Uttaranchal Court May 2008 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.
In Re: Cheema Papers Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-23-2008
Reported in: [2008]88SCL136(NULL)
ORDERB.S. Verma, J.1. Heard Sri Deepak Diwan, learned Counsel for the applicants-petitioners.2. This is a petition under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking sanction to the Scheme of Arrangement between Cheema Papers Limited (Transferor-Company) and Cheema Paper Mills Private Limited (Transferee-Company).3. The registered offices of both the transferor and the transferee Company are situated at 2 Km. Bazpur Road, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, ie., within the jurisdiction of this Court.4. According to the applicants, the transferor-company was incorporated on 26-5-1988 and the authorized share capital of the transferor-company is Rs. 10,50,00,000 divided into 1,05,00,000 (one crore five lakhs) Equity Shares of Rs. 10 each. The issued, subscribed, called and paid-up capital of the company is Rs. 10,21,06,250.5. The transferee-company was incorporated on 6-7-2004. The authorized share capital of the transferee-company is Rs. 5,00,000 (Rs. Five lac...
Kishan Lal Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-16-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Utr58
ORDERB.S. Verma, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 16-3-2007 passed by respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 7/2004 as contained in Annexure No. 4 and the order dated 29/30-7-2003 passed by respondent No. 2 so far as it relates to remand of the matter.(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to transfer the permit No. 1053-k in the name of the petitioner.(c) Any other writ, order or direction may also be issued.(d) Costs of the writ petition may also be awarded to the petitioner.2. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that one Chandra Bhushan Sharma was holding a regular stage carriage permit No. 1053-k in his name on Haldwanl-Kaladhungi-Bazpur-Doraha-Sultanpur Patti-Kashipur route in respect of vehicle No. UMM-44, who could not manage the operation of the vehicle covered by the aforesaid ...
Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. Desh Rakshak Aushdhalaya Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Uttranchal)7; [2009]313ITR140(Uttaranchal); [2009]178TAXMAN453(NULL)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, by the Revenue, is directed against the order dt. 7th April, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', Delhi (hereinafter referred as Tribunal'), in IT Appeal No. 3506/Del/2003, relating to asst. yr. 1998-99, whereby the appeal of the respondent/assessee, was partly allowed.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Brief facts of the case are that assessment in the present case of the respondent/assessee M/s Desh Rakshak Aushdhalaya Ltd., Kankhal, Haridwar, was completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, on 16th Oct., 2000, in which the AO has made addition of Rs. 2,98,924 as per the provisions of Section 2(24) of the Act, on account of delay in depositing said amount in relation to the employees contribution towards PF/EPF by the employer into the credit of Central Government account, and denied deduction under Section 43B of the Act. Respondent/assessee preferred ...
Ramesh Chandra S/O Loka Nand and Smt. Kabutra Devi W/O Loka Nand Vs. S ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-09-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4196
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.09.1992, passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1991, whereby the accused/appellantsRamesh Chandra and Kabutra Devi are convicted under Sections 304B and 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life (under Section 304B I.P.C.) and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years (under Section 498A I.P.C.)2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.3. In brief prosecution story is that Manju (deceased) got married to accused/appellant Ramesh Chandra, resident of Village Kandi on 25.6.1985, in accordance with Hindu rites in Village Temariya, District Chamoli. The prosecution case is that from the date of marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mcdermott International Inc.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Uttranchal)203; [2008]302ITR268(Uttaranchal)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.09.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', Delhi (hereinafter referred as ITAT), in Income Tax Appeal No. 2173(M) of 2000, for the assessment year 1995-96, whereby the appeal of the respondent/assessee was allowed by the Tribunal and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred as CIT), under Section 263 of the aforesaid Act, is set aside.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. Following are the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal:1. Whether, the ITAT was justified in law in holding that CIT lost its jurisdiction after the application of assessee was accepted under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) 1998?2. Whether, the ITAT has erred in law in holding that order under Section 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961, coul...
State Bank of India Vs. Kundan Singh
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Utr53
ORDERB.S. Verma, J.1. Since the dispute involved in both the writ petitions relates to the order of enhancement of rent and its recovery from the petitioners, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both the writ petitions are being decided by this common order.2. Writ Petition No. 2823 of 2001 (M/S) has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned orders dated 23-2-2000 passed by the Additional District Judge Udham Singh Nagar in Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 1999 and order dated 13-10-1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Case No. 51/4 of 1990-91. By the order dated 13-10-1999, the Prescribed Authority has allowed the application moved by the landlord under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) and fixed the rent of the disputed building @ Rs. 7,000/- per month. The tenant-opposite party was directed to pay the rent at the said rate to the appl...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›