However, when there is no allegation made against the court officials merely because the endorsement was written in the order sheet after the certified copy of the order sheet in O. 457 Of the Companies Act 1956, on the ground that the legal service appeal was not maintainable as it was not authorised by the High Court. Defendant ‘possesses’ controlled substance when defendant knows of substance’s presence, substance is immediately accessible, and defendant exercises “dominion or control” over substance.
The singular question that emanates for consideration is whether under the provisions of the Act, the revenue authorities are entitled to levy the demand of luxury tax from the respondent by clubbing the plinth area of the apartments which are 13 in number or the plinth area of the individual apartment should be taken top law firms in Chandigarh into consideration for levy of the said impost. 00 is deposited under J. top legal services in Chandigarh That being so, the question is whether TISCO is entitled to refund of the excess royalty paid from 10th August, 1998 (the date of the decision in SAIL) to 25th September, 2000 and if so whether the High Court was right in denying that refund.
2007 and the same endorsement is found in the certified copy of the order sheet produced by the D. The same are accordingly hereby set aside. ” It is true they have got an asset which would give them, in all probability, nothing on balance, because they use it to pay these pensions; but they have got an asset; they had not any pension fund to pay these pensions with, and now they have got an insurance company which will in the future not extinguish the liability but countervail it and they have got the command of this policy to the extent that they are entitled to get their capital money say ‘ capital money ‘ without prejudice-back from the insurance company on surrendering the policies.
439/2006 were secured by the court and perusal of the same, it is revealed that in the order sheet after 170/07 there is an endorsement of the office that consideration amount of Rs. it does not mean that endorsement is correct. 303/2004 filed by TISCO against the judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2002 passed by the Jharkhand High Court. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2007 and obtained it on the same day.
has produced the copy of the order sheet obtained by him in this case and perusal of the same reveals that he has applied for the copy on 29. The connected appeals preferred by the Union of India, are also allowed. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine as incompetent in view of the provisions Of s. The first is that capital expenditure cannot be attributed to revenue and vice versa. has deposited the balance consideration on 29. In the said dictionary, the term “possess” in the context of narcotic drug law firms means:- “Term “possess.
439/06 said endorsement is not there and therefore, he impliedly contended that endorsement has been subsequently got written in the order sheet. However, the counsel for the J. argued that he has also obtained copy of the order sheet and in his order sheet in O. Also, the question is whether TISCO is entitled to refund of royalty from 25th September, 2000 till June 2002 and if so, whether the High Court was right in denying that refund.
Further it is seen that J. The liquidators were refused sanction to appeal from the said award by the High Court whereupon the auction-purchaser who was also the managing director of the Company, prior to its liquidation, preferred an appeal in the name of the Company represented by himself as the managing director and also in his capacity as the auction-purchaser of the Company. the deposit of amount may be noted best lawyer in Chandigarh the order sheet on the same date, but after issue of certified copy of the J.
[2] (hereafter SAIL) has been accepted by the High Court, namely, that royalty is chargeable [top lawyers in Chandigarh accordance with Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (the MMDR Act)] on the quantity of coal extracted at the pit-head, yet the refund of excess royalty paid by TISCO for the period from 10th August, 1998 (the date of the decision best legal services in Chandigarh SAIL) till June 2002 [about Rs. Therefore records in O. The appeals filed by those who moved to the cadre of Data Entry Operators from the ministerial cadre, and were thereupon amalgamated in the cadre of Tax Assistants/Senior Tax Assistants, are allowed.
In this context, it must immediately be noted that the contention of the State of Jharkhand is not that Rule 64B and Rule 64C of the MCR have retrospective effect. Therefore, there is all the chance that after issuance of the certified copy of the J. TISCO therefore claims entitlement to refund on the excess royalty paid by it for this period.