Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-16-1976
Reported in : [1977]47CompCas323(All)
P.N. Bakshi, J. 1. This writ petition arises out of the proceedings pending before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The petitioner is a limited liability company registered under the Companies Act. It carries on business of manufacture and sale of nylon yarn. On 19th September, 1973, an agreement was entered into between four nylon spinners, viz., the petitioner and respondents Nos. 23, 24 and 25, namely, Garware Nylons Ltd., Nirlon Synthetic Fibres and Chemicals Ltd. and Modipon Ltd. on the one hand, and 18 associations of actual users of nylon yarn, respondents Nos. 5 to 22, on the other. The petitioner's case was that this agreement (hereinafter called the ' September agreement') was executed for the purpose of having an equitable distribution of nylon yarn at concessional prices at the instance of and under the supervision and approval of the Central Government. On 21st November, 1973, the Commission received a memorandum from the All India Crimpers Associ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-06-1976
Reported in : AIR1976All362
T.S. Misra, J. 1. The respondents who are the landlords of the premises in question filed an application under Section 7 (B) of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, III of 1947, hereinafter called the 'Act' on 9-8-1968 against the appellant who is a tenant of flat No. 91 in the said premises alleging that the appellant is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 125 per month and that a sum of Rs. 1500 being rent for the period 1-8-1967 to 31-7-1968 and Rs. 331.25 being the property tax for the period from October 1, 1965 to March 31, 1968 were outstanding against him. On a notice being issued to the appellant he filed an objection contending inter alia, that he is a tenant at a monthly rental of Rs. 75 and not Rs. 125 and that he was being illegally charged a sum of Rs. 50/ per month besides rent of Rs. 75/-. The respondents then paid the requisite court-fee and got their application converted into a suit. The appellant then filed his written statement reiterating his aforesaid aver...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-07-1976
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(All)0264A
Jeevan Reddy, J. - A common question arises for decision in both these tax revision cases, which, therefore, can be disposed of by a common order.2. It would be sufficient if we state the facts in T.R.C. No. 27 of 1975. The petitioner is a rice miler at Machilipatnam, dealing in paddy and rice. For the assessment year 1969-70, the assessing to the purchase of levy paddy by the petitioner net turnover of Rs. 1,33,396, pertaining to the purchase of levy paddy by the petitioner from the ryots. The said levy was payable under clause 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1967, and the petitioner was one of those nominated by the Government to receive, store and then deliver the said paddy, according to the instruction issued from time to tome.3. The petitioner contended that the purchase of levy paddy is not liable to tax as the said purchase is made under compulsion and that, there is no element of 'freedom of contract' or any choice in the matter or an agreement and that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-04-1976
Reported in : (1977)ILLJ309All
T.S. Misra, J. (for himself and on behalf of K. B. Asthana C.J.)1. The respondent who was an employee of the Govern-ment in the Railway Department was placed under supension with effect from 29th October, 1959. His services were terminated by the General Manager, Northern Railway by an order dated ' the December, 1960 in terms of Rule 149(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. Volume 1, with effect from 13th December, I960. The Supreme Court on December 5, 1963 decided by majority in Moti Rum Deka v. General Manager, North East Frontier Railway : (1964)IILLJ467SC , that Rules 148(3) and 149(3) of the Indian Railway Establish-ment Code were invalid On 20th July. 1965 the petitioner submitted a representation to the General Manager, Northern Railway seeking a review of the order dated 6th December, I960 by which his services had been terminated. Ultimately by an order dated 23rd September, 1966 the petitioner's ' representation ' was accepted and he was reinstated in service, vide ...
Tag this Judgment!