Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IAD(Delhi)749; 1996(36)DRJ558; 1996RLR140
ORDER In partial modification of office order No. 38/Bldg. dated 5. 9. 1977, priorities of demolition of unauthorised construction will be as under: FIRSTPRIORITY; A) Cases of unauthorised construction of commercial nature such asmarkets, offices, godowns which have been dismissed/remanded from the courts. B) Unauthorised construction of commercial nature including, cases. where unauthorised structure was demolished and has beenreconstructed. C) All cases of commercial as well as residential nature where sanction ofbuilding plans is revoked. D) Unauthorised construction of new colonies on green agricultural land/private land. E) Unauthorised construction of residential nature which has been dismissed from the court, including the cases of unauthor is edconstruction which affect rights (light, ventilation, passage etc. ofneighbors) . SECONDPRIORITY A) Cases of unauthorised construction effected by any structure or coming in the right of way of the road. B) Unauthorised constructio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
D.N. Baruah, J.1. The petitioner in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged annexure-5 notice, dated March 30/ 31, 1989, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range-II, Guwahati, in the exercise of the power under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1985-86 proposing to reassess the income for the said assessment year and requiring the petitioner to submit a return of the income in the prescribed form.2. For the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, the facts may be narrated as under : The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The company carries on the business of manufactureand sale of commercial plywood, sawn timber, railway sleepers and other allied products. The factory of the petitioner-company is situated at Naginimara in the District of Mon, Nagaland.3. The petitioner-company is an assessee under the Income-tax Act. Notice dated March 30...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(3)BomCR488; (1996)IILLJ454Bom
Majithia, J. 1. M/s. Oriental Containers Ltd. and Engineering Workers Association, aggrieved against the Award of 11th Labour Court at Bombay in Reference (IDA) No. 711 of 1981 dated June 30, 1994 have moved this Court through Writ Petition No. 2473 of 1994 and Writ Petition No. 1500 of 1995, respectively. 2. To begin with, the factual matrix. M/s. Oriental Container Ltd. (hereinafter 'the management'), after domestic enquiry, dismissed 37 workmen by order of dismissal/discharge dated July 30/31, 1980. Engineering Workers Association (hereinafter 'the Association') raised a demand for reinstatement of the 37 workmen before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Bombay, referred the dispute between the management and the 37 workmen employed under them, under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), with the following Schedule to the Labour Court :- 'The following 37 workmen shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1968)ILLJ314Cal
D. Basu, J.1. Though the facts is this case under Article 226 if the Constitution are short, serious questions of few have been raised.2. The petitioner, a sub-gunner under the employ of respondent 1, the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, was on 5 January 1961, convicted of an offence under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, instituted on private complaint and sentenced to a fine and, in default, to imprisonment. Two years later, on 28 March 1963. he was suspended and on 4 April 1963, he was served with the order of respondent 2, the Traffic Manager of the Commissioners, removing the petitioner from service. It would be useful to reproduce that order (annexure A to the petition) at once:Whereas Baleswar Singh, sub-gunner, was convicted on a criminal charge under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment on 6 January 1961 which was confirmed by the appellate Court;And whereas it is considered that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)135CTR(SC)75
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. :Civil Appeal No. 1562 of 1977This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowing the writ appeal preferred by the Revenue [ITO, Central Circle-VI & Ors.] against the judgment of a learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee questioning the validity of a notice issued under s. 148 r/w s. 147 of the IT Act.2. In the return filed for the asst. yr. 1959-60, the assessee had shown certain hundi loans totalling Rs. 8,53,298 said to have been taken from a number of persons. The ITO accepted the averment and made the assessment. During the assessment proceedings for the succeeding year, 1960-61, the assessee again showed hundi loans in a sum of more than Rupees seventeen lakhs. The ITO enquired into the truth of the averment and found that many of them were bogus claims while some of the alleged lenders were found to be near relations of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)135; AIR1996SC1765; JT1996(3)SC482; 1996(2)SCALE911; (1996)9SCC548; [1996]3SCR543
ORDER1. This and connected writ petitions and transfer cases concerned the constitutionality of Sections 34, 35, 37, 39 and 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (for short, the 'Act') abolishing hereditary rights of archaka, mirasidars, gamekars and other office-holders and servants like hereditary Karnam of Dwarka Thirumalai Temple in West Godavari District. The facts in Writ Petition No. 638/87 are sufficient for consideration of questions raised in this batch of cases.2. The petitioner is one of the Chief Priests (archaka) in an ancient and renowned Hindu temple at Thirumala Tirupathi known in entire south-Asia and abroad as Venkateswaraswamy temple and in north-India as Balaji temple in whose praise saint Annamacharya spent his life in singing devotional songs - a practice devolved by custom and usage from over a century. According to the petitioner, the office of archaka is succeeded from forefathers in accordance with the Vaikha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1996All375
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. A Divisional Bench has referred for reconsideration, a decision of earlier Division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1190 of 1994 (Kamla Palace v. Stale of U. P.) decided on 10th July, 1995, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in : [1995]1SCR256 (State of Bihar v. Sachidanand Kumar Prasad Sinha). In Kamla Palace (supra) this Court held proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of the Uttar Pradesh Entertainment & Betting Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Government Orders issued thereunder as ultra vires.2. Short facts are, Uttar Pradesh Legislature by way of Uttar Pradesh Entertainment & Betting Tax (Amendment) Act, 1992 (U.P. Act No. 14 of 1992), published on 11th April, 1992, introduced amendment in Section 3-A of the Act, which authorised the proprietor of a Cinema to realise an extra charge of twenty-five paise per ticket for admission to be utilised for maintenance of the cinema premises. But by proviso excluded the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)59ITD156(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a registered as a company under section 25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Cos'. Act) has filed the appeals fort the two assessment years 1989-90 & 1990-91 and the cross objection against the appeal filed for the assessment year 1989-90 by the revenue department. The appeals involve common issues and because, the cross objection is against the cross appeal filed by the revenue, these appeals have been group together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The common controversy in these appeals of the assessee are in regard to its claim as charitable institution covered by the provisions of section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), that its income are therefore exempt from tax under section 11 of the Act. The revenue department had refused to grant the exemption because, the assessee diverted its attention to the activities of construction of buildings known as Trade Centre, Commerce Cen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)456; AIR1996SC3081; 1996(2)ALT1(SC); [1997]88CompCas1(SC); [1996]222ITR260(SC); JT1996(3)SC706; 1996(3)SCALE258; (1996)2SCC752; [1996]3SCR1208; 1996(2)LC267(SC
ORDER1. Common cause - a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which takes up various matters of general public interest/importance for redress before the courts - through its Director Mr. H.D. shourie, has filed this public interest petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The primary contention raised in the petition is that the cumulative effect of the three statutory provisions, namely, Section 293A of the Companies Act 1956, Section 13A of the Income-tax 1961 and Section 77 of the Representation of People Act 1951 is, to bring transparency in the election-funding. People of India must know the source of expenditure incurred by the political parties and by the candidates in the process of election. It is contended that the mandatory provisions of law are being violated by the political parties with impunity. During the elections crores of rupees are spent by the political parties without indicating the source of the money so spent. According t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)132CTR(SC)234
KULDIP SINGH, J. :Common cause - a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which takes up various matters of general public interest/importance for redress before the Courts - through its Director Mr. H. D. shourie, has filed this public interest petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. The primary contention raised in the petition is that the cumulative effect of the three statutory provisions, namely, s. 293A of the Companies Act, 1956, s. 13A of the IT Act, 1961 and s. 77 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 is, to bring transparency in the election-funding. People of India must know the source of expenditure incurred by the political parties and by the candidates in the process of election. It is contended that the mandatory provisions of law are being violated by the political parties with impunity. During the elections crores of rupees are spent by the political parties without indicating the source of the money so spent. According to Mr. Sh...
Tag this Judgment!