Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Year: 1998 Page 3 of about 30 results (0.001 seconds)

Dec 18 1998 (HC)

M/S. Asia Private Limited, Bangalore and Others Vs. Union of India and ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-18-1998

Reported in : ILR1999KAR1317; 1999(2)KarLJ259; (1999)ILLJ1239Kant

..... is the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a rule of conduct. obviously it cannot abdicate its functions in favour of another. but in view of the multifarious activities of a welfare state, it cannot presumably work out all the details to suit the varying aspects of a complex situation. it must necessarily delegate the working out of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1998 (HC)

Raman Rao P.V. and ors. Vs. J.K. Corporation Ltd. and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-13-1998

Reported in : 85(1998)CLT280; (1998)ILLJ1084Ori

..... service are incorporated therein. it was open to the management to transfer the services of the employees to any one of their units dealing with several types of business and multifarious diversification. the notification issued by the state government is also not in dispute as to nationalisation of trade in bamboo and extraction of bamboo from forest areas. although the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1998 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. Smt. Lokesh Devi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-17-1998

Reported in : (1999)122PLR741

..... of inherent powers under section 151 of the code of civil procedure and would prevent the abuse of process of courts to meet the ends of justice. leaving parties to multifarious actions in the suit where interim orders are passed, cannot be treated as a solution to a threatened violation of the orders of the court, nor could that be the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 1998 (TRI)

Cce Vs. Hydraulic Hose (P) Ltd.

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!

Sep 02 1998 (TRI)

Prabhunath Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT West Bengal

Decided on : Sep-02-1998

Reported in : (2000)120STC241Tribunal

..... on his scalp or hair but as would be clear from the certificate of dr. m.m. roy, the beneficial effects to be obtained from the product in question is multifarious and it would not be proper to treat it as a hair oil.8. mr. k.k. saha, learned advocate for the respondents, argued that hair oil including coconut oil .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 1998 (HC)

M. NazruddIn Vs. the Idol of Arulmigu Navaneedha Krishnasami and Durga ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-16-1998

Reported in : (1999)1MLJ747

..... the said decree was sent for execution to the same court in 246 of 1998 on the execution side. a civil court can have dual capacity or multifarious capacities like original side jurisdiction, execution side jurisdiction, insolvency jurisdiction and also the rent control jurisdiction and the like. therefore it cannot be said in the present case that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 1998 (HC)

S.S. Janardhan Rao Vs. Andhra University and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-26-1998

Reported in : 1998(6)ALD480

..... aforesaid characteristics of the duties attached to the post of physical director, the supreme court held as follows:'from the aforesaid affidavit, it is clear that a physical director has multifarious duties. he not only arranges games and sports for the students every evening and looks after the procurement of sports material and the maintenance of the grounds but also arranges .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1998 (SC)

M/S. Electrical Cable Development Association Vs. M/S. Arun Commercial ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-06-1998

Reported in : 1998IVAD(SC)619; AIR1998SC1998; 1998(3)ALLMR(SC)184; [1998]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!

Dec 10 1998 (SC)

income-tax Officer and anr. Vs. S. Radha Krishnan and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-10-1998

Reported in : [2002]254ITR561(SC); (2001)9SCC406

order1. the respondent has been served but does not appear. the respondent objected to the inclusion of a sum of rs. 34,375 representing the gross dividend from a company called bms private limited for the assessment year 1972-73. the assessee's case was that, by virtue of section 104 of the income-tax act, 1961, the said amount had already suffered tax because it was undistributed profits in the hands of the company ; when it was distributed to the company's shareholders thereafter, the levying of further tax thereon amounted to double taxation. the objection was rejected by the authorities,whereupon a writ petition was filed before the high court. by the order under appeal, a learned single judge upheld the case of the assessee on the basis that taxation of the same amount in the hands of the company and the shareholder amounted to double taxation.2. the learned judge was in error. the question of double taxation must be decided having regard to who the assessee is. if the assessee is different, the question of double taxation would not arise. in the present case, the fact that the company had been made liable to tax on the amount did not mean that that amount, when paid as income to the shareholder, could not be taxed as income in the hands of the shareholder. the character of the amount changed, it being now the income of theshareholder.3. in the premises, the appeal is allowed. the judgment and order underappeal is set aside. the writ petition filed by the respondents in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 1998 (HC)

Harbans Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-10-1998

Reported in : 1998(3)WLC43; 1998(1)WLN267

b.s. chauhan, j.1. the instant writ petition has been tiled for quashing the adverse remarks/strictures against the petitioner by the learned additional district judge, raisinghnagar on 30.11.1995 contained in annexure. 7 to this petition.2. the factual gamut of the case, as revealed by the record is that the services of the petitioner, a teacher in english language, were transferred from senior higher secondary school, raisinghnagar to dabri on 17.6.1995, and in pursuance of said order he stood relieved on 1.7.1995. petitioner filed suit no. 37/1995 before the civil judge cum judicial magistrate raisinghnagar for injunction against the transfer order. in that suit, the interim relief staying the operation of the transfer order was granted on 13.9.1995. being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the defendant therein preferred civil miscellaneous appeal no. 32/1995 before the learned additional district judge. raisinghnagar (respondent no. 2). in the said appeal, the grounds taken by the appellant-defendant revealed that the civil court did not possess jurisdiction to entertain a suit against the transfer order and, thus, the order dated 13.9.1995 was without jurisdiction. the present petitioner sought time to file reply in the said appeal and it stood adjourned for 30.11.1995. in the meanwhile petitioner moved an application before the learned civil judge, raisingnnagar to withdraw his suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, if need be arisen, and the said suit was dismissed as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //