AI Overview...
- M/s Jay Chemical Works - Legal Disputes and Court Orders
- The company has been involved in multiple legal proceedings. In April 2025, an appeal was filed against a September 2024 order by the Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar, which directed the return of a plaint in a commercial suit due to procedural reasons under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The appellant's proprietor, Jay Kumar, was reportedly ill at the time. Jay Chemical Works vs Sai Chemicals - Allahabad
- Another case involves a challenge to a June 2023 order permitting a temporary injunction in a suit filed by a respondent against Jay Chemical Works. The proceedings highlight ongoing litigation concerning the company's legal standing and court directives. SMT. SAROJ VERMA vs M/S JAY CHEMICAL WORKS - Allahabad
-
These cases indicate that M/s Jay Chemical Works has faced legal disputes related to commercial and civil matters, with court decisions affecting its legal proceedings and asset handling. Jay Chemical Works vs Sai Chemicals - Allahabad, SMT. SAROJ VERMA vs M/S JAY CHEMICAL WORKS - Allahabad
-
Business and Asset Transactions
- Jay Prestressed Production Ltd. was involved in legal actions concerning the sale of assets of Tirupati Woollen Mills Ltd. under liquidation, with orders recalling previous offers and confirming asset transfers, including disputes involving Sharma Chemical Works and Divya Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. TIRUPATI WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) AND UNION BANK OF INDIA VS OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT - Calcutta, Divya Manufacturing Co. , (P) LTD. VS Union Bank of India - Supreme Court
-
These transactions reflect the company's involvement in industrial asset liquidation and restructuring processes, with legal interventions impacting asset distribution. TIRUPATI WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) AND UNION BANK OF INDIA VS OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT - Calcutta, Divya Manufacturing Co. , (P) LTD. VS Union Bank of India - Supreme Court
-
Tax and Regulatory Cases
- The company has been involved in tax-related legal cases, including challenges to income tax assessments and valuation issues. Notably, references to Supreme Court and High Court decisions (e.g., Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Income Tax Department) suggest ongoing disputes over tax liabilities and valuation methods. Commissioner of Income Tax – I VS Sakthi Sugars Ltd. - Madras, JAY ENGINIRING WORKS LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA - Delhi
-
The cases emphasize the importance of proper valuation, adherence to legal procedures, and the interpretation of tax laws in the company's financial disputes. Commissioner of Income Tax – I VS Sakthi Sugars Ltd. - Madras, JAY ENGINIRING WORKS LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA - Delhi
-
Industry and Legal Precedents
- References to decisions involving chemical and manufacturing companies, such as Hoechst Dyes and Chemicals, and Barium Chemicals Ltd., highlight legal principles related to trade, manufacturing, and sales tax laws. These precedents guide the interpretation of statutory provisions applicable to M/s Jay Chemical Works' industry sector. Qualoty Chemicals VS STATE - Gujarat, Clariant Chemicals (India) Ltd. VS Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 1(1) - Bombay
- The legal landscape underscores the importance of compliance with tax laws, proper valuation, and adherence to judicial precedents in industrial operations.
Analysis and Conclusion M/s Jay Chemical Works has a history of legal disputes spanning civil, commercial, and tax domains. Court orders have impacted its suit proceedings, asset liquidation, and tax assessments. The company's legal challenges reflect broader issues of compliance, asset management, and adherence to judicial precedents in the chemical manufacturing industry. Continuous legal scrutiny underscores the need for robust compliance strategies to mitigate future disputes.
Search Results for "M s Jay Chemical Works"
2025 0 Supreme(All) 3345 • India - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARUN BHANSAL, Kshitij Shailendra
The appeal, filed in April, 2025, is directed against the order dated 19.09.2024 whereby the Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar has directed return of plaint of Commercial Suit No. 3 of 2020 (M/s Jay Chemical Works Vs. ... M/s Sai Chemicals) to the plaintiff-appellant-applicant by invoking powers under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. ... Jay Kumar, the proprietor of the appellant, had fallen seriously ill and remained under treatment of a doctor at Pratha Hospital, Kanpur on account of feeling uneasiness, stomach di....
• India - Allahabad High Court
Chemical Works through its Proprietor Shri Jay Kumar Vs. ... Saroj Verma Respondent :- M/S Jay Chemical Works Counsel for Appellant :- Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. ... of CPC, has been filed by the defendant-appellant challenging the order dated 06.06.2023 whereby the court below has allowed the application seeking temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent in Original Suit No.12 of 2021 (M/S Jay#HL_EN....
• India - Allahabad High Court
VIVEK AGARWAL
1998 0 Supreme(Cal) 341 • India - Calcutta
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
Fact of the Case: Two applications were filed by Jay Prestressed Production Ltd. and Sharma Chemical Works, seeking ... Sharma Chemical Works ("sharma") have prayed for recalling our order dated July 2, 1998 by which we disposed of the appeal by confirming the sale of the assets of Tirupati Woollen Mills Ltd. under liquidation ("company") in favour of Divya Manufacturing Co. Pvt. ... Jay Prestressed Production Ltd. ("jay") and another M/s. ... The offer of #HL_START....
2000 5 Supreme 66 • India - Supreme Court
R.P.SETHI, M.B.SHAH
It is to be stated that on 26th June, 1998, the Division Bench has ordered that offers of Eastern Silk Industries Ltd. and Jay Prestressed ... ("Divya" for short) had been recalled and set aside on the application of respondent No. 7, Sharma Chemical Works (For short "Sharma") and respondent No. 8, Jay Prestressed Products Ltd. ("Jay" for short) herein. ... 2. ... At that time, Jay-respondent No. 8 had not increased its offer of Rs. 1.25 crores. ... Jay Prestressed Pr....
2010 0 Supreme(Mad) 3374 • India - Madras
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, M.M.SUNDRESH
Relaxo Footwears Ltd.), 311 ITR 405 (Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), 164 ITR 525 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.S.M.Ahmed Hussain), 177 ITR 377 (Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), 150 CTR 126 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. I.A.E.C. ... under the said section, all that is necessary is that, firstly, the money, i.e., capital, must have been borrowed by the assessee; secondly, it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business; and, thirdly, the assessee must....
1993 0 Supreme(Guj) 6 • India - Gujarat
C.V.JANI, M.B.SHAH
correctness of decision - On the contrary they were bound to follow decision pronounced by Tribunal in case of `Hoechst Dyes and Chemicals ... Assistant Commissioners of Sales Tax were bound to follow the decision pronounced by the Tribunal in the case of Hoechst Dyes and Chemicals ... Jayant Chemicals Works P. Ltd, 36 S. T. C. 112, identical entries under the Bombay Sales tax Act, 1959, were considered by the Division Bench of this Court. ... It has no definite molecular chemical formula as it is the p....
2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 139 • India - Bombay
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, SUNIL P.DESHMUKH
Jay Engg. ... Works Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 389 Fact of the Case: The Assessee challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income ... Jay Engg. Works Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 389. ... 7. On the other hand, Mr. Chhotaray appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. There are findings of fact rendered concurrently.
1980 0 Supreme(Del) 366 • India - Delhi
PRAKASH NARAIN, S.RANGANATHAN
Fact of the Case: The petitioner, Jay Engineering Works Limited, manufactures electric fans and regulators. ... RANGANATHAN ... ( 1 ) JAY Engineering Works Limited (petitioner No. 1) is a limited company having its registered office at Delhi. ... One of the contentions raised on behalf of the asessee was that the sale price charged by the assessee company to Atul Products Limited and Imperial Chemical Industries Limited could not be ignored by the excise authorities in determining the assessable value....
1994 0 Supreme(Cal) 155 • India - Calcutta
Altamas Kabir
(ii) Jay Engineering Works Ltd. and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in a. I. R. 1968 Calcutta at Page 407, and (iii) Prabodh Verma and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in a. I. R. 1985 SC at Page 167. Mr. ... Sircar referred to the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Another v. ... Ray urged that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Barium Chemicals Ltd. v Company Law Board and Ors. (supra)cited by Mr. Sircar had no application to the facts o....
Filter by Legal Phrase
