos.19 and 53 of 2016 respectively in S.C. No.34 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Salem. 2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. 3 On 22.06.2016, this Court passed the following order: While Criminal Original Petition No. 31504 of 2014 has been filed to direct the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, ...
Tag this Judgment!