Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.08 seconds)Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Vadodara on 22 October, 2010
On the point of application of CENVAT rules, the counsel for the
plaintiff has relied uopn one judgment titled as Essar Oil Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, decided on 16.01.2014, in the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal
Bench at Ahmedabad, in which it has been held that a denial of CENVAT
credit by the Commissioner of Central Excise was not justifiable and the
court had held that such a credit is permissible.
Nagindas Ramdas vs Dalpatram Ichharam @ Brijram And Ors on 30 November, 1973
Another Judgment which has been relied upon by the plaintiff is titled
as Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Ichharam @ Brijram & Others,
(1974) I Supreme Court Cases 242.
Romesh Chander Sethi vs Inder Mohan Sethi & Another on 12 August, 2009
Another judgment relied upon by the plaintiff is Romesh Chander
Sethi Vs. Inder Mohan Sethi & Anr., 163 (2009) Delhi Law Times 4,
Delhi High Court. It has been held in this case that the defendant did not
chose to lead any evidence in rebuttal to dispute the validity of two bills nor
she chose to cross examine PW1 or PW2 or to appear in the witness box
to state on oath that two bills had not been executed by her father and
mother. Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act facts which are admitted need
not be proved. Thus, if any fact is stated to be admitted by a party then it is
not necessary to be proved in evidence.
Section 61 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors on 6 December, 2004
The evidence led by PW1 can not be relied upon in the light of the
judgment Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr. (supra). In the light of above
mentioned observations, it is, therefore, reflected that the plaintiff has not
been able to establish his averments against the defendant. Hence, he has
not been able to discharge the burden of proving these issued upon him.
Therefore, he is not entitled for the recovery.
The Companies Act, 1956
1