Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Decided on : Apr-27-1998
Reported in : (1998)(77)LC499Tri(Chennai)
..... reading of hsn notes at page 1117 also does not help the revenue as it specifically deals with a general part of an article and not of an article liaving multifarious uses and sold as such. the appellants are not bring out the 'loose braiding' along with the manufacture of rubber hose pipe.they are independent articles being complete in all .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-28-1998
Reported in : (1998)(102)ELT168TriDel
..... reading of hsn notes at page 1117 also does not help the revenue as it specifically deals with a general part of an article and not of an article having multifarious uses and sold as such. the appellants are not bring out the 'loose braiding' along with the manufacture of rubber hose pipe.they are independent articles being complete in all .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-29-1998
Reported in : (1998)119PLR713
..... they cannot be challenged in civil court. on the pleadings of the parties, the following preliminary issues were framed on 6.8.1968 :1. whether the suit is bad for multifariousness ?2. whether the relief sought in the plaint has not been correctly assessed for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction ?3. whether the full particulars of the land have not ..... jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit?6. whether no valid notice under section 80 c.p.c. was served by the plaintiff ?7. whether the suit is bad for multifariousness ?8. whether the relief sought in the plaint has not been correctly assessed for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ?9. relief.4. on consideration of evidence brought on record .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-29-1998
Reported in : (1998)67ITD252(Delhi)
..... submitted that office machines and apparatus, such as, typewriters, calculating machines, etc., are relatively simple items of manufacture whereas xerographic equipment are highly complex and sophisticated electronic products. they perform multifarious functions like high-speed duplication, reduction or enlargement of any documents and drawings, transmission of documents and drawings through electronic tele-copiers, etc., the machines are automatic document handling, sorting .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-06-1998
Reported in : 1998IVAD(SC)619; AIR1998SC1998; 1998(3)ALLMR(SC)184; 94CompCas53(SC); JT1998(3)SC738; 1998(3)SCALE449; (1998)5SCC396
orderrajendra babu, j.1. this appeal is preferred by a company incorporated under the companies act. the claim of the appellant is that an association which was an unregistered body known as 'indian cables maker's association' was inducted in the year 1969 as a tenant in the premises room no. 503, 5th floor, arun chambers, tardeo, bombay by respondent no. 2 under an agreement termed as 'leave and licence' dated 23rd september, 1969 at a rental of rs. 1500/ - p.m. out of which rs. 1000/- was towards the premises and rent of rs. 500/- p.m. was payable towards furniture and fixtures; that the name of the appellant was changed from indian cable maker's association into m/s. electrical cable development association also another un-registered body in the month of august 1972 and with the said association also a similar 'leave and licence' agreement was executed by the respondent no. 2 on a rental of rs. 1750/- p.m. out of which rent of rs. 1,000/- was towards the premises and rs. 750/- towards fixtures and furniture; that in the year 1976 the unregistered body decided to convert itself into a company in order to carry on its affairs more effectively and so registered as such under the companies act, 1956; that respondent no. 2 continued to receive rents from appellant in respect of the said premises. the appellant had also been using parking space in the building in question and had been making regular payments to respondent no. 1 society; that the appellant filed a suit for .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-15-1998
Reported in : 73(1998)DLT477
..... types of action or behaviour. in order to accomplish this task successfully, the legal order must undertake the formation of technical petitions and concepts desired to aid in classifying the multifarious phenomena and events of social life. it thereby lays the basis for subjecting equal or essentially similar phenomena to a unified and consistent regulation or treatment. legal concepts may thus .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-08-1998
Reported in : 233ITR264(Mad)
..... post. that apart, the sum in question paid to the assessee is essentially a retainer fee paid to retain the services of the advocate-general in the discharge of his multifarious duties of the advocate-general of the state. in our view, there is absolutely no distinction between professional fees and other amounts styled as salary received by the assessee. they .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-16-1998
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)209; 74(1998)DLT282; 1998(46)DRJ557
..... to comply with clauses (a) (b) & (f) of section 11(1) of the trai act. 18. trai's functions under the act as pointed out by the attorney general over multifarious. these can be summed up under five heads namely, (1) advisory, (2) regulatory (3) adjudicatory, (4) semi legislative and (5) ancillary. so far as clauses (a) (b) (f) & (o) of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Company Law Board CLB
Decided on : Jul-27-1998
Reported in : (2000)102CompCas466
..... reply and no other respondents, perhaps since no personal allegations have been made against them in this petition, have filed any reply nor were they represented during the hearing. while multifarious reliefs including supersession of the board of directors have been sought for in the first petition, the relief sought for in the second petition is for appointment of eight government .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-29-1998
Reported in : 1999(5)BomCR828; 1999CriLJ333
..... perusal of the same, the apex court held the above ratio where the grounds formulated for detention of the detenu was apparently only on a single ground and not on multifarious grounds. since there was only one ground and to rely upon the same ground, it was extraneous consideration the supreme court probably held that the said only ground has become .....Tag this Judgment!