Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-29-2008
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Kol.)390
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 6th March, 2007 of the CIT(A)-XIV, Kolkata pertaining to asst. yr. 2003-04.In this appeal by the assessee, the following grounds are raised: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the AO passed under Section 143(3) substituting the value adopted by the stamp valuation authorities as the full value of consideration received of Rs. 3,34,42,244 as against Rs. 2,34,00,000 recorded in the record of sale. 2. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the course of assessment, appellant had challenged the value adopted by the stamp duty authorities and the AO was informed of fair market value adopted under Section 50C where the Department had a right to pre-emptive purchase in lieu of the purchaser.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal filed by the assessee, as narrated at the time of hearing and also borne out by records are that the assessee individual owned a property No. 63/2/C The Mall, Kanpur, U.P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-13-2008
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR589]; (2008)IIILLJ280Bom
R.M. Savant, J.1. These petitions take exception to the Common judgment and Order dated April 26, 2006 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon, by which Complaint (ULP) No. 104 of 2002 to 120 of 2002 were dismissed. The said complaints were filed by about 17 workers of the respondent Company working at Jalgaon. Amongst these 17 workers, 7 have filed the above petitions.2. The respondent company had three units, one at Mundhawa, Pune, one at Satara and one at Jalgaon. The petitioners were working in various capacities since the year 1987 or thereabout in the Jalgaon Plant. On account of the Jalgaon plant becoming financially not viable, the respondent company intended to close down the said plant and issued a notice of closure on February 11, 2001. The petitioners by their letter dated March 11, 2001 immediately approached the respondent company and applied for V.R.S., which had been floated by the respondent company. The applications of the petitioners were accepted by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR521; [2008(119)FLR235]; (2008)IIILLJ925Bom
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This is a writ petition by the employer challenging the order of the National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, dated August 19, 2004 rejecting their application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The petitioner-employer sought approval of its order dated June 24, 2002 whereby respondent-workman was removed from service. The workman was served with charge sheet dated April 4/May 1, 1996 for allegedly unauthorisedly opening the Short Haul Operations Department (S.H.O.D.) office with a view td disposal of the old vehicles of the office. According to the charge sheet he was apprehended in the process of removing one jeep with the help of two other persons. He had already removed six vehicles, i.e. two Maruti 800, one Ambassador car, one Matador and two jeeps. Since the dispute pertaining to conditions of service of workmen of Indian Airlines was pending before the National Tribunal, the petitioner applied under Section 33(2)(b) for removing the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-30-2008
Reported in : AIR2009AP107
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners called in question the legality and validity of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealers Rules, 2000 (for short, 'the Rules') notified by respondent No. 1 vide G.O.Ms. No. 537, Industries and Commerce (M.I) Department, dated 11.10.2000.The petitioners, most of whom are industrial units involved in the processing and pulverizing of mineral and some of them who are lessees to extract mineral such as Granite, Dolamite, White Shale, Lime Stone, steatite have mainly felt aggrieved by the definition of 'Mineral' contained in Rule 2(1)(h) of the Rules as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 330 dated 14.06.2001.THE PETITIONERS' CASE:The case of the petitioners in short is that the definition of 'Mineral', which enlarged the scope of mineral as defined in Section 3(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') is far beyond the delegated power of respondent No. 1. The petitioners averred that by e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-05-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3705
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. These two writ petitions raise similar questions, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.In view of the order, which is being passed in the writ petition no notices have been issued to respondents No. 4 and 5.Writ Petition No. 13548 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the first writ petition) has been filed praying for quashing the order dated 30th April, 2007 passed by the Additional Collector holding that application under Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 filed by respondent No. 4 is maintainable and the date was fixed for hearing the parties on merits. Against the order dated 30th April, 2007 a revision was filed by the petitioners, which has been dismissed by the order dated 29th February, 2008.In Writ Petition No. 14110 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the second w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-01-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ2553
N.K. Mody, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 29.3.2004 passed by Eleventh Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 298 of 2001. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,87,500 with interest to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which he sustained in an accident. According to the claimant, i.e., appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and, if so, to what extent?2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident had occurred, who was negligent in driving th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-20-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj865
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the negligence on the part of the Doctors, who carried out the sterilization operation-onl4.2.2001 at a camp organized and supervised by the Surgeon of Family Welfare Center, Divisional Hospital, Gangapurcity, the respondent No. 2. The Doctors informed Smt. Uganti, petitioner No.2 that the operation was successful. But after the operation, Smt. Uganti became pregnant and gave birth to a child on 31.8.2002. Since the petitioner are poor, they did not want the fourth pregnancy. It was for the purpose of preventing the pregnancy, that Smt. Uganti had undergone the Sterlisation operation on 14.2.2001.2. It is further claimed by the petitioner that due to the negligence of the Doctors, she has suffered not only physical hardship, but also mental agony. She is also saddled with the responsibility of the fourth child. Therefore, she claims a compensation of Rs. 13,65,000/-from the respondents.3. Mr. Chetan Bairwa, the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-20-2008
Reported in : 2008(38)PTC69(Del)
ORDER11.08.2006After some arguments learned Counsel appearing for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to approach the learned single judge. Permission is granted. The application stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.Records of the learned single judge shall be returned forthwith. The same shall be made available as and when the appeal is taken up for hearing. Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JHima Kohli, J.August, 11, 2006.12. The defendant thereafter moved the present application, IA No. 13850/2006. The Division Bench made the following order, on 31-1-2008, (on an application of the plaintiff, for modification of its previous order, permitting the defendant to approach this Court):31.01.2008Present : Mr. Abhay Nath, Proxy Counsel for the appellantMr. Shailen Bhatia with Ms. Amita Kapur for the Respondent.FAO (OS) No. 232/1999.Counsel appearing for the parties state that the application, which is filed by the respondent seeking for a directi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-11-2008
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT129
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The above four petitions give rise to a common question about the jurisdiction of Civil Court and are being disposed of jointly by this common order. The learned ADJ where the petitioners filed suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act observed in his order dated 16.10.2006 that in view of the provision of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and returned the plaint. The petitioners aggrieved by the order have preferred these Civil Revisions under Section 115 CPC.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these petitions are that the petitioners are member of Defendant Society (respondent No. 3 herein). This Society purchased 44 acres of land in Village Neb Sarai, Mehrauli from various landholders viz. respondents No. 4-7. The society developed this land into a housing and cultural center. Residential plots were demarcated, boundary walls were erected, roads, sewerages, culverts...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Jul-17-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)JKJ354
Nirmal Singh, J.1. Petitioner who came to be enrolled in the Army on 4th of October, 1978, was discharged from service on 21st of August, 1981, on compassionate grounds at the request made by the petitioner. Thereafter, he was re-enrolled in the Defence Security Corps on 31st of May'82, and served upto 1987, when he suffered from intense pain in the head and applied for medical leave which was granted to him. Before the petitioner could recover and join back his duties, he received a communication dated 25th of May'88, from the respondents that the petitioner has been discharged from service on medical grounds. Petitioner thereafter applied to respondents for grant of disability pension, which was rejected. He filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 2012/01, which was disposed of vide judgment dt. 27th of March02.2. The case of the petitioner is that after the writ petition aforementioned was allowed by this Court, the respondents implemented the judgment and released service as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!