Raghu Lakshminarayanan v. Fine Tubes

M/S CCl Products [India] Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax -1

Gupta Coal (India) Limited vs. Kiocl Limited

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar Writ Petition Nos.7926-7927 Of 2012 (Gm-Ten) Between: 1. Gupta Coal (India) Limited A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At Shriram Towers, 7Th Floor S.V. Patel Marg Nagpur-440 001 Rep By Its Authorised Signatory Sumith R. Kamath. 2. Sical Logistics Limited A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 73, Armenian Street Chennai-600 001 Tamil Nadu Rep By Its Managing Director R. Ram Mohan. ..Petitioners (By Sri Udaya Holla, Sr. Adv., For Amarchand, Adv.,) R

…opy of the Income Tax returns filed for the financial year 2010-11 alongwith the tender. 17. Sri N. Khetty, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GLODYNE TECHNOSERVE LIMITED -vs- STATE OF M.P. – {(2011)5 SCC 103}, wherein it is observed thus: “46. The above provision obliges a tenderer to produce along with the bid document a copy of the quality certificate which is valid and active on the date of submission of the bid and it does not 30 enable a bidder to withhold the copy of such quality certificate. Where the quality certificate will be expiring shor…

M/S.Dhfl Vysya Housing Finance Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Criminal Appeal No.362 Of 2011 Between Smt. Mamatha, W/O. Vijay, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of No.46/2, “Manjunatha Nilaya”, 4Th Cross, Opp: Vidya Public School, Kammagondanahalli, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru. …Appellant (By Sri K.A. Chandrashekara, Adv., Through Vc)

…oncern as party. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 12 13. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghu Lakshminarayanan vs. Fine Tubes reported in (2007) 5 SCC 103, which are as under: “12. If Accused No. 1 was not a Company within the meaning of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the question of an employee being proceeded against in terms thereof would not arise. The respondent was aware of the difference between a “partnership firm” and a “business concern” as would be evident from the…