Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2001 Page 2 of about 52 results (0.019 seconds)

Oct 25 2001 (HC)

Cement Corporation of India Vs. P.O., Central Government Industrial Tr ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-25-2001

Reported in : (2002)IILLJ405P& H

..... interpret the terms of cement arbitration award dated july 10, 1984 and settlements dated may 10, 1989 and july 31, 1992. to get out of this difficulty, management raised the patently bogus claim that the workmen are not their employees. the answer to the aforesaid question was also readily available in the form of previous litigation between the parties in which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2001 (HC)

Cepham Milk Specialities Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-20-2001

Reported in : [2002]127STC116(P& H)

..... . 3, it was averred that the levy is within the legislative competence of the state legislature. in para 14 of the reply on merits, it was added that 'it is patent from the preliminary objection no. 3 that the state legislature has competence to impose milk cess under numerous entries which are 'entries concerning tax'. these entries are not nontax entries .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 2001 (HC)

Cit Vs. Aruna Luthra

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-31-2001

Reported in : (2001)170CTR(P& H)73

..... for consideration iswhen can a mistake be said to be apparent from the record ?the plain language of the provision suggests that the mistake should be apparent. it must be patent. it must appear ex facie from the record. it must not be a mere possible view. the issue should not be debatable.6. mr. sawhney contended that when the view .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 2001 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aruna Luthra

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-31-2001

Reported in : [2001]252ITR76(P& H)

..... is--when a mistake can be said to be apparent from the record ?11. the plain language of the provision suggests that the mistake should be apparent. it must be patent. it must appear ex facie from the record. it must not be a mere possible view. the issue should not be debatable.12. mr. sawhney contended that when the view .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2001 (HC)

Popular Engineering Co. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-31-2001

Reported in : (2001)168CTR(P& H)55; [2001]248ITR577(P& H)

..... powers vested in it under section 254(2), the tribunal cannot review or revise an order made under section 254(1) though it may amend such order for rectifying a patent mistake which may have crept in, in such order, on account of non-consideration of an important piece of evidence or plea raised by the aggrieved party. the absence of ..... on findings of law or on findings of facts. the supreme court in t.s. balaram's case : [1971]82itr50(sc) had asserted that it must be an obvious and patent mistake that calls for rectification and not something where there may be two conceivable opinions or on a debatable point of law and the latter would not amount to a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 2001 (HC)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parsa and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-16-2001

Reported in : 2003ACJ117

..... the company would be considered to be unlimited.2. aggrieved of the entire liability having been fastened upon the insurance company, it has filed the present letters patent appeal under clause x of the letters patent with limited challenge, as is clear from the facts detailed above, i.e., only with regard to the extent of liability.3. ms. radhika suri, learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 2001 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Goverdhan Dass and Sons

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-04-2001

Reported in : [2001]250ITR751(P& H)

..... the house property as arrived at after providing for the deduction under the said second proviso.'13. this explanation clearly clarifies the legislative intent. what was latent has been made patent.14. no other point has been raised.15. in view of the above, the question as posed by the tribunal is answered in the affirmative. we hold that the claim .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2001 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Punjab Financial Corporation

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-04-2001

Reported in : [2002]254ITR6(P& H)

g.s. singhvi, j. 1. this case has been placed before the full bench along with i. t. a. no. 83 of 2001 -- cit v. punjab financial corporation, section 17-b, chandigarh, for determination of the following question of law : 'whether section 32ab(5) of the income-tax act, 1961, is mandatory or directory and delayed filing of audit report would disentitle an assessee from claiming the benefit of deduction under section 32ab(1) ?' the background facts : the income-tax returns filed by the assessee -- punjab financial corporation for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 were accepted by the assessing officer under section 143(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short, 'the act'), and deductions claimed under section 32ab(1) were allowed. subsequently, he issued notices under section 154 of the act proposing withdrawal of the deductions on the ground that the assessee had failed to file the audit report with the returns as required by section 32ab(5). on receipt of the notices, the assessee furnished the audit report in the prescribed form but the assessing officer declined to accept the same and ordered withdrawal of the deductions. the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), (for short 'the cit(a)') dismissed the appeal of the assessee, but the income-tax appellate tribunal (hereinafter described as 'the tribunal'), reversed the orders of the assessing officer and the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) and restored the deductions by making the following observations : 'we have carefully .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 2001 (HC)

Paramjit Kaur W/O Harnek Singh and anr. Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-21-2001

Reported in : AIR2002P& H241

bakhshish kaur, j.1. this judgment is against the order dated 16.2.2000 passed by the learned additional district judge, faridkot, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.7.1996 passed by the collector, district faridkot under section 47 of the stamps act, was dismissed.2. the fact giving rise to the present revision are that a sale deed dated jan. 20, 1995 was held to be under-stamped to be extent of rs. 3,38, 437. thus, a notice was issued for the recovery of the balance amount of stamp fee of rs. 42,334/- proceedings under section 47a of the stamps act were taken against the vendees and the vendors. 3. paramjit kaur ard karamjit kaur, the vendees in the sale deed appeared before the collector. however, none appeared on behalf of the vendors. therefore exparte proceedings were taken against them. the collector vide order dated july 26, 1996 after assessing the merits of the case besides general inspection of the site was of the opinion that the respondents i.e. the vendors and the vendees had cheated the government by getting the sale deed stamped at low rates. therefore an order for recovery of the deficiency in the stamp duty was passed whereby naib tehsildar was ordered to take action under section 48a of the stamps act (in short 'the act').4. aggrieved by the order, paramjit kaur and karamjit kaur (hereinafter referred to as the vendees) preferred appeal which was also dismissed by the learned additional district judge, faridkot, by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 2001 (HC)

Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-16-2001

Reported in : AIR2001P& H194

a.s. gill, j.1. the petitioner claiming himself to be having been duty elected sarpanch of gram panchayat munimpur tehsil and district jhajjat, in the !ast panchayat election, seeks issuance of a writ under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india, directing the respondents to administer him the oath of office of the sarpanch, gram panchayat, munimpur. forthwith and for restraining the respondents from handing over the charge of the gram panchayat in the meantime to any panch of the gram panchayat, munimpur. the case of the petitioner is that he contested the election of sarpanch of the gram panchayat and was duly declared elected after having secured the highest number of valid votes in the election held on march, 2000. the returning officer prepared a report about hiselec-tion and forwarded the same to the block development and panchayat officer for onward transmission to the concerned authorities. the result of the elections were reported in the press and published in dainik tribune dated 15.3,2000 and the name of the petitioner having been elected as sarpanch of the panchayat, appeared in para 3 of the news item, copy annexure p-2 with the petition.2. the state government organised oath ceremony function on 26.4.2000 at jind and the chief minister of haryana administered oath to the newly elected sar-panches and panches of the respective villages. however, the petitioner was not administered oath. he made representation but was not given due consideration. in the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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