Uttaranchal Court June 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.
Acme Tele Power Ltd. Vs. Sintex Industries Ltd. and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Utr49; LC2009(1)321
ORDER1. This is another suit filed by same plaintiff (against different set of defendants), transferred to this Court from Court of District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 104 of Patents Act, 1970, after the counterclaim along revocation was filed by the defendants in the suit. (Earlier Suit No. 1 of 2008, filed by the plaintiff was transferred to this Court, against Lamda Eastern Telecommunication Ltd. with different story of infringement of same products. Reference-Acme Tele Power Ltd. v. Lamda Eastern Telecommunication Ltd. 2008 (1) Uttaranchal Decisions 467.)2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length on the application (6-C) moved under Order XXXIIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by plaintiff, and objections/reply 21-C and 22-C, filed on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2 thereto.3. Brief facts of the case, as alleged in the plaint are that plaintiff-Acme Tele Power Limited has its registered office in Gurgaon and its factory i...
The Commissioner of Custom and Central Excise Vs. India Glycols Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(131)ECC51; 2008(157)LC51; 2008(230)ELT39(NULL)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is directed against the order dated 27.09.2005, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as CESTAT) in Appeal No. E / 2782 / 03 -NB(S), whereby the appeal of the revenue (present appellant) was partly allowed.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent M/s India Glycols Ltd. are manufacturer of Glycol and other industrial chemicals. During the period 1994-95 (upto Feb 1995) they availed Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 14,73,523/- towards duty paid on various goods claimed to be covered within the ambit of 'capital goods'. A show cause notice dated 08.03.1995, disallowing said credit was issued under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, by the department to the respondent (assessee), and after considering the reply of the assessee, the adjudicating authority vide its order dated 20th ...
Ashok Alias Papu Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ554
J.C.S. Rawat, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 21.02.2003, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/1st F.T.C./Special Judge C.B.I., Dehradun in S.T. No. 74 of 2002 whereby the appellant has been convicted & sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 376 (2) (F) Indian Panel Code, 1860 and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant shall further undergo R.I. for six months.2. The facts in nutshell are that the informant Jagdish had been working as a Mason whereas his wife Bachi Devi had been working in the bungalows of different persons and used to clean utensils and houses there. On 13/04/2002 at about 12:30 p.m. the informant Jagdish Prasad, father of the prosecutrix lodged a report in the police station Cant, Dehradun alleging therein that on 11/04/2002, he and his wife had gone to discharge their duties leaving their daughter victim, aged about 8 years alone in the house. When they were out, th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sunil Goyal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jun-20-2008
Reported in: [2009]176TAXMAN184(NULL)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated 15-7-2005, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as 'ITAT'), Delhi Bench 'C', in Income-tax Appeal No. 5352/Delhi/2004, whereby the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax, (hereinafter referred as 'CIT'), passed under Section 263 of the Act, is quashed.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The question of law involved in the appeal is as under:Whether Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in quashing the order passed by CIT under Section 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 and is there any illegality in the order of the CIT directing the Assessing Officer to make assessment de novo after giving the opportunity to the assessee.4. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Kwality Hardware Agencies (respondent/assessee) deals with hardware items. It submitted its return of income for the asses...
Smt. Sudesh Vs. Additional Family Court Judge and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jun-19-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Utr62
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-7-2005, passed by learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, in Misc. Case No. 04 of 2004, whereby it has allowed the petition, moved under Section 7 read with Section 25 of aforesaid Act and directed that two children, namely, Nitin Kumar and Km. Shivani alias Heena be handed over by the appellant Sudesh (mother) to respondent Madan Pal (father).2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Sudesh got married to respondent Madan Pal on 30-5-1991. Out of the wedlock three children born, namely, Niraj Kumar, Nitin Kumar and Shivani alias Heena on 28-10-1992, 23-6-1995 and 7-8-1998 respectively. Admittedly, the elder son Niraj is living with the father and the remaining two children are living with mother. It is also not disputed between the parties that vide judgment and order dated 29-5-20...
Bhagwati Prasad and ors. Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jun-16-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4655
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C), is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.01.1992, passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions trial No. 02 of 1991, whereby accused/appellants namely Bhagwati Prasad, Deveshwar Prasad, Sampati Devi and Shiv Prasad have been convicted under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.). Each one of the convicts has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 498-A of I.P.C.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Smt. Jasoda (deceased), daughter of Pitainbar Datt (P.W. 1) was married to accused/appellant Bhagwati Prasad. Accused/appellant Deveshwar Prasad is father-in-law, and accused/appellant Sam...
Polyplex Corporation Limited Through Its Senior Manager Shri Harminder ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jun-02-2008
Reported in: (2008)16VST170(NULL)
B.S. Verma, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or prohibition restraining/prohibiting the respondents from realizing entry tax in respect of machines imported from outside the country by the petitioner which have been brought in the factory of the petitioner at Khatima for the assessment year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. Prayer has also been made for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the circular dated 14-09-2000 issued by the Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow, which appears to have been adopted by respondent No. 2.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that by means of this writ petition, the validity of levy of entry tax on the entry of machines in the industrial area of Khatima, which has been imported from outside the country has been challenged. The petitioner has purchased the machineries for carrying out the erection of the factory at Khatima. The sa...
ishwari Ram Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jun-02-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4163
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C), is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-9-1993, passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 127 of 1991, whereby accused/appellant Ishwari Ram, is convicted under Section 302 and also under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.), and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life (under Section 302, I.P.C.), and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years (under Section 307, I.P.C.)2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower Court record.3. It is a dav-light DOUBLE MURDER CASE. Prosecution story in brief is that on 28-2-1991, it was a day of HOLI (festival of colours). Accused/appellant Ishwari Ram, Constable of Armed Constabulary (Constable No. 438 A.P.) was on his duty of double lock in the Sub-treasury, Kaladhungi from 12.00 noon to 3.00 p.m. In the T...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›