Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (2008)ILLJ618HP
ORDERRajiv Sharma, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated April 5, 2006 passed by the appellate authority in appeal No. 86/2005.2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent No. 1-company had submitted a draft proposal for the modification of standing orders for certification on June 18, 2005. The copy of draft proposal for modification of Standing Orders is at page 74 of the paper book of this petition. Paragraph 29 of the draft Standing Orders is reproduced below for better appreciation of the facts:The age of retirement on superannuation of a workman shall be as may be agreed upon between the Management and the Workman through a contract or as specified in a settlement or award of both the workmen and the management. The employee shall automatically retire from the service of the Company on attaining the age as provided herein before to be calculated in accordance with the date of birth given by him at the time of appointm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.1. All the writ petitions covered by this common judgment have been heard together on the admitted premise that they seek to challenge the constitutionality, legality and vires of Sub-section (4) of Section 23 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which has been inserted by Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1993 (Bihar Act 21/1993), as well as of provisions in the Bihar Rent Refixation Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules).2. During the hearing of these writ petitions on several dates no dispute or controversy of facts was raised before this Court. All the writ petitions have been argued on the basis of undisputed understanding that on account of fresh assessment of rent under the impugned provisions, treating the land to be under non-permissible industrial or commercial use and, therefore, amenable to revised rent on the basis of its market value, the liability of the petitioners towards rent payable to the State under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)11TTJ(Mum.)502
1. The appeals filed by both the Department and the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) for asst. yrs.1996-97 and 1997-98. Major issues involved in them are mostly common.We therefore find it convenient to dispose off all of them by a consolidated order. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 62,26,739 being guest house expenses under Section 37(4) of the IT Act. It is submitted that the expenditure of Rs. 62,26,739 includes expenditure on rent, rate, taxes, insurance and depreciation and have been claimed as a deduction under section other than Section 37 of the IT Act and therefore provisions of Section 37(4) are not applicable. It is submitted that it may be so held now.3. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of Rs. 62,26,739 being expenditure incurred on guest house. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the afor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2007]138CompCas204(Guj); [2007]79SCL47(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. This judgement shall dispose of Company Petition Nos. 9 and 10 of 2006. 2. Company Petition No. 10 of 2006 has been filed under Sections 78, 100, 391 and 393 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short) by the Company named Core Healthcare Limited, a company incorporated under the Act in the matter of a composite Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of compromise with the lenders and reconstruction, reorganisation of capital and demerger between Core Healthcare Limited and Nirma Limited and their respective shareholders. The petitioner-Company has prayed for the following reliefs:(a) The Modified Composite Scheme of Arrangement referred to in para-15 of this petition and being Annex. with this petition hereto, be sanctioned by this Hon'ble Court so as to be binding on all Equity Shareholders, Class 'A' Lenders and Class 'B' Lenders of the Petitioner Company and on the Petitioner Company;(b) That the Petitioner Company do within 30 days from the date of sealing of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(8)SC409; 2007(3)SCALE289; (2007)3SCC33
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave concerning tariff fixation by Delhi Electricity Reforms Commission ('DERC' for short). In this appeal, a short point which arises for consideration is : whether on the facts and circumstances of the case DERC was right in reducing the rate of depreciation from 6.69% to 3.75%.2. The facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows.On 23.1.92 Ministry of Power ('MOP' for short) issued a notification (which was published in Official Gazette on 31.1.92) stating that a licensee shall provide for depreciation in its Annual Statement of Accounts commencing on 1.4.92 as per straight-line method in respect of asset(s), indicated in column No. 1, at the rates indicated in the columns of Schedule VI to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 which vests the power to stipulate the principles for depreciation in the said Ministry. A note was appended to the said Notification under which it was stated that the reference to the straight-line metho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD533; 2007(2)ALT410
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. The petitioners, who purchased different portions of the building known as Amrutha Business Complex, Ameerpet have filed this petition for quashing notice dated 22-8-2006 issued by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'the 1955 Act') requiring them to demolish/remove/pull down the unauthorised construction not covered by the Sectioned plan within 24 hours of the date of receipt of the notice with the threat that if they fail to do so, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (for short, 'the Corporation') will take action and demolish/pull down such construction and also recover expenditure from them.2. The background facts:(i) Sri Y.S. Rajesh Reddy, son of Sri Y.S. Anand Reddy, Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, son of Dr. K.L. Reddy, Ms. K. Sunitha Reddy, daughter of Dr. K.L. Reddy and Sri Y.S. Anand Reddy, son of Sri Y.S. Konda Reddy purchased...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2008)LCAPTEL203
1. By this petition, under Section 121 of the Electricity Act, 2003, (for short 'the Act') the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: a. Order and direct the Appropriate Commissions to ensure that all generating companies and licensees abide by the provisions of the Act in so far as they relate to sale and purchase of electricity at regulated tariffs. b. Order and direct the Appropriate Commissions to fix the trading margins for trading licensees. c. Order and direct the Appropriate Commissions to review trading operations/ sales undertaken by generating companies and licensees within their jurisdiction and, where necessary, initiate proceedings for recovery of excess amounts charged by the generating companies and/ or licensees. d. Pass such other or further order(s) and/or direction(s) as may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has no personal interest in the present petition except as a consume...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(2)AWC1113
Amitava Lala, J.1. Petitioners made this writ petition in the form of a Public Interest Litigation (sometimes called as PIL) praying inter alia as follows:I. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus/prohibition thereby prohibiting the construction of the proposed 'Haj House' over the land of Khasra 1399 (area 4.535 acre) at village Arthala, situated at the bank ('doob kshetra') of river Hindon, near the National Highway No. 58 E in pargana Loni, tehsil and district Ghaziabad.II. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to immediately stop the construction of the proposed 'Haj House' over the land of Khasra 1399 (area 4.535 acre) at village Arthala, situated at the bank ('doob kshetra') of river Hindon, near the National Highway No. 58 E in pargana Loni, tehsil and district Ghaziabad.III. Issue any other writ, order, or direction, which this court may deem fit and proper.IV. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(1)AWC24
A.K. Yog, J.1. Re: Defacement of Private/Public Buildings vis-a-vis Student Elections:The petitioner, during pendency of the present Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation relating to 'ecology' and 'environment' of the City of Allahabad) has filed Civil Miscellaneous Supplementary Application, dated 6-3-2006 raising issue of 'public-nuisance'- as a consequence of use of 'Loud Speakers' beyond permissible 'volume' and damage/defacement of buildings/boundary walls, public-boards. Traffic-indicators, Electric Poles, Vehicles etc.- both inside/outside educational institutions during 'Union-Elections' of the students in the City. It refers to an Article published in March 2006 issue of 'PRATIYOGITA DARPAN' (Annexure S/A-2 to the the said Application) questioning relevance of existence of 'Students'- Union' in Colleges and Universities in view of the their up-to-date experience and their past 'track-record'. 2. Even before application dated 6.3.2006 was filed this Court had taken cognizan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)ILLJ140Mad
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. The short but important issue which falls for our consideration in the present appeals is whether the action to recover the dues payable under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is maintainable when the employer, who is sought to be proceeded against is an industrial company in respect of whom a proceeding is pending under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.2. The appellants in the aforesaid writ appeals are sick companies within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'the SICA').3. The facts leading to these appeals are undisputed and need to be noted in brief.Writ Appeal No. 230 of 2006:4. The admitted facts are that the appellant-company had committed defaults in remitting the amounts due to the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme to the tune of Rs. 10,96,676 during the period from September 2000, to December 2000. Therefo...
Tag this Judgment!