Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: January 28, 2013 + CS(OS) No.1439/1991 TEXMACO LIMITED Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Sumit Sen, Adv. versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Defendants Through Mr.V.P.Dewan, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the abovementioned suit for the recovery of `46,62,917.81/- against the defendants, alleging that the said amount is due and payable to the plaintiff under a contract relating to the work which includes a sum of `32,96,972/- on account of reimbursement of sales tax illegally withheld by the defendants and a further amount of `13,65,945.81/is also payable by the defendants as per details mentioned in para 16 of the plaint.2. Before referring the facts made by the plaintiff in its plaint, there are certain admitted relevant facts and events which are admitted, the same are: (a) On 8th January, 1983, a Contract Agreement bearing not NH/CPG/MC/S-G/2 AGMT for design, f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013 11TH POUSHA 193 WP(C).No. 16951 of 2012 (T) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- ITI LIMITED BANGALORE- REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGER-HR, JIMMY J.NALAPPAT, ITI LIMITED, KANGHIKODE, PALAKKAD. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR,PALAKKAD014. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PALAKKAD-678 001.3. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM001. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES GOVT. OF KERALA,GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM001. 5. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM001. R1 TO R5 BY ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-12-2012, THE COURT ON 01-01-2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.16951/2012...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi
Shri Kant Tripathi, Member (J) 1. All these thirteen matters pertain to dual family pension, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the counsel for the applicants and the respondents and perused the record. Before proceeding to examine the rival contentions, it seems to be just and expedient to look into the facts of each case. Army matters: (i) O.A.No.82 of 2011 : The applicant, K.P.Komalavally, is the widow of late M.Balakrishnan Nair, who served the Indian Army as Sepoy. After discharge from the Army he was re-employed in the State Bank of Travancore. He was in receipt of military pension as well as Bank Pension till the date of his death. The applicant is admittedly being paid family pension by the State Bank of Travancore and there is no dispute to this extent. She had claimed military family pension in addition to Bank Family Pension which was denied by the respondents o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. This reference under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 arises out of Reference Application Nos.306 and 307 filed by the assessee in respect of a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29th March, 1996 in ITA Nos.6351/B/93 and 1717/B/94 pertaining to assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. (A) The Tribunal on the assessee's application drew up a statement of case and referred the following eight questions and an additional question for the year 199091 for the opinion of this Court:- "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion concerning clauses 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 20 and 24 of the Memorandum of Association of the assessee are not objects of general public utility and thereby do not fall with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. WITH the change of Government, the creation of new districts has become a routine feature in the State of Uttar Pradesh that too, without adverting to financial viability and necessity. Ordinarily, decisions are political to perpetuate legacy of political parties. 2. SIMILAR is the case in hand referred by the Division Bench of this Court relating to constitution of Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar (in short CSM Nagar). 3. On account of conflicting judgment with regard to right of State Government to create districts, a Division Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J. and Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.), has framed three (3) questions and referred the same to the Larger Bench. In terms thereof, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has constituted the present Bench. The questions referred by the Division Bench vide order dated 25.3.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.10159 (M/B) of 2010 and three other connected writ petitions, are as under: (i) Whether the issuance of n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2013)1SCC1
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. We are, in these appeals, primarily concerned with the powers of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short 'SEBI') under Section 55A(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 to administer various provisions relating to issue and transfer of securities to the public by listed companies or companies which intend to get their securities listed on any recognized stock exchange in India and also the question whether Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (for short 'OFCDs') offered by the appellants should have been listed on any recognized stock exchange in India, being Public Issue under Section 73 read with Section 60B and allied provisions of the Companies Act and whether they had violated the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000 [for short 'DIP Guidelines'] and various regulations of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
COMMON ORDER P. JYOTHIMANI,J. The issue involved in all these cases relates to the commissioning of Units 1 and 2 of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (for brevity, "KNPP"). Even though the prayers in these writ petitions are different, they are taken up together, since the issue is one and the same. W.P.No.24770 of 2011 2.1. This writ petition is a public interest litigation. The petitioner, who is an Engineering Graduate in Electronics and Instrumentation, claims to be a trustee of a public trust called "Poovulagin Nanbargal", which is connected with environmental and other issues. After coming to know from the newspapers that the Government of India, represented by the Department of Atomic Energy will commission the KKNPP by November, 2011, he has filed the said writ petition for a direction against respondents 1 and 3 to undertake a fresh and transparent review of KKNPP at Kudankulam, Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu by an independent body of experts, including those of the Departme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2012)9SCC1; JT2012(8)SC4; 2012(4)KCCR271(SN); 2012AIRSCW4942; AIR2012SC3565; 2012(7)SCALE553
Aftab Alam, J.1. The appellant, Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’ or as ‘Kasab’), who is a Pakistani national, has earned for himself five death penalties and an equal number of life terms in prison for committing multiple crimes of a horrendous kind in this country. Some of the major charges against him were: conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India; collecting arms with the intention of waging war against the Government of India; waging and abetting the waging of war against the Government of India; commission of terrorist acts; criminal conspiracy to commit murder; criminal conspiracy, common intention and abetment to commit murder; committing murder of a number of persons; attempt to murder with common intention; criminal conspiracy and abetment; abduction for murder; robbery/dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt; and causing explosions punishable under the Explosive S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayers: A.S.No.589 of 1994: Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, made in O.S.No.110 of 1991, dated 5.4.1994. CMP No.10569 of 1996: Petition under Section 107(2), CPC, to direct that the date of filing of the suit wrongly shown as 18.1.1974 in the decree be corrected as 28.1.1991. CMP No.17037 of 2000: Petition under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC, to receive as additional evidence, document marked Ex.A, registration copy of Partition Deed dated 6.2.1970, Document No.1719 of 1970 and Document marked Ex.B, registration copy of purchase document dated 15.12.1962, Document No.1927 of 1962. CRP No.3542 of 2000: Revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 27.10.2000 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in E.P.No.97 of 2000 in I.A.No.1338 of 1995 in O.S.No.110 of 1991 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore and dismiss the aforesaid E.P.No.97 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Declaration, declaring that when the jurisdiction with regard to the settlement of dispute is restricted between the parties by an agreement at Chennai, proceedings launched by the third respondent outside the agreed jurisdiction at Mumbai in Case No.23196/SS/2009 before 62nd Metropolitan Magistrate Court is not valid and binding in so far as the petitioner is concerned.O R D E R1. Whether the High Court of Judicature, Madras, can issue a writ in the nature of Declaration and set at naught the proceedings initiated on a private complaint under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the criminal court outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court is the moot question raised in this writ petition. 2. At the foremost, it has to be taken note of that the petitioner has already raised a similar question before the Bombay High Court in Criminal Wr...
Tag this Judgment!