Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-12-1988
Reported in : AIR1988SC782; [1989]65CompCas1(SC); (1988)1CompLJ225(SC); 1988(36)ELT201(SC); JT1988(1)SC304; 1988(1)SCALE273; (1988)2SCC299; [1988]2SCR962; 1988(2)LC54(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukherji, J.1. What falls for consideration in all these matters is a common question of law, namely, whether equity shares in the two companies i.e. 10,00,000 shares in Swadeshi Polytex Limited and 17,18,344 shares in Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing Company Limited, Held by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills, vest in the Central Government under Section 3 of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The other subsidiary question is whether the immovable properties, namely, the bungalow No. 1 and the Administrative Block, Civil Lines, Kanpur have also vested in the Government. The question as to one more property known as Shrubbery property whether it has been taken over or not is still to be argued and is not covered by this judgment.2. In order to appreciate the question in these matters it has to be borne in mind that there were six original proceedings initiated by various parties which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Oct-07-1988
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. Baghmara is the Head Quarter of a Revenue Sub-Division in West Garo Hills of Meghalaya State. This town is on the Bangladesh border and is situate between International border pillars 1143 and 1158. The town is divided by a P. W.D. Road Along the two sides of the highway there is a bazar. Near the bazar there is Police Station, a Primary School building and residential quarter of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The inhabitants of the town speak more than one language and follow different customs and celebrate festivals in their day to day life. 2. On April 14,1987 the Rishi Community of the town were celebrating Charak Puja in the Primary School building. The establishment apprehended disturbance to peace and tranquillity in the town therefore alerted the law enforcement agencies. The Sub-divisional Officer who is also an Executive Magistrate was present in the town. The incharge officer of the Police Station was at the Thana. The Deputy Superintendent of Police arri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-04-1988
Reported in : JT1988(2)SC320; 1988(1)SCALE842; (1988)3SCC478; [1988]3SCR895; [1988]70STC122(SC); 1988(2)LC204(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. These are applications under Article 32 of the Constitution and challenge in these proceedings is to the validity of notice issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Respondent No.2, under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Haryana Act'). Such notice is said to have been issued on 13th of December, 1980. The relevant periods are 1968-69 to 1974-75 and each of the writ petitions relates to onepf these years. As common questions of fact and law arise in these petitions and a common set of arguments has been advanced at the Bar, we proceed to dispose of all these writ petitions by a common judgment.2. The petitioner No. 1, a Public Limited Company, has its factory at Ganaur within the District of Sonepat in Haryana State and petitioner No. 2 is its General Manager (Legal) and duly constituted Attorney. Petitioner No. 1 a manufacturer of electric resistance, welded steel and tubes and pipes, is a dealer re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-11-1988
Reported in : 1988(18)ECC358; 1988(19)LC131(Delhi); 1989(39)ELT211(Del)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. The main question involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the Central Board of Excise and Customs could invest in the Director (Audit) in the Directorate General of Inspection and Audit (Customs & Central Excise), New Delhi, the powers of a Collector of Central Excise for the purposes of Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the assign to him any pending cases for investigation and adjudication. 2. The National Tobacco Co. of India Limited was incorporated and was an existing company at the relevant time within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Calcutta. It was engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacture and sale of cigarettes and smoking mixtures. It had a factory at Agarpara in the State of West Bengal and another factory at Biccavole in the State of Andhra Pradesh. With effect from March 1, 1977 it merged with M/s. Duncan's Agro Industries Limited, the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-25-1988
Reported in : (1988)25ITD193(Delhi)
1. There being difference of opinion between Members on some of the points involved as per orders annexed, the Special Bench Tribunal order is as follows : 1. 80J Relief to be recomputed within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308, i.e., all liabilities are to be deducted for the purpose of computing capital employed, which shall have the effect of the Revenue's appeal on the point being allowed and the assessee's rejected (Unanimous view)-Ground No. 1 in both the appeals. 2. Coming to Section 35B dispute on which both the parties were in appeal, the revenue is ('s claim to be) rejected whereas the assessee partly succeeds inasmuch as, in respect of packing material expenses to the tune of Rs. 65,08,653, directions have been given that Section 35B deduction should be allowed in respect of bifurcated expenses on wrappers. The directions are similar to the one given in the assessee's own case in res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-15-1988
Reported in : AIR1989Kant315; ILR1989KAR218; 1989(1)KarLJ444
ORDER1. The Petitioners are all transport operators operating stage carriage services under valid permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Raichur, (respondent 2), on various routes within the district of Raichur. Some of the petitioners are operating the stage carriages from the year 1950 onwards. The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation),' with an intention of operating its stage carriage services to the exclusion of private operators including the petitioners, by a Notification No. MST. CO. PLN. RCH. 32/70 dt. 8-4-1970 published in the Official Gazette on 16-41970, proposed a scheme as per S. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to nationalise as many as 128 routes in the district of Raichur. A copy of the said notification is attached with the petition as Annexure B. The scheme was essentially a route scheme in contra distinction, to the 'Area' scheme. It provided ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-06-1988
Reported in : 1988(2)BomCR217
S.M. Daud, J.1. By this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cri.P.C.) and Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner wants the quashing of a Magisterial direction under section 156(3) of the Cri.P.C.2. Petitioner and respondent 1 are brothers having four more brothers, named Manmohandas, Navinchandra, Jaindas and Rasiklal. The business of the family was to trade in cloth. They were doing business under different names in which they and/or their sons and daughters were and are partners. The offices of all the firms were at 34, Navi Galli, Mulji, Jehta Market and 439/3, Kalbadevi Road, Bombay. In the latter half of 1986 disputes arose between the brothers and in September 1986, the brothers came to a settlement. This was that the Bank accounts of the six firms would be operated for the purpose of control of funds only by cheques drawn jointly by the petitioner-hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' and a family friend Natwarlal M. Shah. The sales and collect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-26-1988
Reported in : AIR1988SC1353; (1988)2CompLJ91(SC); JT1988(2)SC227; 1988(1)SCALE817; (1988)2SCC587; [1988]3SCR738; 1988(2)LC77(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. By the order passed by us on 29th March, 1988, we had dismissed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. We had, further, observed that we will indicate our reasons by a separate judgment. We do so herein.2. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the constitutional validity of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). It appears that there was an order made by the Central Government under Section 18AA(1)(a) of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the IDR Act') for taking over the management of the six undertakings of Swadeshi Cotton Mills, namely (i) Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Kanpur (ii) Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Pondicherry (iii) Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Naini (iv) Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Maunath Bhanjan (v) Udaipur Cotton Mills, Udaipur and (vi) Rae Bareli Textile Mills, Rae Bareli for a period of five yeaRs. There were se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-11-1988
Reported in : 1988(3)BomCR1; (1988)90BOMLR292
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition arises out of proceedings instituted by the respondents for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner. The premises are situated at Mahabaleshwar in Satara District. The respondents are the landlords of the petitioner. They served upon the petitioner a notice on 23rd of May, 1979 under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act , demanding from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,675/- which was the rent due from 1st August, 1977 to 30th of April, 1979. Since there was no compliance with the demand made by the notice, the respondent filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 1980, in the Court of Civil (Judge, Junior Division), at Wai.2. The petitioner resisted the suit by contending that if proper account was taken of the amounts due from the parties to each other, there would be no arrears of rent as contended by the respondents. The petitioner also c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-11-1988
Reported in : 1988(3)BomCR179; 1988MhLJ971
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to quash the prosecution initiated against the petitioner upon a complaint moved by the 1st respondent in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Bombay.2. Petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Accused') is the brother of the deceased husband of respondent 1 (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant') their third brother Vijay having died on 23 April, 1982. Complainant's husband Inder died on 30 July, 1982. Inder married twice, the first wife being a Swedish lady Barbro, from whom he has two issues viz. Rajiv and Kavita. That marriage ended in a divorce. Whereafter Inder on 30 August, 1964 married the complainant. The union has been blessed with a son named Shiv. Inder was an enterprising Industrialist and was a leading figure in several industrial concerns. The principal company throug...
Tag this Judgment!