Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Lakshmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd., Hardoi on 21 November, 1985

The Model Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 18 June, 2002

11. Learned senior counsel, appearing in support of the defendants cited various decisions in support of their contentions. Firstly, he relied upon (Karamshi Jethabhat Somayya v. State of Bombay now Maharashtra) in its head note and page 1721 as well as 1987 (supple) SCC 84 (Union of India v. Hanuman Oil Mills Ltd. and Ors.). From the aforesaid first judgment I find that the Court construed certain parts of Government of India Act as to the question of executing contract by or on behalf of the Governor of a Province. There, it has been held that two conditions are to be fulfilled for the purpose of validity of the contract, namely ((i) it should be expressed to be made by the Governor of the Province and (ii) it should be executed on behalf of the Governor by such persons and in such manner as he might direct or authorise. Thereafter, the Supreme Court held on the following factual basis.
Calcutta High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - A Lala - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Jai Society Wood Works And Anr. on 14 January, 1998

5. In view of the above, the Award is remitted back to the Arbitrator to decide as to whether there was concluded contract between the parties and, therefore, the Union of India could invoke clause in the contract for reference of disputes to the arbitrator. The Union of India shall take appropriate action for nominating the Arbitrator in case the arbitrator who has rendered this award is no longer available to determine the question as referred to above. The arbitrator shall give his findings expeditiously after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. This petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd vs Noida on 19 July, 2018

5. As is seen from above, Revenue has strongly relied upon the explanation to Rule 6(1). However, it is seen that Rule 6(1) stand amended so as to include the inputs used in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods. As such, it can be seen that the same relates to the manufacture and it can be safely concluded that there has to be a manufacturing activity for invoking Rule 6(3). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India 6 APPEAL No. E/70496/2018-EX[SM] vs. D.S.C.L Sugar Ltd. 2015 (322) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.) has held that bagasse being an agricultural waste or residue, there could be no manufacturing activity. Similarly bio manure is nothing but a byproduct which necessarily arises during the course of manufacture of the goods and it cannot be said that the same was a manufactured product. If the same was not manufactured, the same cannot be held to be excisable, in which case the amendment carried out would not apply.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri.B.Vishwanath Kiran vs United India Insurance Co Ltd on 25 September, 2020

The proper multiplier would be '9'. The deceased had two more years of service after which she would be receiving pension. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that claimant admittedly was receiving family pension. Hence, we feel that there is sufficient reason to apply the split income method evolved in Union of India Vs. Lakshmi Kumar's (supra). Applying the principles, compensation towards loss of dependency is calculated as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Madhvi Verma & Anr. on 30 November, 2015

13.  Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that if both the accounts of respondents/complainants, as referred above, are taken together, account of respondent No.1/complainant No.1 was exceeding the limit as provided under Rule 4 of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987. It is contended that the same had already been put to the notice of respondents/complainants vide letter dated 26.12.05 of appellant/OP.  It is contended that the irregularity was wrongly cured on 10.5.06 in contradiction of Govt. instructions contained in DG Post letter No. 110-23/2001 SB dated 7.1.2003.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sheela vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2014

passenger as he was not having valid ticket at the time of alleged incident. The Tribunal relied on the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in Shahajad & Others v. Union of India 1 ((2014) ACC 397) and also the decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court in Union of India v. Lakshmi II ((2014) ACC Kar) and found that no document was produced by the applicants or any valid evidence was adduced by the applicants to show that the victim was having valid ticket at the time of alleged incident.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - K Harilal - Full Document
1   2 Next