Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28-3-2002 for assessment year 1998-99. Shri O.P. Sapra, advocate appeared for the assessee whereas Dr. Balwan, DR represented the revenue.2. First ground of appeal challenges the sustenance of addition of Rs. 4,37,636 made by the assessing officer in the hands of the assessee under the head "Business income". Facts concerning this issue are as follows. The assessee took on lease an orchard for collection of fruits. The orchard was situated at the residential complex of Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy, the organization of Government of India. The terms of lease were corroborated in the agreement dated 22-5-1995, which was executed on behalf of the President of India by the Director of the Academy in favour of Shri Ramesh Batta, the assessee. The contract was for three years i.e., 1996-97 and 1997-98 and was concluded on 31-12-1997. In terms of this lease the 2nd party i.e.,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Original Civil Jurisdiction Writ Petition (C) No.118 of 2016 Shayara Bano Union of India and others Petitioner Respondents versus with Suo Motu Writ (C) No.2 of 2015 In Re: Muslim Womens Quest For Equality Jamiat Ulma-I-Hind versus Writ Petition(C) No.288 of 2016 Aafreen Rehman Union of India and others versus Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition(C) No.327 of 2016 Gulshan Parveen Union of India and others versus Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition(C) No.665 of 2016 Ishrat Jahan Union of India and others versus Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition(C) No.43 of 2017 Atiya Sabri Union of India and others versus Petitioner Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI. 2 Sl. No.1. Divisions Part-1 2. Part-2 3.4.5. Part-3 Part-4 Part-5 6.7. 8.9. A. B. C. Part-6 Part-7 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. Part-8 Part-9 Consideration of the rival contentions, and our Index Contents The petitioners marital discord, and the petitioners prayers The prac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hanna Mining Co. v. Marine Engineers - 382 U.S. 181 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court Hanna Mining Co. v. Marine Engineers, 382 U.S. 181 (1965) Hanna Mining Co. v. District 2, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO No. 7 Argued October 12, 1965 Decided December 6, 1965 382 U.S. 181 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Syllabus Petitioners (Hanna) operate cargo vessels on the Great Lakes in interstate and foreign commerce. While negotiating for a new collective bargaining agreement with respondent Association (MEBA), which represented the licensed marine engineers on the ships, petitioners assertedly were informed by a majority of the engineers that they did not wish to be represented by MEBA. Hanna declined to negotiate until MEBA's majority status was determined by secret ballot, and MEBA replied by picketing Hanna's ships at Duluth and other ports, causing dock workers to refuse to unload. Hanna turned to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB): (1) it petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(4)BomCR168; (2001)4BOMLR917; [2001(90)FLR91]; (2002)IVLLJ1018Bom; 2001(3)MhLj711
ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioner workman is aggrieved by the Order dated 9.8.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer of the 2nd Labour Court. Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 715 of 1999 in an Interlocutory, Application, which was marked as Exh. U-2. The main reference is still pending. ,2. The facts are in a very narrow compass. The Petitioner was in employment of the Respondent Company as a clerk and his employment was discontinued by an order of termination dated 8.3.1995. He challenged the propriety and legality of the said order by raising an Industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government for adjudication. The Labour Court on receipt of the order of reference issued notices to the respective parties. In response to the aforesaid notice the Petitioner appears to have filed his statement of claim on 18.2.2000 justifying his demand for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service on certain grounds with which we are not presently concerned. However, in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(2)AWC1140; [2002(95)FLR1063]; (2002)2UPLBEC1052
Anjani Kumar, J.1. State Government by its order dated 31st March. 1994, referred the following dispute to Labour Court, Rampur :^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius JfedJh lqHkk'k flag iq= Jh rkjhQ pUnz dh lsok,a fnukad 1-10-1991 ls lekIr fd;ktkuk mfpr@oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/krJfed fdl fgrykHk@vuqrks'k ikus dkvf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.kksa lfgr 2. Both the employer and workman concerned exchanged their pleadings. In its pleading, the employer has taken a case that since the workman concerned has not completed 240 days in previous calendar year, therefore, while terminating his services, it was not necessary for the employer to comply with the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. which admittedly was not complied with. The labour court considered the aforesaid case and the evidence on behalf of the parties and arrived at a conclusion that the respondent workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and since it is admitted that the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(3)AWC1995; [2004(101)FLR1005]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 27.10.1998, passed by the labour court in Adjudication Case No. 39 of 1990. After transfer from Rampur, this case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 132 of 1994 at Bareilly.3. Out of 13 employees whose case was espoused by the Hydroelectric Employees Union, Lucknow, the case of Sajid Husain son of Ram Singh was not pressed by the Union before the labour court on the ground that they had continuously not worked for 240 days. The dispute thus remained in respect of only ten employees.4. The case of the respondents-workmen before the labour court was that they were employed on 1.1.1976, as daily rated coolie and continuously worked upto 1.2.1979. It is submitted by the counsel that the services of these workmen were terminated on 1.2.1979 without payment of retrenchment compensation, in violation of provisions of Sections 6N and 6Q of the U. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC902; [1960(1)FLR104]; (1960)IILLJ243SC; [1960]3SCR451
Das Gupta, J.1. On August 9, 1955, the Union of the workmen of the Chandramalai Estate submitted to the Manager of the Estate a memorandum containing fifteen demands. Though the management agreed to fulfil some of the demands the principal demands remained unsatisfied. On August 29, 1955, the Labour Officer, Trichur, who had in the meantime been apprised of the position by both the management of the Estate as well as the Labour Union advised mutual negotiations between the representatives of the management and workers. Ultimately the matter was recommended by the Labour Officer to the Conciliation Officer, Trichur, for conciliation. The Conciliation Officer's efforts proved in vain. The last meeting for Conciliation appears to have been held on November 30, 1955. On the following day the Union gave a strike notice and the workmen went on a strike with effect from December 9, 1955. The strike ended on January 5, 1956. Prior to this, on January 5, the Government had referred the dispute ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)ShimLC381
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner raised a dispute relating to his retrenchment which was ultimately referred by the State Government to the Labour Court to determine as to 'whether the termination of Shri Parkash Chand by the Resident Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Shanan Power House, Jogindernagar, District Mandi (H.P.) with effect from 22.9.1978 without any notice or compliance of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without enquiry is legal and justified, if not, to what relief and service benefits Shri Parkash Chand is entitled to?'2. The case set up by the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he was engaged on March, 1973 as T-Mate and thereafter he discharged the duty of carpenter with effect from 1.10.1977 to 22.9.1978. He had further averred that since he had completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment from 23.9.1978. He was entitled to protection under Section 25-F o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Aggrieved by the order in W.C. No.116 of 2004 dated 05-03-2005 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour – III, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned commissioner allowing the W.C. in part awarded a compensation of Rs.2,56,999/- to respondent Nos.1 and 2 – applicants under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, as against their claim of Rs.4,00,000/-, the appellant – the New India Assurance Company Limited preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Appellant herein is insurer of the tractor bearing No.AP24 – V – 1760 belonging to respondent No.3 herein and they are Opposite Parties – II and I respectively before the learned Commissioner, and respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the applicants, are parents of the deceased workman Banoth Amarsingh @ Ganesh, who died in the accident. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed before the learned Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1050 OF 201.05-10-2012 The New India Assurance Company Limited,rep. by its Branch Manager, Habsiguda Branch,Hyderabad Banoth Gopal & 2 others Counsel for the appellant: Sri T. Ramulu(1053) Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri C. Vikram Chandra (5380) Counsel for respondent No.3: - HEAD NOTE: ?CASES REFERRED: C/15 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order in W.C. No.116 of 2004 dated 05-03-2005 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour - III, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned commissioner allowing the W.C. in part awarded a compensation of Rs.2,56,999/- to respondent Nos.1 and 2 - applicants under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as against their claim of Rs.4,00,000/-, the appellant - the New India Assurance Company Limited preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. Appellant herein is insurer of the tractor bearing not AP24 - V - 1760 be...
Tag this Judgment!