Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: tezpur university act 1993 section 11 the chancellor Page 8 of about 2,249 results (0.213 seconds)

Cory Vs. White

Court : US Supreme Court

..... according to the court, it is the lawful function of the state officials to litigate hughes' domicile. there is accordingly no colorable claim that they are acting in excess of their authority under state law; no constitutional violation is alleged; and edelman v. jordan is read narrowly to retain the eleventh amendment bar ..... our 1978 decision in california v. texas, supra, four justice of this court suggested that the administrator of the hughes estate might invoke the federal interpleader act to protect the estate from taxation based on inconsistent claim of domicile. contradicting the clear message conveyed by our decision in that case, the court today ..... estate on the basis of inconsistent claims. the district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because of the failure to satisfy the act's requirement that there be diversity of citizenship between at least two adverse parties. the court of appeals reversed, holding that the requisite diversity was present .....

Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Dhirajben R. Amin

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (1982)31CTR(Guj)255; [1983]141ITR875(Guj)

..... high court in cit v. associated cement co. ltd. : [1968]68itr478(bom) was concerned with the claim of deduction under s. 15b of the indian i.t. act, 1922. in that case the university of bombay through its department of chemical technology wrote on december 26, 1962 to the chairman of the board of directors of the assessee-company a letter saying ..... 6,600 and hence for the extra cost of rs. 1,600, being the cost of the pilot kiln, manufactured for the university department. they claimed a rebate for this expenditure under s. 15b of the indian i.t. act, 1922. the ito held that it was not admissible but the aac, in appeal, set aside the said order, holding that the ..... high court, the expression whereby a sum of rs. 6,600 was paid by the assessee company as donation to the university, it was held that the assessee was entitled to the concession under s. 15b of the indian i.t. act, 1922. this decision is not an authority for the proposition that the expression 'any sums paid' would also take .....

Saurashtra Education Foundation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (2004)190CTR(Guj)295; [2005]273ITR139(Guj)

..... clauses shall not beincluded - (1) ... ... ... .... .... ... ... (22) any income of a university or othereducational institution, existing solely foreducational purposes and not for purposes ofprofit. this clause was omitted by finance (no.2) act,1998 w.e.f. 1.4.1999 and the following relevantsub-clauses were added as parts of clause ( ..... in various disciplines related to thecooperative movement.16. similar view was taken by this court incommissioner of income-tax vs . sorabji nusserwanjiparekh, : [1993]201itr939(guj) where the assessee was a trustwhich was primarily founded to establish a school orcollege for imparting instructions to zoroastrianstudents but it was not ..... sole trustee, loka shikshana trust vs . cit : [1975]101itr234(sc) which has also been subsequentlyapplied by this court in cit vs . sorabji nusserwanjiparekh, : [1993]201itr939(guj) and by the patna high court inbihar institute of mining and mine surveying vs . cit, : [1994]208itr608(patna) .6. before considering the rival .....

United States Vs. O'Hagan

Court : US Supreme Court

..... for a client and instead purchases such stock-using client funds-for his own account. the unauthorized (and presumably undisclosed) transaction is the very act that constitutes the embezzlement and the "securities transaction and the breach of duty thus coincide." what presumably distinguishes monetary embezzlement for the government is ..... vulnerable for failure to recite as a regulatory preamble: we hereby exercise our authority to "define, and prescribe means reasonably designed to prevent, ... [fraudulent] acts." sensibly read, the rule is an exercise of the commission's full authority. logically and practically, such a rule may be conceived and defended, alternatively ..... or sale of any security," not deception of an identifiable purchaser or seller. the theory is also well tuned to an animating purpose of the exchange act: to insure honest securities markets and thereby promote investor confidence. see 45 fed. reg. 60412 (1980) (trading on misappropriated information "undermines the .....

Board of Education Vs. Allen

Court : US Supreme Court

..... disclosed what was happening in one catholic school: [ footnote 3/13 ] "on february 24, 1954, rev. cyril f. meyer, c. m., then vice-president of the university, sent the following letter to all the faculty, both catholics and non-catholics, even those teaching law, science, and mathematics: " "dear faculty member: " "as a result ..... parochial school's principal or its individual instructors, who are, in the case of roman catholic schools, normally priests or nuns. the next step under the act is an "individual request" for an eligible textbook ( 701, subd. 3), but the state education department has ruled that a pupil may make his request ..... purchased all their children's textbooks. and see statement of then commissioner of education keppel: "nonpublic schools rarely provide free textbooks." hearings on elementary and secondary education act of 1965 before general subcommittee on education of house committee on education and labor, 89th cong., 1st sess., pt. 1, 93 (1965). [ footnote 7 ] .....

Tilton Vs. Richardson

Court : US Supreme Court

..... , vacated and remanded. the chief justice, joined by mr. justice harlan, mr. justice stewart, and mr. justice blackmun, concluded that: 1. the act includes colleges and universities with religious affiliations. pp. 403 u. s. 676 -677. 2. congress' objective of providing more opportunity for college education is a legitimate secular goal ..... taxpayers of the united states and residents of connecticut. they brought this suit for injunctive relief against the officials who administer the act. four church-related colleges and universities in connecticut receiving federal construction grants under title i were also named as defendants. federal funds were used for five projects at ..... the performance of their secular educational functions. the district court ruled that title i authorized grants to church-related colleges and universities. it also sustained the constitutionality of the act, finding that it had neither the purpose nor the effect of promoting religion. 312 f.supp. 1191. we noted probable .....

Chairman, Sarv Hitkar Educational Society and Another Vs. Tarun Kumar

Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh

..... these judgments are not applicable. this is a case of refund of fee and it has been specifically mentioned by the honble supreme court in maharshi dayanand university v. surjeet kaur?, 2010(2) cpc 696 s.c., relying upon all earlier judgments held that education is not a commodity. educational institutions are not ..... the opposite parties, who filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not entitled to get any refund as per the policy of the university as well as guidelines of all india council of technical education (in short aicte), the complainant joined and attended the classes for the ist semester, ..... service. such matters cannot be entertained by the consumer forum under the consumer protection act, 1986. further honble supreme court in bihar school examination board versus suresh prasad sinha?, 2010 (1) clt 255 (sc) observed that the education boards and universities are not service provider and the complaints against them are not maintainable. the .....

Chairman, Sarv Hitkar Educational Society and Another Vs. Sahil Bhagat

Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh

..... these judgments are not applicable. this is a case of refund of fee and it has been specifically mentioned by the honble supreme court in maharshi dayanand university v. surjeet kaur?, 2010(2) cpc 696 s.c., relying upon all earlier judgments held that education is not a commodity. educational institutions are not ..... the opposite parties, who filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not entitled to get any refund as per the policy of the university as well as guidelines of all india council of technical education (in short aicte), the complainant joined and attended the classes for the ist semester, ..... service. such matters cannot be entertained by the consumer forum under the consumer protection act, 1986. further honble supreme court in bihar school examination board versus suresh prasad sinha?, 2010 (1) clt 255 (sc) observed that the education boards and universities are not service provider and the complaints against them are not maintainable. the .....

Chairman, Sarv Hitkar Educational Society and Another Vs. Saurabh Kuma ...

Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh

..... these judgments are not applicable. this is a case of refund of fee and it has been specifically mentioned by the honble supreme court in maharshi dayanand university v. surjeet kaur?, 2010(2) cpc 696 s.c., relying upon all earlier judgments held that education is not a commodity. educational institutions are not ..... the opposite parties, who filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not entitled to get any refund as per the policy of the university as well as guidelines of all india council of technical education (in short aicte), the complainant joined and attended the classes for the ist semester, ..... service. such matters cannot be entertained by the consumer forum under the consumer protection act, 1986. further honble supreme court in bihar school examination board versus suresh prasad sinha?, 2010 (1) clt 255 (sc) observed that the education boards and universities are not service provider and the complaints against them are not maintainable. the .....

Chairman, Sarv Hitkar Educational Society and Another Vs. Didar Singh

Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh

..... these judgments are not applicable. this is a case of refund of fee and it has been specifically mentioned by the honble supreme court in maharshi dayanand university v. surjeet kaur?, 2010(2) cpc 696 s.c., relying upon all earlier judgments held that education is not a commodity. educational institutions are not ..... the opposite parties, who filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not entitled to get any refund as per the policy of the university as well as guidelines of all india council of technical education (in short aicte), the complainant joined and attended the classes for the ist semester, ..... service. such matters cannot be entertained by the consumer forum under the consumer protection act, 1986. further honble supreme court in bihar school examination board versus suresh prasad sinha?, 2010 (1) clt 255 (sc) observed that the education boards and universities are not service provider and the complaints against them are not maintainable. the .....