M/s Lanco Amarkantak Power Ltd. Vs A.P. Panda, Chairman-cum-Managing Director (Chhattisgarh High Court) it is quite vivid that this Court while granting the appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act of 1996 preferred by the petitioner not only set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge setting aside the award and restoring the […]
Tendu leaves has separate entry, wherein, VAT is payable @25% and the same cannot be clubbed in general entry ‘minor forest produce’ for availment of reduced rate exemption notification.
Jagannath Dey Vs Mrinal Mallik S/o Gourchandra Mallik (High court Chhattisgarh) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would seek permission of the Court to withdraw this appeal with liberty to move a fresh suit under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of the minor. 2. In Shiv Kumar Sharma v […]
The petitioners cannot be allowed to make separate entry when frooti is covered within the specific entry and residuary entry cannot be resorted into. In the considered opinion of this Court, both the authorities are absolutely justified in holding that frooti is a product covered by Entry 14 of Schedule II of the Chhattisgarh Entry Tax Act, 1976.
Col. J.P.S. Yadav Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited (High Court Chhatisgarh) Consequently, evaluating the facts, the finding that the notices were sent under the camouflage cover of SECL concealing the name of the sole arbitrator on 20.9.1993 and 28.10.1993 would be important. Further, the Court held that no service was affected to J.P.S. Yadav, the Managing Director and the […]
When fraud is played, which is apparently prima facie apparent from the records, then the finality of a decree cannot be allowed to precipitate. The said principle is fortified by the Supreme Court in {(2007) 7 SCC 482}.
Right to education up to the age of 14 years is guaranteed as fundamental right under Article 21A of the Constitution of India and a student cannot be failed up to 8th Class.
Personal information like T.A. bill etc. cannot be directed to be given under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in view of Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Lok Adalat could not have passed the order on merits and should have been referred the case to the Regular Court for adjudication and if the orders are passed thereafter the substantial right of the petitioner would have been affected, therefore, the impugned order dated 09.09.2017 be set aside and the case be referred to the regular Court for decision on merits.
M/s Kishan Lal Vs Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Tax (Chhattisgarh High Court) In the proviso (a) to sub-section (3) of Section 49 of the VAT Act an embargo has been created for the purpose that no proceeding initiating suo motu revision under Section 49 (3) shall be initiated after the expiry of three calendar years […]
