Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad741
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This criminal revision case has been filed against the order of discharge made by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Cheyyar In C. C. No. 493 of 1951 and which was refused to be interfered with by the District Magistrate of Vellore in C. R. P. No. 5 of 1952.2. The facts are: C. C. No. 1647 of 1951 was filed before the Sub-Magistrate, Polur, for offences under Sections 324 and 323, Penal Code, by Ayesha Bee, wife of Kasim Saheb, Chinnapushpagirt village, Polur Taluk, against Peerkhan sahib, Pathima Bee and Chote Bee, all residing in Chinnapushpagiri village, Polur Taluk. It is unnecessary for us to go into the details of that case. So far as the present case is concerned, what happened was this. On this Ayesha Bee, the complainant, being examined as a prosecution witness, the accused who were defended by Mr. V. M. Sundaresa Aiyar, Advocate, Vellore put questions to this witness containing 'per se' defamatory imputations to the following effects viz.,(a) that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)115CTR(Bom)355; [1994]208ITR232(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference both at the instance of the assessee and the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to the following questions of law for the opinion of this court. The questions are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified that the purchase and sale of Fort property in the hands of the assessee-company was a purchase and sale of capital asset and the assessee-company was, therefore, liable to be assessed under the head 'Capital gains' under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income under the head 'Capital gains' is to be assessed on the basis of the financial year as previous year only and, therefore, the assessee was liable to be assessed under the head 'Capital gains' in respect of the transaction of purchase and sale of Fort property in the assessment year 1968-69 and not in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR3148
ORDERShyamasundar, J. 1. These and other connected Writ Petitions running into two or three thousand in number are directed against four common entities who are arrayed as respondents in these Writ Petitions, their commonness extending even to their itemised positions in the Petitions in that the State is arrayed as the first respondent in all these petitions, the Deputy Commissioners as respondent No. 2, the Administrators as respondent No. 3 and the Mandal Panchayats as respondent No. 4. The common characteristic as aforesaid does not stop just there but spreads even to the factual aspects and the legal issues raised in every one of these Writ Petitions challenging the appointment of Administrators to all the Mandal Panchayats existing in the State of Karnataka numbering in all about 2534 according to information furnished at the hearing of the Writ Petitions.2. The petitioners in all these cases are the Pradhans of the Mandal Panchayats. The office of a Pradhan is an electoral one. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(6)ALD720; 2001(1)ALT20
1. In this Batch of writ petitions, this Court is called upon to decide:(1) Whether the Tobacco Board (hereinafter referred as 'the Board') is having the authority to declare crop holiday for the FCV Virginia tobacco that is being grown in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the year 2000-2001. (2) If the answer is 'yes', whether it can be said that it is a 'reasonable restriction' on the tobacco trade as contemplated under Section 19(g) of the Constitution. 2. Having heard the arguments for four days, having perused the provisions of the Act and having entertained a doubt that the decision taken by the Board is too harsh affecting the agriculturists and agricultural labour, as the same being nominated body, but not a democratically elected one, and also in the light of the allegations and counter allegations that are being made in the Court by the persons supporting crop holiday and against crop holiday, with a view to find out whether any workable formula can be arrived at, I passed an i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2004)1UPLBEC547
M. Katju, J.1. These writ petitions and the bunch of connected writ petitions have challenged the validity of the petitioners' allocation to the State of Uttaranchal consequent upon the creation of the State of Uttaranchal by the U.P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000. All these petitions are being disposed off by a common judgment.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these connected petitions. We have also heard Sri B.N. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government and the learned Standing Counsel for the State Government.3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 52499 of 2002 was selected as an Officer in the Provincial Police Service in 1987 Batch. After completing his training he joined the service on 3.3.1990 and was initially posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Rampur. Presently he is posted as Additional Superintendent of Police, District Gautam Budh Nagar.4. The U.P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000 was enacted by Parliament% which the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2010]153CompCas497(SC); JT2009(3)SC216; 2009(3)SCALE451; (2009)4SCC94; (2009)12VatReporter137; (2009)21VST505(SC); JT2009(1)SC216
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 24767 of 2005.2. Whether Section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 [for short 'the Bombay Act'] and Section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [for short 'the Kerala Act'] and similar provision contained in other State legislations by which first charge has been created on the property of the dealer or such other person, who is liable to pay sales tax etc., are inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short `the DRT Act') for recovery of `debt' and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the Securitisation Act') for enforcement of `security interest' and whether by virtue of non obstante clauses contained in Section 34(1) of the DRT Act and Section 35 of the Securitisation Act, two Central legislations will have primacy over State legislations are the questions whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1982)29CTR(Del)137; [1983]140ITR748(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. The eligibility of the All India Hindu Mahasabha (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sabha') to exemption under s. 11 read with s. 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is the question at issue in these cross references. The relevant portions of these provisions as they stand at the relevant time, were in the following terms: '2. (15) Charitablm purpose' includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit.' '11. Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. -(1) Subject to the provisions of section 60 to 63. The following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income- (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes to the extent to which such income is applied in such purposes in India;..... (b) income derived from property held under tru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 16(1979)DLT266; ILR1979Delhi601; 1979RLR497
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) These six Letters Patent Appeals and Civil Writ can be disposed of by a common judgment, as they raise common issues arising out of a notification dated the 24th October, 1961 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') for the acquisition by the Government of about 16,000 acres of land situated in the village of Garhi Naraina which is situated within the limits of the Delhi Contonment (briefly referred to as 'Cantt.'). The public purpose specified in the notification was 'planned development of Delhi'. (2) A declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 7th December, 1966 in pursuance of the earlier notification under Section 4. The six appellants filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the above two notifications on various grounds. These petitions having been dismissed by Prithviraj.J. by his judgment dated 18th December, 1975 (reported in 1976 1 Delhi 375, the writ petitioners have preferred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1970Bom385; (1969)71BOMLR758; 1970CriLJ1427; ILR1970Bom464
ORDER1. The short point that arises for consideration in this Reference is as to the precise scope of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether In the circumstances of this case cognizance of the complaint under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, could have been taken by the Magistrate in the absence of sanction by the State Government. The learned Magistrate held that he could. The II Addl. Sess. Judge, Thana, however, ruled otherwise and has made this Reference under Section 438, Cr. P. C. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows: The complainant claims to be an advocate and a member of the Kalyan Municipality and a social worker. On 3-1-1968 he filed the present complaint against the two accused alleging that they committed an offence under Section 500, I.P.C.. on 2-1-1968 at about 6-30 p.m., when accused No. 1 performed the opening ceremony of a centre of distributing milk powder at Kalyan, at the instance of the local Rotary Club. Accused...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR2482:ILR2009(2)Kar2492:2009(4)KCCRSN216:2009(6)AIRKarR244.
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. Petitioners in these writ petitions have called in question the orders of transfer dated 7.1.2009 issued by respondent No. 3 transferring the petitioner No. 1 from Tumkur Division, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (in short referred to as the K.S.R.T.C.) to Yadgir Division of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (in short referred to as 'the N.E.K.R.T.C) and dated 7.1.2009 issued by respondent No. 3 transferring petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 from Tumkur Division, K.S.R.T.C. to Chikkodi Division. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (in short referred to as 'the N.W.K.R.T.C.') produced at Annexures-F and G respectively and for a mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to work in their parent division viz., at Tumkur.2. All the petitioners were appointed as conductors during 1989, 2002 and 2004 respectively. The K.S.R.T.C. is established by the State in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Road Transport Cor...
Tag this Judgment!