Uttaranchal Court September 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. O.N.G.C.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Uttranchal)468; [2003]264ITR340(Uttaranchal)
S.H. Kapadia, C.J.1. Being aggrieved by judgment and order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench), the Department has come in appeal against the order dated August 12, 1999. The appeal is filed by the Department under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. This appeal has been filed in respect of the assessment year 1990-91. This appeal No. 471 of 2001 is heard along with Income-tax Appeal No. 22 of 2003 ; I. T. A. No. 343 of 2001, I. T. A. No. 470 of 2001 and I. T.A. No. 518 of 2001 as they raise a common question of fact and law, therefore, all the appeals are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience we are referring to the facts in I. T. A. No. 471 of 2001.Facts :2. On December 31, 1990, ONGC filed a return under Section 160(1)(i) read with Section 163(1)(c) as agent of Cooper Engineering Services International declaring a net income of Rs. 3.69 lakhs. The assessee-company is a non-resident company. The said company had undertaken rep...
Ratan and anr. Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ486
S.H. Tapadia, C.J. 1. This appeal has been filed by Ratan s/o Mohan Lal and by Bhagwan Das, s/o Harnaam Singh, r/o Village Ram Nagar, P.S. Ram Nagar, Distt. Nainital, Ratan was charged for offences punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 307, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. Bhagwan Das was charged for offences punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and under Section 307, I.P.C. Bhagwan Das died during pendency of this appeal.. Hence, the appeal to that extent abates. Ratan has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. for the murder of Ram Chandra (since deceased) and he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. by the impugned judgment dated 19th July, 1982 by first Addl. Session Judge, Nainital. Being aggrieved Ratan has come in appeal.2. The case of the prosecution, briefly, was as follows :On 17th March, 1981 at about 2.30 p.m. the incident took place in Mohalla Bainba Ghar, Ram Nagar,...
Virendra Kumar Pal and anr. Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: AIR2005Utr30
ORDERRajesh Tandon, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11-3-2002 whereby the appeal under Order 43, Rule I CPC preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the Additional District Judge, Haridwar.2. Heard Sri Pankaj Miglani for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Kohli for the respondent at great length and perused the record.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a suit No. 296 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from making any construction or changing the nature of the property.4. According to the plaint averments the land in dispute was acquired by the State of U. P. for the purpose of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. The Petitioner has stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint that the land is lying vacant and, as such, the plaintiff/petitioner has every right to take the possession of the land. It was also stated in paragraph 9 of the pla...
Hori Lal Vs. Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2005Utr23; AIR2005Utr23a
ORDERRajesh Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri M.C. Bansal for the petitioner and Sri N.C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging recovery notice by which a sum of Rs. 1,13,915/- has been demanded. According to the petitioner he is a small farmer and has taken loan of Rs. 38,000/- for running Dairy Farm business and for purchasing, bufalloes and second loan for Rs. 45,000/- for planting of Papaya. The petitioner has repaid a total sum of Rs. 95,000/- to the Bank. The petitioner filed Photostat copies of the receipt of repayment of loan. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the respondents have issued proclamation for auction of the agricultural land of the petitioner for which 26-9-2003 has been fixed.3. According to the petitioner he has repaid the amount more than that he had borrowed from the Bank. He also alleged that no account has been furnished by the Bank so as to enable him to come to the conclusion that the cit...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurjeet Kaur and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ288
S.H. Kapadia, C.J.1. This appeal came for admission on 23.9.2003 when the following order was passed:'For the reasons to be subsequently recorded, appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.'Accordingly, we now propose to give the reasons.2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has come by way of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against judgment and order passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 3.8.2002 in M.A.C.T. Case No. 43 of 1999.3. Deceased Inder Pal Singh came from California, USA to India on 25.10.1998 to meet his daughter studying in India. On 29.10.1998, Inder Pal Singh along with his younger brother was proceeding by Tata Siera No. UP 7395 to Chandigarh for Dehradun when his vehicle collided with bus No. UP 3055 driven by Narain Singh, original respondent No. 1. The accident took place near village Rampur. Inder Pal Singh was 38 years old. He received fatal injuries. He died on the spot. He was sitting next to the driver of Tata Siera. Inder Pal Singh was a...
Polyplex Corporation Limited Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: [2004]136STC389(Uttra)
M.M. Ghildiyal, J. 1. These trade tax revisions for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 arises out of penalty proceedings under Section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Since both the revisions are against common order passed by Trade Tax Tribunal, both the revisions are being decided by common judgment.2. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Posti, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, State of Uttaranchal, for respondent.3. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionists, M/s. Polyplex Corporation Limited is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Its registered office is situated at Lohiya Head Road, Khatima District, Udham Singh Nagar having its head office in New Delhi and a godown at Noida, The company is registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the applicant has been granted eligibility certificate under Sec...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Almora Magnesite Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Uttranchal)585; [2003]264ITR502(Uttaranchal)
S.H. Kapadia, C.J.1. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal deleting the penalty imposed by the AO, the Department has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act.2. The appeal is in respect of the asst. yr. 1988-89.3. The question which we are required to answer in this appeal is as follows :'Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO under Section 273(1)(b) of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1988-89 ?'4. The assessee filed its return of income on 29th June, 1988, declaring a loss of Rs. 1,52,15,207. The assessment was completed under Section 143(1)(a). The total income was determined at Rs. 4,92,501 after giving effect to Section 115 of the IT Act. The AO issued notice under Section 273(1)(b) of the IT Act on the ground that the assessee has failed to submit estimate of advance tax under Form No. 29. The AO, therefore, imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000. According to the AO, the assessee failed to file the estimate of advance tax under Section 20...
Dinesh Chandra Jaiswal and Etc. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Utr19
ORDERRajesh Tandon, J. 1. Heard Sri P.C. Kandpal for the petitioners and Sri N. C. Gupta and Sri S. S. Adhikari for the respondent State.2. The aforesaid three writ petitions have been filed against the order refusing to grant injunction by both the Courts-below. The brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid petitions are that the petitioners are running a small scale industries at Vikas Nagar, Dehradun and they have installed a woodcutter machine of 3 H.P. for the last 10 years. They have alleged that their industries were registered on 3rd of October 2001. According to the petitioners when they started the business there was no such restrictions and. as such. he has prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents not to interfere in the business of the petitioners in respect of three-horse power butter machine.3. During the pendency of the suit applications for interim injunction under Order XXXIX. Rule 1 CPC were also filed in all the suits. The trial Court on the applica...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›