Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1997(75)FLR4]; (1997)IIILLJ241Bom
Ebello, J. 1. The respondent No. 1 herein filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 69 of 1994 before the VII Labour Court at Bombay against the petitioner herein. The said complaint was filed under the provisions of Item No. 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU and PULP Act.) In the said complaint the Respondent No. 1 herein also sought interim reliefs. The Labour Court by its order dated April 28, 1994 was pleased to grant prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the application for interim reliefs. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein preferred Revision Application (ULP) No. 58 of 1994 before the Industrial Court at Bombay. The Industrial Court initially granted an interim order. It may also be mentioned that the Respondent No. 1 herein had also preferred revision application which was numbered as review application 7 of 1994. Both the revisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1997)60ITD600(Hyd.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad, dated 6-2-1990 for the assessment year 1986-87.2. The first effective grievance of the assessee in this appeal related to an addition of Rs. 3,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) treating the said sum received by the assessee in pursuance of an agreement entered by it with M/s. Elektro Flame Ltd., as a revenue receipt.3. The assessee, a private limited company, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of geysers, air-coolers, washing machines, etc., under the brand name 'ELEKTRO'. During the year, the assessee-company surrendered to M/s. Elektro Flame Ltd., the exclusive know-how, technical information, marketing assistance including the usage of brand name 'ELEKTRO' (A registered trade mark) pertaining to the manufacture of Air-Coolers, Electric Motors and Geysers. In consideration of the above, the assessee-company received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000. Further...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996VAD(Delhi)648; 65(1997)DLT136; 1997(40)DRJ269
Lokeshwar Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner, named above, has filed the present petition seeking quashing of order dated 8.8.96, passed by the Additional Commissioner(Engineering) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCD'), communicated by the Assistant Commissioner (Factories) vide letter dated 22.8.96 (Annexure P-18) and order dated 21.5.96 (Annexure P-19), passed by the Commercial Officer of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (respondent No.2). 2.1 The facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner company is a deemed Public Company under Section 43-A (1-A) of the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner was originally incorporated on 30.4.75 by the name of 'AVIS International Private Ltd.' The above said Company, after its incorporation, took on lease hall No.3 and hall No.5 on the 2nd and 3rd floor of the property bearing No. 8/32, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi vide lease deed dated 29.7.75 for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)721; AIR1996SC3521a; 1997(1)CTC172; JT1996(7)SC698; 1996(6)SCALE407; (1996)6SCC166; [1996]Supp5SCR582
K. Venkataswami, J.1. The plaintiff who filed a suit on 13.6.1962 for declaration of her title to the suit property and for recovery of possession is the appellant herein. The suit property is an extent of 1.13 acre out of 3.39 acres in Survey No. 330/2 in Ulli Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, North Arcot District, Tamil Nadu. It was purchased by the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 21.3.1957 from one Mohd. Ghouse. The respondent herein who was the defendant in the suit admittedly was let in to possession of the suit property along with the balance of above-mentioned Survey No. 330/2 as a tenant under a registered lease deed dated 1.4.1935. The vendor of the plaintiff after the sale issued a notice to the defendant on 16.4.1957 intimating the fact of sale to the plaintiff. The defendant in his reply dated 27.4.1957 denied his status as lessee and his liability to pay rent. He set up title in himself to the suit property. The plaintiff on his part issued a notice on 10.5.1957 intima...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1998]229ITR23(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges (i) a Notification No. 6551 F. No. 203/23/957, dated January 2, 1986, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India withdrawing the approval of the petitioner for the purpose of Sections 35(1)(ii) and 10(21) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), with retrospective effect from January 17, 1980 ; (ii) notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Faizabad, respondent No. 4, under Sections 148 and 139(2) of the Act; (iii) order dated July 21, 1986, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Act setting aside the petitioner's assessment for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 and directing the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessments after making proper enquiries, and (iv) notice issued by the Income-tax Officer 11(3), Kanpur, respondent No. 5, asking for certain information in connection with the assessment for the assessment year 1983-84. A writ of prohibiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR3136; 1996(7)KarLJ426
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The National Law School of India University, Bangalore, in its publication 'March of the Law, 1994', while reviewing legal developments in India in the field of Education Law, has noticed that '1992-93 will go down in the history of constitutional litigation on education. The debate that started with 'PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA, : (1984)IILLJ481SC , on the issue of policy on education, specially relating to professional education, dictates several dimensions and reached UNNIKRISHNAN v. STATE OF AP, : [1993]1SCR594 , via MOHINI JAIN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, : [1992]3SCR658 . The Parliament also took immediate notice of the said developments and appropriately responded by enacting Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993 and the Dentist (Amendment) Act, 1993. But all in vain. The mischief sought to be remedied could still found their ways to survive with higher vigour openly declaring 'we are unconquerable. We survive with ten heads like Ravana.' The enquiri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(4)ALT1138
Lingaraja Rath, J.1. Questions of deep significance, some of which in many respects are perplexing in nature have teen referred to this Bench in the context of consideration of the vires of Sections 10 and 22 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.').2. W.P. No. 9717 of 1983 was filed as public interest litigation raising the question of vires of the Sections. During the hearing of the case the learned single Judge felt the matter should be appropriately heard by a Division Bench as 'this case raises very important questions touching the personal law of the Christians as contained in 1 he Indian Divorce Act.' The learned Judge also felt that it is appropriate for the Court to hear representations of organisations of the Christian community including of women which should be vitally interested in the matter. Notices were issued to seven organisations whose names were ascertained from the Bar and permission was also allowed to any other person, organisation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
K. S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. By consent of the parties these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner challenges annexure G, the order passed by the first respondent.3. The facts are :The petitioner filed the returns for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84 under the Income-tax Act, 1961. After the assessment orders were passed, the petitioner sought to invoke the provisions under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), under which the Commissioner is authorised to waive or reduce the interest. The Commissioner of Income-tax , Karnataka-II, passed an order under Section 273A ofthe Act on October 5, 1993, rejecting the request of the petitioner to waive interest, except for 1979-80, for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1984-85 on the ground that though the returns of income have been filed voluntarily and the income disclosed in full, taxes on the returned income have not been fully paid, which is one of the conditions to be satis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2001]247ITR277(KAR); [2001]247ITR277(Karn); [2001]115TAXMAN644(Kar)
K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. By consent of the parties these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner challenges annexure G, the order passed by the first respondent. 3. The facts are : The petitioner filed the returns for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84 under the Income-tax Act, 1961. After the assessment orders were passed, the petitioner sought to invoke the provisions under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), under which the Commissioner is authorised to waive or reduce the interest. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-II, passed an order under section 273A of the Act on October 5, 1993, rejecting the request of the petitioner to waive interest, except for 1979-80, for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1984-85 on the ground that though the returns of income have been filed voluntarily and the income disclosed in full, taxes on the returned income have not been fully paid, which is one of the conditions to be sat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)479; AIR1997SC1763; [1997]88CompCas528(SC); (1997)138CTR(SC)1; [1997]223ITR809(SC); JT1996(10)SC740; 1996(8)SCALE564; (1997)2SCC302; [1996]Supp9SCR216
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. These appeals are preferred by Marshall Sons and Company [India] Limited [hereinafter referred to as the 'Holding Company'] as successors to Marshall Sons and Company [Manufacturing] Limited [hereinafter referred to as the 'Subsidiary Company'] against the judgment and order of the Madras High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by them. The matter arises under the Income Tax Act.2. The Holding Company had its registered office at 33-A, Chowranghee Road, Calcutta while the Subsidiary Company had its registered office at Madras. For the purposes of assessment under the Income Tax Act, while the accounting year of the holding Company was the year ending on 30th June, the accounting year of the Subsidiary Company was the calender year. On 1st December 1982, two letters were addressed by the Subsidiary Company to the Income Tax Officer stating that the company is desirous of effecting a change in the accounting year. They stated that they would wish to cl...
Tag this Judgment!