Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 56 (1.23 seconds)
Documents citing Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works Ltd vs Asstt. Commr. Sales Tax, Kanpur & Anr on 12 September, 1967

Axis Bank vs Sbs Organics Pvt. Ltd on 22 April, 2016

20. This Court, in Lakshmi Rattan Enginerring Works Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax, Kanpur and Another3, had the occasion to consider the meaning of the expression ‘entertain’ in the context of a similar provision in the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act,1948 where it was held that in such context, the expression has the meaning of “admitting to consideration”. The relevant discussion is available at paragraphs - 9 and 10:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

WP(C)/2297/2020 on 7 December, 2021

26. A reading of the jurisdiction clause in the said notification makes it apparent that the Panchayat Election Tribunals shall have jurisdiction only to entertain and dispose of election petitions filed before it by 'any contesting candidate' in respect of validity or propriety of the election. It is trite law that a Tribunal assumes jurisdiction on a particular matter when such jurisdiction to entertain a particular matter has been vested in such Tribunal. In other words, existence of jurisdictional fact is sine qua non for any Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction on a particular subject. If the jurisdiction on a particular subject is not vested in a Tribunal and such Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction then any such decision will be void and non-est in law. To exercise a jurisdiction under particular subject matter, such jurisdiction has to be conferred. The meaning of the expression 'entertain' has been interpreted in a number of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. From the decisions in Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works Ltd. vs. Asstt. Comm.
Gauhati High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - M Choudhury - Full Document

San International vs Atm Exports Pvt Ltd on 9 May, 2022

11. On limitation, Ld. Counsel argued that the statutory provisions cannot be overlooked. In this case, the petition under Section 34 has been filed without making compliance of statutory provisions of MSMED Act, 2006. Ld. Counsel referred the case of Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works Ltd (supra), U.P Rajya Karmchari Kalyan Nigam v/s District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and Ors, Writ-C.No. 68144 of 2012, decided on 03.01.2013 and Bihar State Electricity Board v/s Chairman, Rajasthan Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Civil Writ Petition no. 14206/2017, decided on 11.09.2017 to contend that the limitation would start from the day the amount was deposited as per Section 19 of MSMED Act. In this case, the amount was deposited on 23.09.2020. So, the petition would be treated as filed on 23.09.2020 which is hopelessly barred by limitation.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sabita Rajesh Narang @ Sabita G. Raheja vs Sandeep Gopal Raheja And 33 Ors on 18 April, 2023

35. The expression 'entertain' means to admit a thing for consideration. When a suit or proceeding is not thrown out in limine, but the court receives it for consideration for disposal under the law, it must be regarded as entertaining the suit or proceeding. It is inconsequential what is the final decision. The word 'entertain' has been held to mean to admit for consideration, as observed by this Court in Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Kanpur, AIR 1968 SC 488.
Bombay High Court Cites 93 - Cited by 2 - A Ahuja - Full Document

Sabita Rajesh Narang @ Sabita G. Raheja vs Sandeep Gopal Raheja And 33 Ors on 18 April, 2023

35. The expression 'entertain' means to admit a thing for consideration. When a suit or proceeding is not thrown out in limine, but the court receives it for consideration for disposal under the law, it must be regarded as entertaining the suit or proceeding. It is inconsequential what is the final decision. The word 'entertain' has been held to mean to admit for consideration, as observed by this Court in Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Kanpur, AIR 1968 SC 488.
Bombay High Court Cites 93 - Cited by 0 - A Ahuja - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next