Zilla parishad bhandara tinder dating site ver documentales biografias online dating

Rated 4.65/5 based on 805 customer reviews

' ' Bhrl Jasendra Ooomai Da H, Ad TOCatsi ' - Bopreme Oonrl of India. Because it is a ^gle-point levy, the latter sale, which- the Legi^ture has made taxable, escapes the tax. If Rule 12-A is mandatory, then unless Form III-A is produced by the assessee, the sale by him be treated as the sale to the consu- mer. is materially di Serent from that obtaining under Section 5(2)(a Kii) of the Bengal Act. word "unle-^s” in Rule 12-A makes the fihng of Form ni-A mandatory. be so in the usual kind of case, where it is a case of obtaining an exemption merely and the impart of that exemption is con- fined to the point of sale by the particu- lar assesses dealer. that con- struction would lead to a confhet betwee.n the Rule and the Section and where it would lead to results opposed to the very intent of the Legislature. that the peti- tioner will not be treated as being in de- fault in respect of the balance of the tax assessed against it for the three assess- ment years so long as the appeals remain pending before the appellate authority. I would quash the orders of the appellate authority dismissing the appeals and direct it to bear them again and dis- pose them of In accordance with law. TBIFATHL J.: I agree, with the judgment proposed by Eon’ble Pathak, J. This ques- tion has not been argued before us by either side as it was assumed that it is to he decided by the Sales Tax authorities tfaem^ves on facts of the case. In our opinion, the petitioner has not established any justice or equity for sending the cases back to the Sales Tax Officer.

In the example I have already given, if one or more successive selling dealers are unable to get Form TTT -A from their nurchasing dealer, the sales made by them will attract the tax instead of the sale which has been actu- ally made to the consumer. There is also the undertaking given by the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respon- dents, and accepted by tis. BBG, Ju Three connected writ petitions challenging a common assess- ment order lor the three assessment years 1961---64 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector H, Kan- pur. borders of nnnth CT material stitebed on at two ends; consti- tute garments when they were sold, as was held by a Division Bench of t Ms Court in Firm. did they ctili fan under the clasrification "cotton fabrics of a R varieties” wbi^ are genera Ry measur- ed and cut at the ime of sale? The first is whether the Sales Tax Officer was right in refusing exemption to sales of yam. There is no reason why the appeals, which would become pending ap- peals as soon as the orders of the Assistant Commissioner are quashed, should not be heard.

ALL INDIA REPORTEB [ Registrar of Newspapers for India— R. For Instance, where a grievance of the party affected by the ex parte Interim injunction Is that the court granting it has also acted from bias against him. 39 and if unsuccessful avail the tight oi appeal as provided for under Ord^ 43. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been two- fold. Learned counsel was at pains to show that the Impugned na Uftcation Itself furnished evidence of the fact that the Central Government did not apply Its mind.

If we restrict this rule to only final orders of Injunction, the object of the rule trill not be fully achieved. As soon as ^ interim injunction is issued and the party afiected thereby is apprised of it, he h^ two remedies: (1) he can ather get the ex parte injimction order dischmg^ or varied or set aside under Rule 4 oi O. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the oddo- site pai^. In view of what is siwcdfically stated In para- graph 14 of the counter-affidavit, it Is not possible to hold that in taking the impugned action the Central Govern- ment was influenced by externn J’ conside- ration and not by its own oniniun formu- lated on an examination of the hooldet in question.

zilla parishad bhandara tinder dating site-2

zilla parishad bhandara tinder dating site-90

Rule Ifr) creates a remedi^ right of 'appeal for pmtection of substantial and 'substantive rights. An ad interim injunction may be granted under Order XXXIX or Sec. No appeal lies against an order under Section 151, be it ex parte or otherwise.

*1156 object of Rule l(r) of Order 43 is to^ provide a remedy for improper or invalid interference with his rights. 16-23] AIL 379 Rules 1 to 4 of Order 39 diow that an appeal also lies against the ex parte order of injunction. Accordingly the revidon is dismiss- ed and the direction staying farther pro- ceedings is vacated. Let the record be now Immediately sent down to the court concerned to enable it to proceed vnth the case. AIR 1970 ALLAHABAD 383 (V 57 C 60) LAKSHMI PRASAD, J. As regards the allegations made in Paragraphs 33 to 39 of the petition which concern Sri Syed Ali Zaheer para- graph 22 of the counter-affidavit says hat the same do not concern the opposite party and do not call for any reply from it Then it is said: "It is, however, stated that there Is nothing on the record of the opposite par^ that Sri Syed Ali Zaheer took any initiative in the matter.” 6. So in any view of the matter the contention being without any substan^ is refected. Coming to the other contention, I mav at once say that there is no material before the court on the basis of which It may be possible to say that the Govern- ment acted mala fide in the matter.

An injunction Interferes with su K* stantla] and substantive rights of a per- son. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated the 27th of Apri L 1966, is well supported and does not suffer from any error and this revision must fail 7. In the circiunstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal Appeal partly allowed. The main ^ound on which the impugned notifica- tion is challenged is that the Central Goverament issued it without applying its mind and, as such, acted mala fide. The petition is opposed by the Umon of India, the sole opposite party in the case. It is further stated that the book was under examination of Govern- ment of India long before notice of -the said question was given and "action was taken after Government was satisfied that the contents of the booklet are such as are likely to disturb communal har- mony”. Apart from that, the contention is also without any sutetance on merit For an action taken accordins to law against a defatilter it is no answer that on some earlier occasion a similar action had not been taken in respect of n fdmilar default Article 14 of the Constitution is of no assistance in such circumstances.

Thir dlv, the provisions of Order Xjus JX do not classify orders of injunction Into (1) an ex parte order of iniunction and (2) a final order of Injuno Hoo. Rule 1 do not apply to probate proceedings I pemdt the p lain tiff to xvith- draw the suit but withhold the permis- sion to file a fresh suit or proceeding as be mav be advised.” Aggrie^^ by the order the plaintiff has come up In appeal before this Court 3. There can be no doubt that on the facts and drcumstances of the Case the learned trial Judge was fully Justed in refusing permission to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit or proceeding as he may be advised. however, not open to the learned Judge in law to split up the plamtiff’s prayer for with- drawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh suit in two parts. It may be that the definition of the ejcpres- sion "prejudicial act” which one has to see in order to xmderstand the meaning of the expression "prejudicial reports” consists of various sub-clauses and a particular case may fall only under one of such sub-clauses, still it does not place the authority acting under R. State of Bihar 10 (1966) AIR 1966 SC 1140 (V 53)- 1966 Cri U 817, Jagannath Ulsta V. The petitioner pub- lished toe booklet entitled "Tashkent Declaration and the Problem of Indo-Pak Minorities" in February. According to the petitioner, Jan Sangh which is a communal body, started propaganda againri the said booklet so much so that a calling attention motion regarding It was admitted by the Speaker of the U. The other set of facts is to be gathered from what is stated in paragraph 22 onwards.

289—320 Calcutta 273— 320 Rajasthan « • • 129—160 Published by The All India Reporter Ltd., Regd. Until it is discharged or varied or set aride on such an application, dther written or oral the ex parte order ope- rates with full vigour and stands on Its own feet, provided it has not expired earlier. After bearing the counsel for the parties at considerable length and taking into account the facts and drcumstances of the case the learned Add L District Judge inter alia observed "that the plaintiff has not disclosed in his application the nature of the formal defect and because of the fact that it was argued on behalf of the Plaintiff that the provisions ot Order 23. (A) Constitution of India, Arts 14 and 339 (1) — Applicability — Article 14 can- not be invoked in respect of action taken at a time when the Article stood suspend- ed by order of President under Art. 45 in relation to it on the score that in its opinion it contains prejudicial reports. Distiag, (Para a O) Cases Referred: Chronological Paras (1968) AIR 1968 SC 765 (V 55) « 1968 Cii LJ 972, Mohd. State of Jammu and Rashimr T a966) AIR 1966 SC 740 (V 53)- 1966 Cri LJ 608, Ram Manohar liotfia V. Then followed an amendment of the Preridential Order on November 11. By this amendment for the words and figures "Article 2l” the words and figures "Articles 14 and 21” were sub- stituted. 1962 Rifle SI as originally framed was amended and Rule 30-A added. It may here be noted that the emergency came to an end in Janxiary, 1968. As Is well known Indo-Paldstan war broke out in September. It came to an end as a result of an agree- ment reached between India and Pa Mstan in January, 1966 popularly called "Tato- kent Dedaration”. Onsanizer, a weekly newspaper Issued fnun Delhi commented adversely on this 1970 A. From these facts the inference drawn by the petitioner as formulated in paragraph 21 of the petition is that the Central Govern- ment in taking the impugned action was influenced by the propaganda carried on by the Jan Sangh party and its action was arbitrary and mala fide, 3, The above is one set of facts as set forth in the petition.

Leave a Reply