Court : US Supreme Court
Printz v. United States - 521 U.S. 898 (1996) OCTOBER TERM, 1996 Syllabus PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1478. Argued December 3, 1996-Decided June 27,1997* Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act provisions require the Attorney General to establish a national system for instantly checking prospective handgun purchasers' backgrounds, note following 18 U. S. C. 922, and command the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct such checks and perform related tasks on an interim basis until the national system becomes operative, 922(s). Petitioners, the CLEOs for counties in Montana and Arizona, filed separate actions challenging the interim provisions' constitutionality. In each case, the District Court held that the background-check provision was unconstitutional, but concluded that it was severable from the remainder of the Act, effec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(3)ALLMR620; 1997(4)BomCR10
A.P. Shah, J.1. Whether naval officers who have attained the rank of lieutenant in the executive branch of the Indian Navy are entitled to a certificate of service as the master of a foreign going ship without examination under section 80(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (Act for short) after repeal of the said section on 14th August, 1986, is the short but interesting question which falls for my consideration in this group of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The facts are simple and very shortly stated. The petitioners are naval officers serving in the executive branch of the Indian Navy. The petitioners have attained the rank of lieutenant in the executive branch of the Indian Navy long prior to repeal of section 80(1), which provided for grant of a certificate of service as the master of a foreign going ship without appearing for the examination if the concerned officer has attained the rank of lieutenant in the executive branch of the Indian Navy. It may...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)116PLR547
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. These two petitions are inter-related and, therefore, we are disposing them by a common order. In the petition filed by Gulmohar Estate Ltd., prayer has been made to quash order dated 20.1.1995 passed by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana and also for restraining respondent No. 2 from taking any action pursuant to the impugned order. In the writ petition filed by the Garden Estate Residents Welfare Association, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to comply with the provisions of Section 8 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the provisions of the Haryana Apartments Ownership Act, 1983 as well as Article 3 of the agreement entered into between respondents 2 and 3. It has also been prayed that respondent No. 2 be directed to take over the colony and to complete the external and internal works within a period of three months and to provide amenities in the colony at the cost of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2847; JT1997(1)SC40; 1996(9)SCALE613; (1997)7SCC339; [1996]Supp10SCR472
ORDER1. Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India declares that the 'property and income of a State shall be exempt from Union taxation'. The question in this batch of appeals is whether the properties of the States situated in the Union Territory of Delhi are exempt from property taxes levied under the municipal enactments in force in the Union Territory of Delhi. The Delhi High Court has taken the view that they are. That view is challenged in these appeals preferred by the New Delhi Municipal Council and the Delhi Municipal Corporation.2. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.3. Prior to 1911-12, a large part of the territory now comprised in the Union Territory of Delhi was a district of the Province of Punjab. By a Proclamation dated September 17, 1912, the Governor General took the said territory under his immediate authority arid, management, to be administered as a separate Province to be known as the Province of Delhi. (This was in connection with the decision to shif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1997)1UPLBEC594
B.M. Lal, B. Kumar and M. Katju, JJ.1. For the reasons recorded separately this court unanimously holds that the impugned Presidential Proclamation dated 17-10-1996 reimposing Presidential Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution of India in the State of Utter Pradesh subsequently approved by the Parliament is unconstitutional, issued in colourable excercise of powers and is based on wholly irrelevant and extraneous grounds and therefore, cannot be allowed to stand, consequently the same is hereby quashed.2. However, to avoid any constitutional dead-lock or crisis resultant to the quashing of aforesaid Proclamation, we direct, by applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, that this judgment shall come into operation with effect from 26-12-1996.B.M. Lal, J.1. The judgment delivered in Writ Petition Mo. 3129 (MB) of 1996, shall govern disposal of all the six writ petitions filed in the shape of Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the Proclamation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(83)ECC85; 1997(89)ELT247(SC); JT1996(11)SC283; 1996(9)SCALE457; (1997)5SCC536; [1996]Supp10SCR585; [1998]111STC467(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Significant questions concerning the refund of Excise and Customs duties collected contrary to law - in all its shades - arise for consideration in these appeals and writ petitions. They involve the correctness of certain earlier decisions of this Court, concept of unjust enrichment, interpretation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and of the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Customs Act et al. As far back as August 14, 1984, Civil Appeal No. 1794 of 1984 and the connected special leave petitions were referred to a Bench of seven Judges by a Bench of two learned Judges, since the referring Bench doubted the correctness of the five-Judge Bench decision in Sales Tax Officer, Benaras and Ors. v. Kanhaiyalal Mukundlal Saraf : [1959]1SCR1350 . When the matter came up before a seven-Judge Bench, it was brought to our notice that a seven-Judge Bench has followed the decision in Kanhaiyalal in State of Kerala v. Aluminium Industries ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1997]106STC387(AP)
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam, is the petitioner in these tax revision cases. As facts giving rise to these cases and contentions urged are common, we have heard them together and are disposing of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioner, under different contracts, delivers ships to various persons. It is the nature of the transaction which is the subject-matter of these contracts that is debated before us. The contention of the petitioner is that the nature of transaction covered by the contracts is one of the agreement to build the ship, in other words a works contract. Whereas the contention of the sale tax authorities is that the transaction was nothing but sale of goods. The assessing authorities levied the tax on those transaction treating them as agreements of sale of ships. The appellate authority - Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeals. Not satisfied with the orders of the appellate authority - Deputy Commissioner, the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1997)59TTJ(All)99
ORDERV. K. SINHA, A.M. :This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an order of the CIT(A) confirming imposition of a penalty of Rs. 25,324 under s. 271B of the Act for delay in obtaining and filing an audit report under s. 44AB of the Act.2. The relevant facts are that the turnover exceeded Rs. 40 lacs and, therefore, the accounts were required to be audited under s. 44AB of the Act before the specified date and report obtained by that date. The specified date for the relevant year was 31st July, 1988 and audit report dt. 31st July, 1988 was obtained, but it was filed along with the return of income on 31st August, 1989.3. There was no compliance to a notice to show cause why penalty should not be imposed under s. 271B of the Act. The AO, therefore, held that a default had been committed and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,324.4. It was submitted before the CIT(A) that the accounts had been audited in time on 31st July, 1988, but return could not be filed along with the report as asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1997]227ITR446(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. Common questions of law are urged in these writ petitions, so they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. For appreciating the facts which give rise to the questions referred to hereunder it will be enough to refer to the fact in WP No. 7516 of 1992 which are representative of the facts in the other writ petitions. 2. The petitioners are challenging the constitutional validity of s. 43B and s. 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961, in so far as they provide for disallowance of the employer's contribution to provident fund, contribution to the employees' State insurance fund and the payment of employees' contribution to the provident fund and contribution to the employees' State insurance fund when the same are paid after the due dates in the respective Acts. 3. The petitioner is a private limited company. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electronic connectors for the defence sector and it is registered as a sm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC734; (1996)8SCC462; [1996]Supp10SCR973
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. Taj Mahal - The Taj - is the 'King Emperor' amongst the World-Wonders. The Taj is the final achievement and acme of the Moghul Article It represents the most refined aesthetic values. It is a fantasy-like grandeur. It is the perfect culmination and artistic interplay of the architects' skill and the jewellers' inspiration. The marble-in-lay walls of the Taj are amongst the most outstanding examples of decorative workmanship. The elegant symmetry of its exterior and the aerial grace of its domes and minarets impress the beholder in a manner never to be forgotten. It stands out as one of the most priceless national monument, of surpassing beauty and worth, a glorious tribute to man's achievement in Architecture and Engineering.2. Lord Roberts in his work 'Forty one years in India' describes the Taj as under:Neither words nor pencil could give to the most imaginative reader the slightest idea of all the satisfying beauty and purity of this glorious conception. To t...
Tag this Judgment!