Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-16-1976
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(Bom)372
Madon, J. 1. This Reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Respondent firm, which is the assessee in this case, is a sole proprietary concern of which upto December 20, 1963 the sole proprietor was one R. A. Parikh. Parikh died on December 20, 1963 leaving him surviving as his heir and legal representative, his widow. After Parikh's death his widow continued the business of the Respondent firm. The Respondent firm was registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1953 Act'), and was at all material times registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1959 Act'). For the period April 1, 1959 to December 31, 1959 the Respondent firm was assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer by his assessment order dated June 13, 1962. On December 13, 1963 the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax served a notice of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-16-1976
Reported in : [1976]384STC372(Bom)
Madon, J. 1. This reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The respondent-firm, which is the assessee in this case, is a sole proprietary concern of which up to 20th December, 1963, the sole proprietor was one R. A. Parikh. Parikh died on 20th December, 1963, leaving him surviving as his heir and legal representative his widow. After Parikh's death his widow continued the business of the respondent-firm. The respondent-firm was registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1953 Act'), and was at all material times registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1959 Act'). For the period 1st April, 1959, to 31st December, 1959, the respondent-firm was assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer by his assessment order dated 13th June, 1962. On 13th December, 1963, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-27-1976
Reported in : 1976WLN(UC)148
S.N. Modi, J.1. These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, one by Bajrang Singh and the other by Ram Chandra have been filed against the University of Jodhpur praying that be any appropriate writ, direction or order, the notification No. Exam/227-248 Jodhpur dated April 24/25, 1975 (Ex. 1) be set aside or quashed and the request of the petitioners for getting their answer books in two subjects re-evaluated be allowed. As both these writ petitions involve common question of law and are based almost on identical facts, they are being disposed of together by this judgment.2. The salient facts of the two writ petitions are as follows.Bajreng Singh's writ petition.3. Bajrang Singh appeared at the examination of the L.L.B. I year of the University of Jodhpur held. In the month of June, 1976. The result was declared on September 21, 1975. Bajrang Singh was declared on September 21, 1975. Bajrang Singh was declared unsuccessful because he failed in paper I-Law of Contract ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-21-1976
Reported in : (1977)1MLJ454
Kailasam, C.J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal The plaintiffs sued for a declaration of their title to and possession of the suit properties and for an injunction. Plaintiffs 1. and 2, Chelliah Nadar and Mercy Bai, are husband and wife. The first defendant, Lalitha Bai, is the sister of the first plaintiff. The second defendant Muthayyan is the husband of the first defendant. The suit properties belonged to-one Daniel Nadar, the deceased father of the first plaintiff. Daniel Nadar died as a Travancore Christian leaving behind him, his son, the first plaintiff, and four daughters, including the first defendant. The contest is between the son and the daughter of Daniel Nadar. If the Christian Succession Act of Travancore is applicable, the first plaintiff will be the sole heir. But, if the Indian Succession Act is applicable, the first plaintiff and the first defendant. would each be entitled to a half share in the properties.2. The trial Court found tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-25-1976
Runyon v. McCrary - 427 U.S. 160 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976) Runyon v. McCrary No. 75-62 Argued April 26, 1976 Decided June 25, 1976 * 427 U.S. 160 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Title 42 U.S.C. 1981 provides in part that "[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens. . . ." After they had been denied admission to petitioner private schools in Virginia for the stated reason that the schools were not integrated, two Negro children (hereafter respondents), by their parents, brought actions against the schools, alleging that they had been prevented from attending the schools because of the schools' admitted policies of denying admission to Negroes, in violation of 1981, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. The District Court, finding that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-07-1976
Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co. - 426 U.S. 148 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148 (1976) Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co. * No. 75-268 Argued March 30, 1976 Decided June 7, 1976 426 U.S. 148 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Venue in a suit against a national banking association charged with violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 held to be governed by the venue provision of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. 94, which provides that an action against a national banking association may be had in any federal district court within the district in which such association may be established, rather than by 27 of the Securities Exchange Act, which provides that any action to enforce any liability or duty under that Act may be brought in any district where the violation occurred or in the district wherein the defendant is found or transacts business. Pp. 426 U. S. 152 -158. (a) Under a bas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-21-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Raj46
V.P. Tyagi, Actg. C.J. 1. These 27 special appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned single Judge D/-22-12-1975 whereby the learned Judge has held that the proceedings commenced under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referredto as the 'old Law') for the determination of the ceiling and the surplus area of the land-holder shall even after the Rajasthan' Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (Act No. 11 of 1973) (hereinafter called the 'new Law.) came into force, be governed by the old Law and the new Law shall have no effect on such proceedings. Having felt aggrieved by this finding the landholders have preferred these appeals.2. In order to resolve the controversies raised in these appeals it will be relevant to give a short history of various laws enacted by the legislature from time to time for the fixation of ceiling on agricultural holdings. For the first time, the law was made in the State of Rajasthan by enacting the Rajastha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-01-1976
Brown v. GSA - 425 U.S. 820 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820 (1976) Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820 (1976) No. 74-768 Argued March 1-2, 1976 Decided June 1, 1976 425 U.S. 820 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as added by 11 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, proscribes federal employment discrimination and establishes an administrative and judicial enforcement system. The statute provides that personnel actions affecting federal employees or job applicants "shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," 717(a); delegates enforcement authority to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), 717(b); and permits an aggrieved employee to file a civil action in a federal district court for review of his claim of employment discrimination. After first seeking relief from the agency allegedly guilty of discriminati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-16-1976
Reported in : AIR1977All126
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This appeal by the defendants Nanbachcha and Rajaram arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents to set aside an auction sale of the house in question in an execution case.2. The relevant pedigree of the plaintiff-respondents as set out in the plaint is as follows: RAM KISHAN ____________________|_____________________ | | Hanuman Prasad Sita Ram (Issueless) ________________|___________________________________________________________ | | | | Gopal Das Nand Lal Purshottam Dwarka Prasad alias | | Ram Gopal Pappu Kamal _________|____________| | Ashok Arun KumarThe plaintiffs claimed to be members of a joint Hindu family and the house in dispute was said to be the property of that joint Hindu family. The defendant No. 2 Raja Ram filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against Hanuman Prasad and Gopal Das, the defendants 3 and 4 respectively, being suit No. 614 of 1960 in the court of Munsif West, Allahabad. A decree for a sum of Rs. 800 being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-21-1976
Reported in : AIR1978Mad66
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration of their title to and possession of the suit properties and for an injunction. Plaintiffs 1 and 2, Chelliah Nadar and Mercy Bai, are husband and wife. The first defendant, Lalitha Bai, is the sister of the first plaintiff. The second defendant Muthayyan is the husband of the first defendant. The suit properties belonged to one Daniel Nadar, the deceased father of the first plaintiff. Daniel Nadar died as a Travancore Christian leaving behind him his son, the first plaintiff, and four daughters, including the first defendant. The contest is between the son and the daughter of Daniel Nadar. If the Christian Succession Act of Travancore is applicable, the first plaintiff will be the sole heir. But, if the Indian Succession Act is applicable, the first plaintiff and the first defendant would each be entitled to a half share in the properties.2. The trial court found that the Indian Suc...
Tag this Judgment!