Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1992)1GLR597
S.D. Dave, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise, at the request and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, all these five petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The central question which is required to be considered and determined is whether lignite is coal covered by entry No. 1, Schedule II, Part A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and is it the declared goods of special importance under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. If yes, whether the restrictions imposed under the provisions of section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, would be attracted or not 3. Special Civil Application No. 2927 of 1991 is filed by M/s. Sagar Tiles Company, Morbi, while Special Civil Application No. 1861 of 1987 is filed by Morbi Roofing Tiles ., Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. and Tata Chemicals Limited, respectively. In substance the petitioners pray for declaration that the rate of tax on sales of lignite stan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1994Mad123; (1993)IIMLJ617
ORDERThangamani, J. 1. The appellant isthe first defendant in the suit. He was aged about 79 when the suit came to be instituted. He is a public man and a leading personality in Villapuram Town. He was M.L.A. for three terms. He was Municipal Councillor continuously for half a century from 1926 to 1976. He was also chairman of Villapuram Municipality on three occasions. He was a Director of the Co-operative Sugar Factory, Mundiyambakkam. Besides, he was the Chairman of Local Building Society. His first wife Alagi died in 1930. Then he married one Thaiyanayagi as his second wife. She also passed away in 1957. Plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 are his sons and 8th defendant is his daughter through Thamyanayagi. The present first respondent/plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 63 of 1982 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge of Villapuram' claiming partition and separate possession of his 1/8 share in the plaint schedule mentioned items and for his share of the income from the said properties f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2009]149CompCas129(Bom); [2008]82SCL303(Bom)
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. A founder father, late Dhirubhai Ambani set up the Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) some time in the year 1973, who ventured along with the time, into oil, gas, refining and exploration apart from other textile, yarn, polyester, petrochemicals and communication business and later stages of life, with two sons-Mr.Mukesh and Mr. Anil Ambani. All are aware of these facts and figures specially the shareholders of the respective companies at all material times.2. Some time in the year 1999, the Government announced a New Exploration and Licensing Policy, 1999 (NELP) This policy, for the first time, provided that various petroleum blocks could be awarded for exploration, development and production of petroleum and gas to private entities.3. By virtue of Article 297 of the Constitution of India, the Petroleum in its natural state in the territory waters and the continental shelf of India is vested in the Union of India (The Government). The Oil Fields (Regulation and Dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(3)ALT99
V. Sivaraman Nair, J.1. This batch of 24 writ petitions - six of them-W.P.Nos. 8817,9221,9231,9824, 9825 and 10058 of 1992 filed by Associations of Students, six - W.P. Nos. 9661, 9731, 9843, 9852, 9946 and 10264 of 1992 filed by individual students, six W.P.Nos. 8592, 8698,9187,9809,9972 and 10687 of 1992 filed by aspirants for permission and the rest by individuals or Organisations interested in the cause of education, raise questions of concern about what the petitioners call crass commercialisation of professional education. Counsel for some of the respondents prefer the phrase 'privatisation of higher education'. They claim this to be the natural corrolary of liberalisation of Indian economy from the shackles of excessive control by the State, which is constrained by acute lack of resources for further development of institutions of technical and professional education. We heard the matter at length and are now delivering two judgments in two parts comprehending all the complex qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(All)274; [2006]281ITR70(All)
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-partnership Firm for quashing the warrant of authorization dated 20.03.1999 (Annex.6) issued under the provisions of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and further for directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 3,06,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Six Lakh Only) to the petitioner-firm.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case as given by the petitioner are that the petitioner-Firm has 12 partners and the Deed of Partnership had been executed on 27.02.1999. The same stood registered with the Registrar of Firms, Allahabad on 6th March, 1999. The petitioner-Firm deposited CDRs/Banker Cheques worth Rs. 3,06,00,000/- with the District Excise Officer, Rewa on 10th March, 1999 as security to enable the Firm to participate in the auction for allotment of privilege of selling country-made liquor in certain parts of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The said CDRs/Banker Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3798
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. By these writ petitions the similar issues have been raised, hence, they are being disposed by this Common order. First two writ petitions were heard on 11.3.2008 and other three writ petitions were heard on 15.4.2008.2. Sri Arun Srivastava has appeared for the petitioners in ail the writ petitions. Sri V.K. Singh appeared for Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel appeared for the State respondents.3. In writ petition No. 61871 of 2007 prayer has been made to quash the order dated 6.1.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Officer directing the expunction of the name of petitioners from class III (Aasami lease holder) and their ejectment. The petitioner filed revision against the said order which was dismissed by the revisional court vide its order dated 17.10.2007.4. In writ petition No. 9232 of 2008 prayer has been made to quash the order dated 6.6.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Officer directing the expunction of name of petitioners as Aasami lease holder and their eject...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1990P& H259; (1990)98PLR666
ORDERA.P. Chowdhri, J.1. The principal question which will largely decide the fate of these writ petitions is -- as to the nature and degree of quid pro quo (one thing in return for another) between the fee realised and the cost of services rendered. In other words, whether quite a substantial portion of the amount of fee must be shown to be actually, distinctly and primarily spent for the benefit of the prayer or whether a broad and general correlationship between the fee and the services satisfied the crucial test.2. The question stated above is common to a number of writ petition. For the sake of convenience, nine writ petitions Nos. 3923, 3924, 3925, 3926, 5542, 5543, 5544, 3760 of 1986 and 6328 of 1987, challenging the vires of market fee levied under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are dealt with in Part I. Part II deals with CWP No. 2551 of 1988 relating to timber. Part III deals with CWP No. 121 of 1988 challenging the va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC894; JT2005(1)SC507; 2005(3)KarLJ17; (2005)3SCC91; (2005)2UPLBEC1264
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This appeal and connected appeals were filed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 2nd July, 1998 whereby the Division Bench disposed of Writ Appeal No. 1955 of 1993 alongwith Writ Appeal No. 777 of 1993.2. Facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are -- the Respondent Association Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group filed a Public interest petition challenging the building licence issued for construction of multi-storeyed/multi-apartments on Site Nos. 403 and 443 in IInd and IIIrd Cross in III Block, Koramangala Layout, Bangalore, on the ground that it is illegal, void and prayed for quashing of the licence and direction to demolish the building already constructed on the site. It was submitted that the residents in the area had acquired sites and built houses on the understanding and under the bona fide belief that the lay out would be developed and maintained in accordance with law. Grievance of the Associa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC740; [1969]72ITR801(SC); [1969]2SCR1
K.N. Sharma, J.1. The present respondent who is an approved contractor of the Jammu & Kashmir State Forest Corporation (appellant before us) filed an application under Sections 8, 11 and 20 of the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration Act, 2002, on the original side of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir praying for a direction to the Corporation defendant to file an agreement between them fully described therein, and to refer the dispute mentioned in the application to an arbitrator. Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration Act is similar to the Arbitration Act, 1940, enacted in identical language. The Corporation objected, pleading inter alia that the entire work allotted to the plaintiff contractor under the agreement had been completed by him without any dispute, and the present claim of the plaintiff is not covered by the agreement in question or its arbitration clause. A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the prayer for reference to the dispute described in the respondent's application, and f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC235; [1979]120ITR480(SC); (1980)1SCC214; [1980]1SCR723; 1979(11)LC919(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. These appeals by special leave raise a common question whether on proper construction of the Agreement dated November 10, 1955, entered into by the assessee with Kamala Mills Ltd., the latter was the 'manager' Of the assessee within the meaning of Section 384 read with Section 2(24) of the Companies Act, 1956 and if so, whether the remuneration paid by the assesses to the latter in the two calendar years 1957 and 1958 relevant to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 cannot be allowed as business expenditure under Section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 2. The facts giving rise to the question may briefly be stated as follows : The assessee (M/s. Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Ltd.) is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacture and sale of' yarn and has its registered office at Alagappa Nagar in Kerala State, It entered into an Agreement dated November 10, 1955 with Kamala Mills Ltd. Coimbatore for financing and managing the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!