timesofindia.indiatimes.com 2019-01-29 18:33:00
Jodhpur: Rajasthan High Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Central government, state government and the GST Council seeking reply in four weeks on.
www.news18.com 2019-01-26 11:16:00
An already dwindling handicraft industry is under the impact of GST. Away from the politics & policies Maha Siddiqui gets the stories of the weavers of Rajasthan ...
www.timesnownews.com 2019-01-14 08:00:00
Steven Smith is all set to miss the upcoming season of Indian Premier League and Rajasthan Royals have started looking for a replacement for their former ...
thehindubusinessline.com 2018-12-06 15:52:00
UP announces procedure for SGST relief to multiplexes T+ T- New Delhi, December 6 Shishir Sinha Multiplexes such as PVR, INOX and GGN can heave a sigh of relief as the Uttar Pradesh Government has announced detailed procedures for refund mechanism under Goods and Services Tax (GST) for multiplexes in the State. It is the second State after Rajasthan to announce such a mechanism. There are over 8,700 screens (both multiplexes and single screen) in India, out of which nearly 500 are in Uttar Pradesh alone. The basic principle of GST does not promote exemption, but prescribes for deposit of taxes due. However, both the Centre and States can prescribe refund mechanism in lieu of exemption to continue promoting industrial activities in their respective region. Accordingly, beneficiaries will first have to deposit the tax and then they will be given refund. The UP Government, in its Cabinet meeting on November 20, decided to have such a mechanism for the multiplexes/cinema theatre and has come out with details about "the limits and procedures of grant-in-aid given as an incentive to multiplexes/cinema theatres after the GST regime." This will be applicable to both running and under-construction entities. The need for such a policy arose after the entertainment tax was subsumed in the GST. Prior to introduction of GST, the State Government offered incentive in the form of five-year tax exemption to multiplexes. As part of the scheme of exemption, multiplex companies were allowed to retain 100 per cent of the entertainment tax charged in the first year, 75 per cent in the second and third years, and 50 per cent charged in fourth and fifth year of operations, respectively. There was question mark on continuation of such incentive post GST which forced many multiplexes to seek legal recourse for the continuation of the scheme. The Yogi Government then came out with the detailed procedure. Abhishek A Rastogi, partner at Khaitan & Co, who is the arguing counsel for various petitioners, termed this a big step forward towards the promises made to businesses and said that UP has lived up to the expectations. "It is to be seen whether the Central Government also offers similar benefit. However, the quantum of benefit granted is not the same as that promised in the past and hence the dispute to that extent may remain before the courts in case of few multiplexes. The State may consider extension of time to meet the deficit," he said. How reimbursement works According to circular dated December 3, the licence holders for the multiplexes/cinema theatres need to deposit the SGST (State Goods and Services Tax) collected from the viewers in State treasury. Within a month, by the pre-determined procedure and as per the allocated budgeted, the equivalent amount of the SGST collected from the viewers will be transferred in the account of the concerned multiplexes/cinema theatres. For all such units covered under incentives schemes before the application of GST regime and have incentive in the form of grants-in-aid, the amount of SGST deposited by them will be reimbursed as permissible on annual percentage basis. Various multiplex have different dates for the beginning of such incentives which will continue for five years. A senior State Government official said under the new mechanism, effort is to ensure commitment for the period as promised during the pre- GST regime. Earlier, the Rajasthan Government, in its new policy, decided to refund 50 per cent of the State GST collected on tickets to multiplex owners, who were promised exemptions. Published on
abclive.in 2018-12-05 02:40:00
Know The Legal Remedies Against Ex Parte Decree Dinesh Singh Rawat December 5, 2018 Legal news Comments Off on Know The Legal Remedies Against Ex Parte Decree 86 Views Share Supreme Court India Evolves Jurisprudence of Secret Justice Regime November 18, 2018 Panchkula (ABC Live): Remedies Against Ex Parte Decree : If defendant was set exparte in a suit, defendant can make an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the exparte decree. If defendant was set exparte in Summary suits, what are remedies available to him to set aside such decree? This is the salient feature of this article. When the suit is called on for hearing, where the plaintiff appears but the defendant is called absent after receiving summons and there was no representation for the defendant, then, the Court may hear the suit exparte and pass a decree. It is thus clear that when a decree is passed by the court in the absence of the defendant, it is called"ex-parte decree". Order IX Rule 13 CPC deals with" setting aside decree ex parte against the defendant". I will later on discuss what remedies in case of decree are. With support of rulings of superior courts, the difference between " 'special circumstance' found under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC" and the 'sufficient cause' found under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is referred in this Court for clear understanding exparte decrees in ordinary suits and summary suits. The criteria for setting aside an ex parte decree passed in a suit filed under Or.36 CPC:- Order 37 Rule 4 of CPC specifically provides the procedure to set aside ex parte decree to that extent Order 9, Rule 13 CPC stands excluded. Therefore, the principle of 'sufficient cause' found under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC cannot be imported into Order 37, Rule 4 of CPC and what is to be looked into is whether the defendant has made out a 'special circumstance' in terms of Order 37 Rule 4 CPC. See. Karumilli Bharathi vs Prichikala Venkatachalam - 1999 (3) ALT 407 . It is well-settled law that 'special circumstance' found under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC is not synonymous with the 'sufficient cause' found under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC or under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The object of Order 37 is to provide a speedy remedy in favour of the plaintiff in suits based upon bills of exchange, hundies and promissory notes or in a case the plaintiff seeks only to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant arising on a contract or on an enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty or on a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only. See. Karumilli Bharathi vs Prichikala Venkatachalam "” 1999 (3) ALT 407 . In the decision reported in Mohan Lal Vs. Om Prakash , the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, distinguished 'sufficient cause' from 'special reason'. It held that the case set up by the defendant for setting aside the ex parte decree, that the plaintiff assured that there would be settlement, therefore, he did not appear on the day fixed, could constitute 'sufficient cause' in terms of Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, but not 'special reason', as envisaged under Order 37, Rule 4 CPC. In another judgment reported in Rahini Roy vs Jethmull Bhojraj And Anr - AIR 1969 Cal 218 , the High Court of Calcutta held that defendants in the case did not make out 'special circumstances'. The facts of that case reveal that the defendants did not furnish security to the extent of Rs.30,000/- to the satisfaction of Registrar within one month, nor even after giving two time extensions and as such ultimately an ex parte decree was passed on 8-9-1997, when the mailer appeared in pre-emptory list. The Court held that the defendants therein did not explain their absence and their inaction when they had equal opportunity, ultimately held that the defendants did not make out 'special circumstances' for setting aside the ex parte decree. Or. 20 Rule.11 CPC applies to decree passed for recovery of money, and also applies to summary suits. Under Order 20 R.11 CPC, court can order postponement of payment of amount of decree or can pass order to pay the decreetal amount to Degree Holders on installment basis. This is one of the remedies to the defendant to available after passing exparte decree in view of Summary suits under Order 36 CPC. In M. Ramnarain Private Ltd. And Anr vs State Trading Corporation - 1983 AIR 786 , it was held that appeal lies against the order passed under Order 20 R.11 CPC. The criteria for setting aside an ex parte decree:- To set aside an exparte decree, the Court must satisfy the summons was not duly served upon defendant. However, mere irregularity in the service of summons upon defendant is a ground to set aside the decree. See. Second proviso to Or.9 R.13 CPC. Another ground is that if the Court satisfies that defendant was prevented by sufficient cause for his appearance on the date of hearing. Then, the Court may set aside the exparte decree passed against the defendant. As per Explanation to Order IX Rule 13 CPC, exparte decree cannot be set aside where the appeal has been disposed of. Remedies for Or.9 R.13 CPC:- Defendant can apply the Court under Or.9 R.13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree. In case of the exparte decree was obtained by playing fraud on the Court; the defendant can institute a suit on the ground of fraud. Under Order 47 R.1 CPC, defendant can apply for"Review'. Defendant can prefer an appeal under Sec. 92 (2) CPC. If no appeal lies, defendant can file revision. In Bank of India's case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has undertaken a detailed and comprehensive analysis of Rule 13 of Order 9 C.P.C. It was held that the relief cannot be confined only to cases where the decree is ex parte in nature and that the rule covers the cases in which the decree is on merits vis-a-vis same defendants and ex parte against others. Support was taken from the language, employed in the first proviso to Order IX of Rule 13 C.P.C. See also. M. Eswaramma v. N. Keshava Reddy and others - 2011 (5) ALT 289 . As has been observed in Namburi Chenna Reddy and others v. Devireddy Kotareddy and others - 2006 (2) ALT 369 , where the defendant is set ex parte, the trial court is not relieved of its duty to examine the merits of the matter and to render a reasoned judgment before passing a decree. It was held in G.. Visweshwarudu Vs. State Bank of India and another - 1985 (1) ALT(NRC) 113, that "In this case, the appellant has produced a medical certificate issued by a Doctor and admittedly that certificate was accepted and the delay was condoned holding that the appellant was prevented from filing an application since he was undergoing treatment with the Doctor. Once that fact is accepted by the court, different standards cannot be applied in considering the application to set aside the exparte decree. The self-same reasons are the reasons for his failure to appear in court on the day when the suit stood posted for trial. Therefore, the lower court has committed an error of law in holding that the Doctor has not been examined and, therefore, the burden which admittedly lay on the appellant was not discharged. Or.9 Rule 13 CPC:- Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant. In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit: Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may he set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also: Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim. Explanation.-Where there has been an appeal against a decree passed ex parte under this rule, and the appeal has been disposed of an any ground other than the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal; no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that ex parte decree. It was held in Yelka Ram Reddy and others v. Kancharla Indira and others - 2004 (5) ALT 48 that while considering the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., the trial Court was required to examine as to whether there was any deliberate omission or lapse on the part of the respondents in attending the Court on the day on which the applicant was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed. Instead, it proceeded to discuss the matter as though it was considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or an application to set aside the order forfeiting right to file written statement. Conclusion:- Order 37 Rule 4 of CPC specifically provides the procedure to set aside ex parie decree to that extent Order 9, Rule 13 CPC stands excluded. The words 'special circumstance' found under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC are not synonymous with the 'sufficient cause' found under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC or under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Or.20 Rule 11 of CPC can also be considered as one of the remedies to the defendant to available after passing exparte decree in view of Summary suits under Order 36 CPC. On the other hand, in other suits, in case of an exparte decree was passed in the absence of defendant, he can choose remedies under provisions Or.9 R.13 CPC, Order 47 R.1 CPC, Sec. 92 (2) CPC, if no appeal lies, defendant can file revision, and that the defendant can institute a suit on the ground of fraud. Source : This Article written by Y. SRINIVASA RAO, JUDGE was first published on Articles On Law republished in the interest of Justice. Share this:
newindianexpress.com 2018-12-03 00:00:00
Home Nation Pollution cutting short Indian lives The report, released on Thursday, says that reduction in life expectancy is highest in Rajasthan at 2.5 years. Share Via Email Published: 07th December 2018 03:29 AM | Last Updated: 07th December 2018 03:29 AM | A+ A A- Image used for representational purpose only. (File photo | EPS) By Express News Service NEW DELHI: Average life expectancy in India would have been 1.7 years higher if the air pollution level were less than the minimal level that causes severe damage to health, the first study to map the impact of air pollution in every state in the country has found. The study, based on analysis of data from 2017, was commissioned by the department of health research under the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and about 100 institutions came together for the project. The report, released on Thursday, says that reduction in life expectancy is highest in Rajasthan at 2.5 years. It has once again highlighted the extent of damage being done to public health due to alarmingly rising air pollution in the country, particularly in the northern states. It comes just a month after a University of Chicago report rated India as the second most polluted country in the world after Nepal. The report by the Energy Policy Institute at the university, however, had said that particulate pollution was so severe that it shortened the average Indian's life expectancy by more than four years relative to what it would be if World Health Organization (WHO) air quality guidelines were met. The latest report, however, pointed out that if the exposure to particulate matter pollution had been lower than the minimum levels associated with health loss, average life expectancy in India would have been higher by 0·9 years, with the highest increase in Delhi, followed by Haryana, Punjab, and UP. The report also said that if the exposure to household air pollution due to solid fuels had been lower than the minimum levels associated with health loss, the average life expectancy would have increased in India by 0·7 years, with the highest increase in Rajasthan, followed by Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. For non-communicable diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, diabetes, lung cancer, and cataract, the death and disability adjusted life years rate attributable to air pollution was at least as high as the rate attributable to tobacco use, the report said. The consequences The health problems arising from high levels of pollution include lower respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ischaemic heart disease, followed by stroke, diabetes lung cancer and cataract Stay up to date on all the latest Nation news with The New Indian Express App. Download now (Get the news that matters from New Indian Express on WhatsApp. Click this link and hit 'Click to Subscribe' . Follow the instructions after that.) TAGS
thehindu.com 2018-11-20 02:48:00
November 20, 2018 08:18 08:18 IST more-in Officials of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India seized 830 kg of banned tobacco products from Telungupalayam here on Monday. The seized products are worth more than â‚¹10 lakh. According to FSSAI officials, the stock of prohibited tobacco products was found in a warehouse belonged to Chinnadurai on Bharathi Road near Telungupalayam. He had rented out the warehouse to Govind Singh, a native of Rajasthan. The owner had rented out the facility to Singh for 11 months in October. Designated Officer of FSSAI B. Vijayalalithambigai said that the warehouse was sealed by the FSSAI team late on Sunday based on specific information regarding the stock of banned tobacco products. "The sealed warehouse was opened on Monday and the tobacco products were taken into custody. Samples of the seized products have been taken for analysis," she said. The seized tobacco products were found in packets, each priced at â‚¹150. But the dealer had been selling them at higher rates.
Avantis WebGroup is a property of Avantis Regtech Private Limited, an Indian Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at 302A and 302B, Citi Tower, Sangamwadi, Pune – 411 001, Maharashtra, India.
Information we collect
Contact information. We might collect your name, email, mobile number, phone number, street, city, state, pincode, country and IP address.
Payment and billing information. We might collect your billing name, billing address and payment method when you buy our:
Information you post. We collect information you post in a public space on our WebGroup or on a third-party site belonging to Avantis WebGroup.
Demographic information. We may collect demographic information about you, events you like, events you intend to participate in, tickets you buy, or any other information provided by you during the use of our WebGroup. We might collect this as a part of a survey also.
Other information. If you use our WebGroup, we may collect information about your IP address and the browser you're using. We might look at what site you came from, duration of time spent on our website, pages accessed or what site you visit when you leave us. We might also collect the type of mobile device you are using, or the version of the operating system your computer or device is running.
We collect information in different ways.
We collect information directly from you. We collect information directly from you when you register for availing the services of Products. We also collect information if you post a comment on our WebGroup or ask us a question through phone or email.
We collect information from you passively. We use tracking tools like Google Analytics, Google Webmaster, browser cookies and web beacons for collecting information about your usage of our WebGroup and the Products.
We get information about you from third parties. For example, if you use an integrated social media feature on our WebGroup. The third-party social media site will give us certain information about you. This could include your name and email address.
Use of your personal information
We use information to contact you: We might use the information you provide to contact you for confirmation of a purchase on our WebGroup or for other promotional purposes.
We use information to respond to your requests or questions. We might use your information to confirm your registration for an event or contest.
We use information to improve our products and services. We might use your information to customize your experience with us. This could include displaying content based upon your preferences.
We use information to look at site trends and customer interests. We may use your information to make our WebGroup and Products better. We may combine information we get from you with information about you we get from third parties.
We use information for security purposes. We may use information to protect our Company, our Customers, or our WebGroup.
We use information for marketing purposes. We might send you information about special promotions or offers. We might also tell you about new features or Products. These might be our own offers or Products, or third-party offers or Products we think you might find interesting. Or, for example, if you buy Products from us, we will enroll you in our newsletter.
We use information to send you transactional communications. We might send you emails or SMS about your account or a Product purchase.
We use information as otherwise permitted by law.
Sharing of information with third-parties
We will share information with third parties who perform services on our behalf. We share information with vendors who help us manage our online registration process or payment processors or transactional message processors. Some vendors may be located outside of India.
We will share information with the event organizers. We share your information with event organizers and other parties responsible for fulfilling the purchase obligation. The event organizers and other parties may use the information we give them as described in their privacy policies.
We will share information with our business partners. This includes a third party who provide or sponsor an event, or who operates a venue where we hold events. Our partners use the information we give them as described in their privacy policies.
We may share information if we think we have to in order to comply with the law or to protect ourselves. We will share information to respond to a court order or subpoena. We may also share it if a government agency or investigatory body requests. Or, we might also share information when we are investigating potential fraud.
We may share information with any successor to all or part of our business. For example, if part of our business is sold, we may give our customer list as part of that transaction.
We may share your information for reasons not described in this policy. We will tell you before we do this.
You can opt out of receiving our marketing emails. To stop receiving our promotional emails, please email firstname.lastname@example.org. It may take about ten days to process your request. Even if you opt out of getting marketing messages, we will still be sending you transactional messages through email and SMS about your purchases on our WebGroup/ Products.
Third party sites
In accordance with Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 and rules made there under, the name and contact details of the Grievance Officer are provided below:
Mr. Rishi Agrawal
302A and 302B, City Tower,
Boat Club Road, Sangamwadi, Pune – 411 001
If you have any questions about this Policy or other privacy concerns, you can also email us at email@example.com.
Updates to this policy
We may change our privacy practices from time to time. We will notify you of any material changes to this Policy as required by law. We will also post an updated copy on our WebGroup. Please check our WebGroup periodically for updates.