Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-09-1973
Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange - 409 U.S. 289 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 409 U.S. 289 (1973) Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange No. 71-858 Argued October 18, 1972 Decided January 9, 1973 409 U.S. 289 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner filed an antitrust complaint charging respondents with conspiring to restrain his business by transferring to another person petitioner's Chicago Mercantile Exchange membership, without notice and hearing, and in violation of Exchange rules and the Commodity Exchange Act. The District Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed, but held that the antitrust action should be stayed. Held: The Court of Appeals correctly determined that the antitrust proceedings should be stayed until the Commodity Exchange Commission can pass on the validity of respondents' conduct under the Commodity Exchange Act. Though the Commission cannot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-04-1973
Reported in : [1975]101ITR61(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. In this case at the instance of the revenue the following question has been referred to us for our opinion by the Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, depreciation was rightly allowed to the assessee on the basis that the cost to it of the machinery purchases was Rs. 30,572 ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The relevant assessment years are assessment years 1961-62 to 1965-66. The assessee is a private limited company. During the calendar year 1955, that is, the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1956-57, the assessee purchased from the Industrial Trading and Financial Company Ltd., Zurich, Switzerland, a mechanical Picker press for 27,820 Swiss Francs equivalent to Rs. 30,572 as shown in the supplier's bill dated April 28, 1955. The machinery was actually received by the assessee on June 15, 1955. According to the bill the payment was to be made against sight draft within 180 days. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-11-1973
Reported in : [1974]96ITR133(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff-opposite party has sued for recovery of arrears of rent and other ancillary relief's against the defendant-petitioner. In the suit an application was made to call for the assessment-records including the trading account, profit and loss statements, balance-sheets, etc., of the defendant from the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1954-55 to 1964-65 and for certain reports relating to registration records of the defendant and some other concerns. The defendant objected to the prayer for production of accounts on the ground that both under the Income-tax Act as also under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, there is a bar against the disclosure of information and as such the court was not competent to issue orders calling for the records.2. The learned trial judge has rejected the application so far as the sales tax documents are concerned. That matter has become final since the plaintiff has not moved against that order. The learned trial judge has, however...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-21-1973
Reported in : AIR1974SC1660; [1974]94ITR204(SC); (1974)4SCC98; [1974]2SCR879; [1974]33STC219(SC)
Khanna, J.1. The short question which arises for determination in these four appeals on certificate against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is whether the provisions of Section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 54 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. The High Court answered this question in the negative and upheld the Constitutional validity of those provisions.2. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of Section 8 of the Act read as under :(1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-Estate trade or commerce-(a) sells to the Government any goods; or(b) sells to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to in Sub-section (3); shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be three per cent of his turnover.(2) The tax payable by any dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-04-1973
Reported in : (1974)15GLR474
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference to a Full Bench of seven Judges is necessitated because a question has arisen whether a decision given by a Full Bench of five Judges of the Bombay High Court in Bhuta v. Lakdu 21 Bom. L.R. 157 lays down the correct law. The point which has been referred to us for our opinion is, whether the procedure applicable in case of difference of opinion amongst Judges constituting a Division Bench where they are equally divided in opinion in the decision of an appeal from a subordinate Court is governed by Section 98 Sub-section (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or Clause 36 of the Letters Patent. The Full Bench of five Judges has taken the view in Bhuta v. Lakdu that in such a case Section 98 Sub-section (2) applies and not Clause 36 and this view taken by five Judges of the Bombay High Court is assailed in the present reference. The reference has been made by J.M. Sheth B.K. Mehta JJ. on a difference of opinion arising between them in a First Appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-09-1973
Reported in : AIR1973AP264
Gopal Rao Ekbote, C.J.1. Pothina Vari Kunta a fresh water tank is situated in the hamlet of Daggupadu viz., Pothinavaripalem. It has been in existence from times immemorial and has been serving the needs of the villagers. The tank is endowed with 13 acres and 16 cents of land for the repairs and up-keep of the tank. The tank and the endowed property have been from the inception under the care and management of the trustees. The trustees used to derive income from the land and utilise the same for maintaining the tank in proper condition. The defendants are now the trustees and are in possession of the land and are charged with the obligation of maintaining the tank in repairs out of the income of the land. The trustees have been deriving income from the land but have not spent anything on repairs of the tank. They have been utilising the income for themselves. They are partitioning the property. They are also now trying to alienate the property as though it is their own. The tank is no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-30-1973
Reported in : [1974]94ITR129(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The U.P. State Warehousing Corporation has approached this court under article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer that the notice of demand dated 22nd May, 1973, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Lucknow, requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 30,12,669 as advance tax for the assessment year 1974-75 be quashed and the respondents be directed not to recover any advance tax from the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that in its assessments for the last several years it had been claiming exemption from income-tax in respect of its income from letting its warehouses, but this claim has been consistently rejected by the Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the matter is now pending in appeal before the Tribunal. It is hence futile to raise the same objection before the Income-tax Officer who has issued the impugned notice of demand. The petitioner prays that the question of Jaw whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-14-1973
Reported in : ILR1985Delhi331; [1974]95ITR34(Delhi)
T.V. Tatacjhari, J.(1) This reference to the Full Bench has been made by Avadh Behari Rohatagi, J. under Rule 2 (as amended) of the Original Side Rules. 1967, in Suit No. 64 of 1969 instituted on the Original Side of this Court. The questions referred to by the learned Judge for the opinion of the Full Bench relate to the scope and effect of the provisions in sections 54 and 59B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and sections 137 and 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.(2) The facts which have occasioned the reference are briefly the following. The plaintiff, Trilok Chand Jain, instituted the suit referred to above for recovery of Rs. 1,39,722.86 from the defendants M/s. Dagi Ram Pindi Lall, its three partners Pindi I all, Bishamber Nath and Dagi Ram and Smt. Budh Wanti, wife of Pindi Lall. While evidence was being recorded in the Suit, the plaintiff obtained summons from the Court requiring the Income-tax Department to produce in Court the records relating to the income-tax of M[s. Dagi ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-30-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Guj174
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff is a displaced person from West Pakistan. He does not hold a verified claim. He is. therefore, a non-claimant. He has been residing in a tenement situate in Varashiya Colony at Baroda which is a Government built colony. The tenement in his occupation was allotted to him. The Central Government some time back took decision to dispose of all the tenements in Varashiya Colony. The tenement in the occupation of the plaintiff was therefore also to be. disposed of. The plaintiff applied to the appropriate authority to transfer to him the tenement in his occupation. He relied upon Rule 42 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation habilitation) Rules, 1955 in support of his application. The appropriate officer rejected his application and -put to sale his tenement. The defendant No. 5 purchased it at the auction sale. The plaintiff, therefore filed, the present suit for a declaration that the auction sale of the tenement in his possession was ultra vires the powers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-02-1973
Reported in : [1973]32STC555(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. These group of petitions are between the same parties and raise common question of law and as such we propose to dispose them of by a common judgment.2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and manufactures railway wagons. During the period covered by the assessment years 1961-62 to 1966-67, the Government of India through the Ministry of Railways placed orders for the manufacture of railway wagons, on various dates. These wagons were to be manufactured by the assessee on terms and conditions and stipulations contained in the Indian Railway Standard Conditions of Contract A5-51 (Revised), in so far as they were not inconsistent with the special conditions of contract, attached as per annexure A to the petition, The conditions of contract in each of the assessment years were substantially the same. During the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee received payment from the Government to the extent of Rs. 3,34,631. This amount was included in the turnover of the ass...
Tag this Judgment!