Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. 2005, whereby and whereunder, the High Court has held that the appellant-assessee is a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, the Act) and dismissed the tax revision preferred by the appellant-assessee. For the reasons indicated we agree with the learned Judge below in holding that Articles 190 (3) and 192 (1) are applicable only to disqualifications to which a member becomes subject after he is elected as such, and that neither the Governor nor the Commission has jurisdiction to enquire into the respondent’s disqualification which arose long before his election.
2001 alone was valid and legal and as such it being after the contract was entered into, must qualify to be ˜subsequent legislation. 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. In Bhimpappa Basappa Bhu Sannavar v. 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.
The submission is that after the decision in SAIL the Government of India issued a notification dated 25th September, 2000 inserting Rule 64B and Rule 64C in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereafter MCR) and as a result of this, Run-of-Mine (ROM) minerals, after being processed in the leased area are exigible to royalty on the processed mineral. 4 per cent and the notification dated 20. In support of the appeal, Ms. 412 of 2002 and Sales Tax Revision Nos.
2001, in her submission was flawed and beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda and others explaining the word case the court held:- The word case is not defined by the Code but its meaning is well- understood in legal circles. All such equitable mortgages shall, however, be referred to the Collector immediately. It is contended that these rules were, unfortunately, not brought to the notice of the High Court and that the decision rendered by the High Court accepting the law laid down in SAIL is incorrect.
Provided that except in cases where the provisions of the West Bengal Alienation of Land (Regulation) Act, 1960 (West Bengal Act XVI of 1960), apply, no such sanction shall be necessary for equitable mortgage of a tea- garden with a Scheduled Bank by the deposit of title deeds. CEGAT held that the appeal was in fact against the Collectors order. 321 and 326 of 2005, dated 23. The lessor was given the authority Permission to go Abroad Law Firm in Chandigarh determine the enhancement but such enhancement was to be fair and equitable and what would be fair and equitable in any particular case was also to be determined by the lessor.
In other contexts the word may represent other kinds of proceedings but in the context of the sub-section it must mean a proceeding which at the end results either Barrister in Chandigarh discharge, conviction, or acquittal of an accused person. CEGAT negatived a contention that the appeal was not maintainable before them on the basis that the Superintendents order is nothing more than a communication of the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). 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.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in TRC No. In my view the correct interpretation to be put on this clause of the lease deed is what is contended for by the respondent. The reasoning that prior to 03. On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that a demand letter from the District Collector was without the support of law and that the impost pursuant to notification of 20. Indu Malhotra, learned Senior advocate in chandigarh for resitution of conjugal rights submitted that the royalty, at the time the contract was entered into, was payable at the rate of Rs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. nBy a unanimous decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court, it was held:- “16. CEGAT has disposed of this appeal by the impugned order. In criminal jurisdiction means ordinarily a proceeding for the prosecution of a person alleged to have committed an offence. The court referred to Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. 2000 the State Government lacked competence and as such valid impact occurred for the first time vide notification dated 20.
307/2004 has been filed by the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) against the same judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2002. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath and eventually held thus:  In the said case, while dealing with the concept of continuing offence, after referring to Section 472 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (CrPC) the Court has stated that the expression “continuing offence” has not been defined in CrPC because it is one of those expressions which does not have a fixed connotation and, therefore, the formula of universal application cannot be formulated in this respect.
Shiv Mangal Sharma, learned AAG for the State has also drawn inspiration from Udai Shankar Awasthi v. In the aforesaid provision the legislature had employed the words before any Court in which any case of which he has charge. 2001 of the Government of UP maintained the same rate.