Uttaranchal Court July 2009 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.
Rmi Steels Ltd. Vs. Asst. Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-30-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ19UC
ORDERSudhanshu Dhulia, J.1. The petitioner is common in all these writ petitions. Apart from this, the subject matter of all these writ petitions is also common, which is the payment of wages to the workers in pursuance of the orders passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Region, Dehradun, though pertaining to different periods. For these reasons, all these writ petitions are being decided by a common order.2. The petitioner is a limited company registered under the Companies Registration Act having its manufacturing unit at Dhalwala, Rishikesh, Dehradun. In the year 2001, the petitioner had approached the BIFR and filed an application for declaring the company as sick under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (from hereinafter referred to as 'SICA'). On the said application, after conducting an enquiry under Section 16 of SICA, the BIFR vide its order dated January 23, 2004 has recommended that the petitioner company should be winded up. Thereaft...
Sarvesh Mohan Saxena Vs. Smt. Sanju Saxena
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-29-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Utr16
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-9-2008, passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Matrimonial Case No. 119 of 2006, whereby the petition moved by the petitioner/appellant for decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, is dismissed.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower Court record.3. Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal are that petitioner instituted matrimonial case No. 119 of 2006, against the respondent, alleging that he got. married to respondent-Smt. Sanju Saxena on 15-3-1995. It is further pleaded that he had two children namely Anchal and Deepu, born out of the wedlock. It is further pleaded that on 6-4-2006, respondent left the company of the petitioner, without any sufficient cause and thereby deserted him. In the circumstances, the petition fo...
Mansha Ram Payal and anr. Vs. Dr. Ved Prakash and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-28-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Utr14
ORDERPrafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-8-1988, passed by first appellate Court (Second Additional District Judge, Dehradun), in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1984, whereby said Court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 4-12-1984, passed by the trial Court (Munsif-III, Dehradun), in Suit No. 145 of 1983, and decreed the plaintiff's suit.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Lower Court Record.3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff/respondents No. 1 instituted Suit No. 145 of 1983, before the trial Court, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants, not to interfere plaintiff's user over the land shown by letters E, A, D, C, B, F in the plaint map, as pathway. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that his (plaintiff's) house is situated in Sewak Ashram Road, Dehradun. On the south of plaintiff's house there is 19. ft wide land, us...
Director of Income Tax International Taxation and Vs. Schlumberger Asi ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Uttranchal)580; [2009]317ITR156(Uttaranchal); [2010]186TAXMAN436(NULL)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This appeal, preferred under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred as the Act), is directed against the order dated 13.04.2007, passed in ITA No. 4180/(Del)/2006 (Assessment Year 2002-03), by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', whereby the appeal of the revenue has been dismissed.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Question of law involved in this appeal is as under:Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ITAT) has erred in law in holding that the reimbursement of expenses towards custom duty are not to be included in the gross receipts for computing income under Section 44BB of Income Tax Act, 19614. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent/assessee -M/s Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. (for short SASL), is a company incorporated under the laws of Hongkong, which filed its return of income on 31.10.2002, declaring income of Rs. 19,60,06,200/-. The Assessing Officer (for short A.O.) noticed that ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. National Institute of Aeronautical Engi ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-15-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Uttranchal)582; [2009]184TAXMAN264(NULL)
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. An application (MCC) No. 502 of 2009 has been moved for review/recall of ex parte order dated 12.06.2009 passed in this appeal on the ground that the respondent had no knowledge of the restoration of appeal, after it was dismissed on 03.12.2008 for non-prosecution. 2 Considering the affidavit filed with the Review /Recall Application No. 502 of 2009, the application is allowed and order dated 12.06.2009 passed ex parte in this appeal is hereby recalled. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length, on the merits of the appeal, after the ex parte order dated 12.06.2009 is recalled. 4. This appeal (ITA No. 40/2006), preferred under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act), is directed against the order dated 12.08.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ITAT), Delhi Bench 'D' New Delhi, whereby Income Tax Appeal No. 4278/Del/2004, preferred by the assessee / respondent - National Institute of Aeronautical Eng...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›