Assessee submitted that project receipt from Tanakpur Power Project of NHPC work is exempt from tax in India for the reason that assessee does not have continuous presence or ‘business connection’ or a permanent establishment in India.
This petition for winding up has been preferred by the company itself without referring to the relevant clause of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ in short), however, in course of argument it was informed that the petition is under Section 433 (e) of the Act.
it would manifest that there has not only been wrong with the petitioner but he was discriminated in the matter of application of pre-amended 1991 policy of rehabilitation. For such denial, the respondent/SECL is taking shelter of its own wrong by continuing to remain in occupation of the petitioner’s land from 1994 without paying compensation till 2006 when repeated efforts of the petitioner compelled the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceeding and determine compensation.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional District Judge, (FTC), Raigarh, dismissing his application under Section 387 of the C.G. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (in short “the Act”) on the ground that before moving an application under Section 387 of the Act, the petitioner has not served statutory notice under Section 387(1).
Annual value of properties like the ones in case in hand which are more than one, owned by assessee and which admittedly remained vacant throughout the previous year would not be assessed U/s. 23(1)(c) but under Section 23(1)(a). The annual value would, therefore, be determined notionally
Brief description of land mentioned and plan was made part of notification making it available for inspection; notification u/S 3A of NH Auth. Act fulfills requirement of law Since all the petitions involve common question of law and common facts, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners are land holders whose […]
Petition for return of Stridhan to be filed in form of plaint; ad valorem court fee not payable on such petition, only fixed court fee of Rs. 40/- payable. 1. Present is an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the Family […]
1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act of 1983’ for short), the petitioners herein (contractors) have filed these revisions questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order(s) dated 7-5-2013 passed by the learned Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur (hereinafter called as ‘the Arbitration Tribunal’ for short), whereby their applications filed under Section 17-A of the Act of 1983 for recalling the order dated 13-1-2012 and restoration of reference petitions filed, were dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction / non-maintainability by the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1983.
Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act of 1983’ for short), the petitioners herein (contractors) have filed these revisions questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order(s) dated 7-5-2013 passed by the learned Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur (hereinafter called as ‘the Arbitration Tribunal’ for short), whereby their applications filed under Section 17-A of the Act of 1983 for recalling the order dated 13-1-2012 and restoration of reference petitions filed, were dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction / non-maintainability by the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1983.
Gujarat High Court examines N.K. Industries bogus purchase tax case. Court rules on addition quantum for alleged fake purchases & block assessment.
