Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2003Kant357; I(2004)DMC118; ILR2003KAR1852; 2003(3)KarLJ247
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is by the husband who had preferred M.C. No. 126 of 1996 before the Court of II Additional Civil Judge at Mysore praying for a decree of divorce in his favour as against the respondent-wife and for dissolution of their marriage which had been solemnised on 26-5-1991 on the ground of cruelty on the part of the wife and also on the ground that the respondent-wife is a person suffering from schizophrenia and the mental disorder which she suffers intermittently was of such kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to live with the respondent. 2. The Trial Court which looked into the petition having not agreed with the petitioner and having declined to grant the relief, the husband is in appeal before us. 3. Brief facts leading to the petition and the appeal are that the parties who follow Hindu customs and rituals became husband and wife as per the marriage performed in acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1996)131CTR(Raj)328; [1997]225ITR178(Raj); 1996WLC(Raj)UC196; 1996(1)WLN23
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, by its order dated September 23, 1991, for the assessment year1986-87, referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing that investment allowance may be allowed on X-ray machines, ultrasound scanner, foetal monitor and air-conditioning equipment as provided under Section 32A(2)(b)(ii) read with Section 32A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, these machines and equipments can legally be called machinery or plant installed in a small-scale industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing as provided in Section 32A(2)(b)(ii) read with Section 32A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' 2. The assessee, Trinity Hospital, Jodhpur, is a registered firm and is runni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2005(185)ELT114(Mad); (2005)2MLJ158
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This is a reference application on behalf of the revenue under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by which the following questions have been sought to be referred to us for our opinion.'1. Is the Hon'ble Tribunal right in holding that the payment of duty vide PLA No. 580 dated 27.10.92 has not been paid voluntarily?2. Can the letter OC. No. 1124/97 dated 02.09.92 of the Superintendent of Central Excise asking the assesses to reverse an amount of Rs.5,98,000/- being irregular Modvat credit availed, and other correspondences in continuation, be considered to have raised a dispute since it is not a SCN issued under Section 11A? Can the Action of the assessee debiting the said amount vide PLA No. 580 dated 27.10.92 be considered payment under protest since no letter filed on that date giving any grounds for payment under protest and subsequently also filed no representation for payment made under protest as per sub-rule 5 of Rule 233B?3.Can the let...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1925Mad1216
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The question raised in this matter relates to the institution fees payable in respect of a suit of a value less than Rs. 1,000, which has been transferred to this Court in order that it may be tried with another suit in this Court involving the same question. There car be little doubt that suits below Rs. 1,000, in value do not come within Sections 39 and 10 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. The transfer to the High Court will be under powers vested in it under Section 13 of the Letters Patent and the jurisdiction of the High Court to try such a suit would be Extraordinary Original Jurisdiction conferred by the Letters Patent. Srinivasa Aiyar v. Balakrishna Devai : (1912)22MLJ187 for this position. If the suit was over Rs. 1,000 in value, Sectionld have applied and the fees payable would be the ordinary fees leviable on the Original Side; but, as the suit s below Rs. 1,000 in value, Sections 39 and 40 do not apply. So far as the fees on the Original Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~9 & 10 * + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 658/2016 & CM No.2743/2016, 848/2018, 849/2018 & 850/2018 BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Ashok Chhabra and Mr Nikhil Karwal, Advocates. versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Respondent no.2 in person. AND W.P.(C) 707/2016 & CM No.2985/2016 BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Ashok Chhabra and Mr Nikhil Karwal, Advocates. versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER0602.2018 The petitioner has filed the present petitions, VIBHU BAKHRU, J inter alia, 1. impugning the common orders dated 01.07.2015 & 10.09.2015 (hereafter the impugned orders) passed by the Central Information W.P.(C) 658/2016 & W.P.(C) 707/2016 Page 1 of 10 Commission (hereafter the CIC) holding the petitioner to be a public authority within the meaning of Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3132 OF2018D. SWAMY Appellant Versus KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND ORS. Respondents JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.This appeal, under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, is against a final order dated 10th May 2017 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai, dismissing the Application No.169 of 2016 (SZ) filed by the Appellant under Section 18(1) read with Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, whereby the Appellant had prayed for a direction for closure of the Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility run by the Respondent No.3, on the ground of alleged non-compliance of the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006, hereinafter referred to as the 2006 EIA2Notification as amended on 17th April 2015.2. In the meanwhile, by a notification being S.O. 327 (E) dated 10th April 2001, published in the Gazette of India...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co. - 139 U.S. 1 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 139 U.S. 1 (1891) St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company No. 54 Argued November 5-6, 1890 Decided March 2, 1891 139 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus The grant of public land to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company in the Act of July 2, 1564, 13 Stat. c. 217, p. 360, was a grant in praesenti, in the nature of a float until the route should be determined, and, after that, attaching to specific sections, capable of identification, except as to sections which were specifically reserved. The force of such grant was in no respect impaired or its construction affected by the provision in section four of that act that patents for the land should be issued as sections of twenty-five miles of the road should be completed; but the company was not at libe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Southern Pacific R. Co. Bell - 183 U.S. 675 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Southern Pacific R. Co. Bell, 183 U.S. 675 (1902) Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. Bell No. 20 Argued and submitted December 5-6, 1901 Decided January 13, 1902 183 U.S. 675 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company took no title to lands within the indemnity limits of its grant until the deficiency in the place limits had been ascertained, and the company had exercised its right of selection. The Secretary of the Interior had no authority, upon the filing of a plat in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, to withdraw lands lying within the indemnity limits of the grant from sale or preemption, and a patent issued to a settler under the land laws, prior to the selection made by the railroad company, of the land in dispute as lieu lands was held to be valid notwithstanding the lands lay within the forty-mile strip order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : AIR2007Sik39
ORDERA.P. Subba, J.1. Since all the above Miscellaneous Applications arise out of similar facts and raise identical questions of law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. All the above applications have been filed by one Shri R. K. Goyel, resident of Jorthang, South Sikkim and two (2) others Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 510 days in filing appeals under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decrees dated 15-12-2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Special Division-II at Gangtok in Civil Suit. Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of 2002.3. It is not necessary to narrate facts of the case in detail for the purpose of disposing of the present applications. Suffice it to say that the Civil Suits Nos. 1 of 1992, 2 of 1992, 3 of 1992, 4 of 1992, 5 of 1992 and 6 of 1992 filed by each of the respondents separately in the Court of the Ld. Civil Judge, (E) at Gangtok, for declarat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1981Guj142; (1981)0GLR389
1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil P. C. involves a short question of law as to whether documents Exs. 38 and 40 relied upon by the present appellants -original defendants - amount to acknowledgment of subsisting mortgagee rights on the part of the respondent and his father within the meaning of Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, .1908). If these documents are held to amount to valid acknowledgement within the meaning of aforesaid section of the Limitation Act, the appellants are entitled to succeed but not otherwise.2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid controversy between the parties, it is necessary to have a glance at certain material facts as are brought out in the case.3. In Dohad town in Panchamahals District is situated an immovable property bearing city survey No. 2810 which was originally an open piece of land over which a hut was constructed later on. The said property was belonging to one Marabkhan Sin...
Tag this Judgment!