Court : Delhi
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On: 23.09.2011 % Judgment Pronounced On: 16.12.2011 + ITA 728 OF 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...APPELLANT Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate VERSUS MARUTI UDYOG LTD. ...RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Advs. + ITA 729 OF 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...APPELLANT Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate VERSUS MARUTI UDYOG LTD. ...RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Advs. CORAM :- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE: These cases pertain to assessment year 2002-03. While carrying out the assessment, it had come to the knowledge of the Department that the assessee company had introduced voluntary retirement scheme during the ITA Nos.728. and 729 of 2011 Page 1 of 18 year, in pursuance to which, as per the details filed, the assessee had paid a sum of ` 73.60 crore to the employees which had been amortized under Section 35 DDA o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
BY HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):- 1. Whether the official respondents herein, proven refrain on whose part in complying with the rule-mandated time-bound cadre review has led to the impasse evident from the stance adopted by the parties, can validly resist the plea raised by the applicant for the retrospective enforceability of the cadre review undertake in the year 2010 and announced vide Annexure A 15, is the moot point for adjudication in this Original Application. 2. In order to resolve the interpretational dilemma, it would be appropriate, nay essential, to notice the factual scenario (documented though) in the first instance. The following facts surface from a conjunctive perusal of the pleadings raised by the parties. 3. Rule 4 of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1955, on its own, and also as interpreted by the Apex Court in T.N. Administrative Service Officers Association and Another Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2000(3) SCT 424) states that the Central Government has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
K.Kannan, J. I Khokra Kot - a declared “protected area” 1. The writ petition is at the instance of a Society formed by the residents of Khokra Kot challenging the notices issued by the Archaeological Survey of India, arrayed as the 2nd respondent, calling upon the addressees to remove the constructions put up on the property under Section 19 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter called, 'the 1958 Act'). It is an admitted case that the site of “ancient city” at Khokra Kot, Rohtak district has been declared as protected monument under Section 3(i) of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 (hereinafter called, 'the 1904 Act'). This notification has been confirmed in the Punjab Gazette dated 17.12.1904, by a notification issued in exercise of powers of the Central Government under Section 20(1) of the 1904 Act. The following area was declared as “protected area”:- “The site known as Khokhra kot i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. Heard Mr. B.P.Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jayavardhan Kandpal, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. K. C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.12.1996 whereby the State Government in exercise of power under Rule 78 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), as presently applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, has cancelled the mining lease of the petitioners. 3. Brief facts of the case are that vide orders dated 27.6.1994, 2.6.1994 and 29.6.1994 the petitioners were granted mining lease for extracting/picking minor minerals. These lease deeds were executed consequent to an order passed by appropriate authorities. One of the orders which have been referred to (though not annexed by the petitioners) is the order dated 8.6.1994. Subsequent to the lease deeds executed, the District Magistrate moved a report before the State Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT10; AIR2012SCW207; AIR2012SC364; 2012CriLJ1001
1. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions filed by Shri Sumedh Singh Saini. 2. These appeals have been preferred against the orders dated 30.5.2007, 22.8.2007, 5.10.2007 and 4.7.2008 in Crl. Misc. No. 152- MA of 2007; order dated 19.9.2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 86286 of 2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 152-MA of 2007; and orders dated 2.11.2007 and 6.11.2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 93535 of 2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 152-MA of 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. For the sake of convenience of disposal of the appeals, we would refer only to the criminal appeals filed by the State. 3. The Appeals herein raise peculiar substantial questions of law as to whether the High Court can pass an order on an application entertained after final disposal of the criminal appeal or even suo motu particularly, in view of the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) and as to whether in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. Though all the appeals are filed assailing the order sated 1-3-2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.14293 and 14294 of 1996 (S), the appeals in W.A.Nos.1004 and 1497 of 2001 are filed by the petitioners in the writ petition, who would hereinafter be referred to as ‘Employees’ for the purpose of convenience and clarity. The appeals in W.A.Nos.5783 and 5784 of 2001 are filed by the second respondent in the writ petition, who would hereinafter be referred to as ‘Employer’. 2. In a petition where the ‘Employees’ had prayed for parity in pay scales, the learned Single Judge though granted the relief, the same is with effect from 1-4-1996. The ‘Employees’ are in appeal praying that the same be granted from the year 1985. On the other hand the ‘Employer’ is assailing the order of the learned Single Judge in its entirety as according to them the ‘Employees’ are not entitled to the relief in the present fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
JUDGMENT: 1. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 27-2-2002 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Complaint (ULP) No.51 of 2001, declaring the action of closure of the Regional Accounts Office, Nagpur, and retrenchment of the employees with effect from 5-1-2001, taken by the petitioner-Company to be illegal and amounting to an unfair labour practice covered under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, "the MRTU & PULP Act") and further directing withdrawal of the same and restoring the position prevailing prior to 5-1-2001. 2. The facts leading to this case are as under : Brooke Bond (India) Private Ltd. was a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and it started the business of purchase of tea at the Indian auctions, processing, blending and packing the same in suitable packages in the year 1912. The Head Office of the said Company was at Calcutta and its first factory...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This dispute between the State of Himachal Pradesh (Plaintiff), on the one hand, and the Union of India (defendant No.1), State of Punjab (defendant No.2), State of Haryana (defendant No.3), State of Rajasthan (defendant No.4) and Union Territory of Chandigarh (defendant No.5), on the other hand, under Article 131 of the Constitution of India relates to the power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects. The Case of the Plaintiff (State of Himachal Pradesh) in the plaint 2. The Bhakra dam across the river Satluj was proposed in the year 1944 in the Bilaspur State. The construction of Bhakra dam was to result in submergence of a large territory of the Bilaspur State but would benefit the Province of Punjab. Hence, the Raja of Bilaspur agreed to the proposal for construction of the Bhakra dam only on certain terms and conditions detailed in a draft agreement which was to be executed on behalf of the Raja of Bilaspur and the Province of Punjab. These terms and conditions includ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. This writ petition is entertained as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as per the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 30/10/2007. Briefly stated, the grievance is about an activity in the shape of an educational institute and a students hostel in residential area. It is alleged that the construction is raised without legal sanction from the competent authority. Respondent No. 5 before this Court is that institute while Respondent No. 4 is the Gram Panchayat which claims to have sanctioned the same under Section 52 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act,1958, (hereinafter referred to as "the 1958 Act" for short). Respondent no. 6 is the Zilla Parishad which can control/suspend actions/resolutions passed by Gram Panchayat in this respect. At one time it was the stand of authorities that Standardized building bye laws for B and C class municipal councils prescribed under Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats And Industrial Townships Act (40 of 1965) needed to be followed (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants, Bihar State Electricity Board and its Chairman were the defendants in a suit filed by respondents 1 to 8, the plaintiffs. The respondents were the workmen of the Board and at the material time, i.e., in the year 1974 they were working as security guards at Patratu Thermal Power Station, Hazaribagh. They were proceeded against on certain charges of misconduct. In the domestic enquiry the charges were established and on the basis of the findings of the domestic enquiry, they were dismissed from service on November 11, 1975. After 4 years of dismissal from service they filed a suit (T.S. No. 95/1979) in the court of Munsiff V, Patna, seeking declarations that their dismissal was bad, unconstitutional and inoperative in law and they would be legally deemed to have continued in service. 3. The trial court allowed the suit by judgment and decree dated August 29, 1981. The appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the tri...
Tag this Judgment!