Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1978Ker131; 1978CriLJ743
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. This matter has been placed before a Full Bench to consider the correctness of two Division Bench Rulings of this Court in Abraham v. Thankamma (1975 Ker LT 451) and Raman Pillai v. Dakshayani (1975 Ker LT 739). Both the decisions were by a Division Bench consisting of Khalid and Janaki Amma JJ. Khalid J. who made the order of reference in the first instance noticed the conflict of judicial opinion on the question, expressed his misgiving as to the correctness of the prior rulings, and his embarrassment in the matter, and felt that the matter had to be decided by a Full Bench. It was accordingly referred by a Division Bench of two of us to a Full Bench. 2. The two Division Bench rulings referred to earlier took the view that the introduction of Section 399 in the new Criminal Procedure Code alters the practice settled for this Court in Narayanan v. Kannamma Bhargavi 1968 Ker. LT 495 : (AIR 1969 Ker 126) (FB). The Division Bench noticed that the Sessions J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC478; (1979)1SCC380; [1979]2SCR476
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. On August 1, 1978 the President of India made a reference to this Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution for consideration of the question whether the 'Special Courts Bill, 1978' or any of its provisions, if enacted, would be constitutionally invalid. The full text of the reference is as follows:WHEREAS certain Commissions of Inquiry appointed by the Central Government under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952) have submitted reports which indicate that there is reason to believe that various offences have been committed by persons holding high political and public offices during the period of operation of the Proclamation of Emergency dated the 25th June, 1975, and the period immediately preceding that Proclamation; AND WHEREAS investigations into such offences are being made in accordance with law and are likely to be completed soon; AND WHEREAS suggestions have been made that the persons in respect of whom the investigations ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These writ petitions filed in different High Courts and transferred to this Court under Article 139 of the Constitution raise issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary and they have been argued at great length before us. The arguments have occupied as many as thirty five days and they have ranged over a large number of issues comprising every imaginable aspect of the judicial institution, Voluminous written submissions have been filed before us which reflect the enormous industry and vast erudition of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and a large number of authorities, Indian as well as foreign, have been brought to our attention. We must acknowledge with gratitude our indebtedness to the learned Counsel for the great assistance they have rendered to us in the delicate and difficult task of adjudicating upon highly sensitive issues arising in these writ petitions. We find, and this is not unusual in cases of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT West Bengal
Reported in : (1991)81STC376Tribunal
1. This is an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, and is directed against the order of the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal dated January 30, 1989.2. The case of the applicant may be briefly stated as follows : The applicant, namely, Rangpur Tea Association Ltd., a company under the Companies Act, 1956, carries on business of manufacturing and selling of tea in the State of West Bengal. It has tea gardens at Alipurduar where tea leaves are grown and thereafter tea is manufactured by various processes. By the side of the tea bushes, shade trees are planted for giving protection to the tea bushes from sun and rain. The applicant is registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter called "the Act") and is regularly assessed by the sales tax authorities on the sale of tea in the State of West Bengal and outside. During the period of four quarters ending December 31, 1981, the applicant sold certain big standing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1621; 1963(1)SCR778
VENKATARAM AIYAR, J.The petitioner is a partner in a firm called Messrs. Mohan Lal Hargovind Das, which carries on business in the manufacture and sale of biris in number of States, and is dealer registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act 15 of 1948 with its head office at Allahabad. In the present petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner impugns the validity of a levy of sales tax made by the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad, by his order dated December 20, 1958.On December 14, 1957, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under section 4(1)(b) of the Act exempting from tax, sales of certain goods including biris, provided that the additional Central Excise duties leviable thereon had been paid. In partial modification of this notification, the Government issued another notification on November 25, 1958, exempting from tax unconditionally sales of biris, both machinemade and handmade, with effect from July 1, 1958. The effect of the two notifications ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1993Bom327; 2004(3)BomCR371; 1993(1)MhLj685
1. By these writ petitions filed under Art. 326 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the statutory notification dated the 14th of September, 1992, bearing No. BPA-1088/ 1866/EXC-3, issued by the Government of Maharashtra under S. 139(1)(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, declaring the area of Gadchiroli district of the State 'as a dry district' by enforcing 'prohibition' throughout the district with effect from 2nd day of October, 1992 and follow-up and consequential orders issued by the Collector of Gadchiroli on 15th September, 1992 directing cancellation of subsisting licences expiring on 31st March, 1993 with effect from expiry of 15 days from the date of the impugned orders. Prior to issue of the impugned notification and the said orders, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2116 of 1992 were holding licences to sell country-liquor in Form Cl-III for the retail sale of country-liquor for the period 1st April, 1992 till 31st March, 1993. The basic facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1895; 1998(2)BLJR1497; (1998)2GLR1711; JT1998(3)SC184; 1998(2)SCALE745; (1998)4SCC409; [1998]2SCR795; (1998)2UPLBEC1320; 1995IBR118
Anand, J.1. In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, : 1995CriLJ3994 , this Court found the Contemner, an advocate, guilty of committing criminal contempt of Court for having interfered with and 'obstructing the course of justice by trying to threaten, overawe and overbear the court by using insulting, disrespectful and threatening language', While awarding punishment, keeping in view the gravity of the contumacious conduct of the contemner, the Court said:'The facts and circumstances of the present case justify our invoking the power under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution to award to the contemner a suspended sentence of imprisonment together with suspension of his practice as an advocate in the manner directed herein. We accordingly sentence the contemner for his conviction for the offence of the criminal contempt as under:(a) The contemner Vinay Chandra Mishra is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks. However, in the circumstances of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1999)156CTR(MP)261
ORDERS. B. Sakrikar, J.The unsuccessful petitioners (accused) have filed this petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10/86 of the Court of ACJM (Economic Offences), Indore.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the non-applicant, Income Tax Officer 'A' Ward, Khandwa, filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences), Indore, against the petitioners and deceased partners of the firm M/s Kanhaiyalal Deepchand Jain alleging commission of offence punishable under section 276E/278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is alleged that during the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1983-84 of the applicant No. 1, assessee-firm, it was found that the firm repaid the loan amount in cash i.e., otherwise that A/c Payee cheques or the draft, respectively, to Smt. Basanti Bai W/o Kanhaiyalal; Rajeshkumar Roopchand Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 10,200 when the balance in their account was exceeding Rs. 10,000....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC2351; 2004(3)BLJR1908; (2004)4CompLJ171(SC); JT2004(Suppl1)SC160; 2004(4)SCALE724; (2004)5SCC1; (2004)3UPLBEC2331
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna is seized of a hearing in public interest exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution. The High Court is feeling concerned over the drainage system, the sewerage system, the drinking water supply system, the kerb on the road being in shambles and reallocating of footpaths. The High Court seems to have chosen one road as model habitat area so as to set an example for other roads conforming with the discipline governing urbanization and urban planning according to law and ensuring that future generations get a safer city to live in, a civic city, with civic amenities, for the benefit of civic citizens. The High Court has been issuing orders in the nature of continuing mandamus and has also been monitoring the compliance. On 1.10.2001, the High Court passed an interim order containing the following directions; (a) The street alignment is in a straight or a gentle curve natural to the road a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(2)ALD301
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Heard Sri M Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, Sri E, Ayyapu Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri K. Ravi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent and at their request the writ petition was taken up for final hearing.2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the 1st respondent in R.P.No.1024 of 2004 dated 5.10.2004, upholding the order of the 2nd respondent in LA. No.79/04 in O.A.No.21/ 04, dated 18.8.2004, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and for a direction to quash both the orders.3. Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that petitioners 1 to 6 claim to be the founder trustees of the subject institution - a Hanuman Temple constructed in the year 1984. The said institution, said to have sev...
Tag this Judgment!