Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-08-1983
Reported in : (1984)43CTR(Bom)26; [1985]155ITR500(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is an individual and assessed to income-tax. He was assessed by respondent No. 1 for the assessment years 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49 under s. 23(3) read with s. 34(1)(a) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1922'). In respect of these assessment years, certain additions were made by respondent No. 1. An addition of Rs. 1,00,000 was made in the assessment year 1947-48 as income of the petitioner from undisclosed sources. The petitioner carried appeals before the AAC of Income-tax and the cases were remanded to the ITO some time in the year 1949. While the appeals were pending before the AAC, certificate of recovery was issued on September 3, 1958, and accordingly recovery was made from certain debtors of the petitioner. After the receipt of the remand report, the AAC annulled the assessment order for the assessment year 1946-47 and set aside the assessment orders for the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49 by a consolidated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-17-1983
Reported in : AIR1983P& H356
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.1. Whether any and every order of the Rent Controller appointed under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, against which a party may claim to be aggrieved, would now become appealable under S. 15(2) of the said Act by virtue of Notification No. S. O./71/HA-11/73/S. 15/78. Dated 8th May, 1978, is the somewhat significant question which falls for determination in this case by the Full Bench.2. Though the question aforesaid is primarily legal, yet the facts highlighting the issue deserve a somewhat detailed notice. The respondent-landlord herein had preferred a petition for ejectment under S. 13 of the Act against his tenant from a shop situated on Dev Samaj College Road. Ambala City on the ground of non-payment of rent from 1st of Sept., 1973, to the 31st of Jan., 1979 at a rate of Rs. 800 p. m. amounting to Rupees 52,000. In response thereto whilst contesting the same, the tenant admitted his liability to pa the arrears to the extent to Rs. 9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-16-1983
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi367; (1983)37CTR(Del)97; 23(1983)DLT467; 1983(5)DRJ161; [1983]143ITR607(Delhi); 1983RLR401
Sachar, J.1. The question for decision in this pertain is whether clause (ccc) inserted in sub-s. (1)(in the proviso) of s. 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as 'the Code') by means of s. 35 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, as amended by Punjab Amendment Act XII of 1940, and Punjab Amendment Act VI of 1942, as extended to the State of Delhi, stands repealed after the passing of the Amendment Act, 104 of 1976, amending the Code, especially in the light of s. 97(1) of Amendment Act, 1976, which reads as under : '97. (1) Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or a High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except in so far as such amendment or provision is consistent with the provision of the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed.' 2. The Punjab of Indebtedness Act, 1934 (hereinafter called as '1934 Act'), received the sanction of the Governor-General on April 5, 1935. It was ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-23-1983
Jefferson Cty. Pharm. Ass'n v. Abbott Labs. - 460 U.S. 150 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Jefferson Cty. Pharm. Ass'n v. Abbott Labs., 460 U.S. 150 (1983) Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Association v. Abbott Laboratories No. 81-827 Argued November 8, 1982 Decided February 23, 1983 460 U.S. 150 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner trade association of retail pharmacists and pharmacies filed an antitrust suit in Federal District Court against respondent pharmaceutical manufacturers, the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, which operates pharmacies in connection with its hospitals, and a county hospital pharmacy. Petitioner alleged that respondent manufacturers violated the price-discrimination proscriptions of the Robinson-Patman Act by selling their products to respondent hospital pharmacies at prices lower than those charged petitioners' members for like products, and that respondent pharmacies knowingly induced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jul-06-1983
Michigan v. Long - 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) Michigan v. Long No. 82-256 Argued February 23, 1983 Decided July 6, 1983 463 U.S. 1032 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus Two police officers, patrolling in a rural area at night, observed a car traveling erratically and at excessive speed. When the car swerved into a ditch, the officers stopped to investigate and were met by respondent, the only occupant of the car, at the rear of the car. Respondent, who "appeared to be under the influence of something," did not respond to initial requests to produce his license and registration, and when he began walking toward the open door of the car, apparently to obtain the registration, the officers followed him and saw a hunting knife on the floorboard of the driver's side of the car. The officers then stopped respondent and subjected him to a patdown search, which revealed no weapons. One of the officers shined his f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-14-1983
Reported in : AIR1985Mad130
Padmanabhan, J. 1. The following quetion has been referred for the opinion of a Division Bench of this Court by Kader J. -'Whether S. 80 of the Railways Act as amended excludes the operation of S. 20 of the Civil P.C.- and Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent?'The question has arisen for consideration in the following circumstances. The first plaintiff is a company incorporated Linder the Companies Act, having the registered office at Bangalore and carrying on business at Kalarnassery, Ernakulam. The second plaintiff is a registered society carrying qn business at P.W. Satsung Bihar. The third plaintiff is the insurer who has settled the claims of the second plaintiff and got subrogated to the rights, having its registered office at Madras. A consignment of one case containing HNIT printing machine Letter Press Atesa/RTE 1052, was entrusted by the first plaintiff to the first defendant Southern Railway administration at Cochin Harbour terminus for being delivered to the second plaintiff at Bai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-20-1983
Reported in : AIR1983SC324; 1983LabIC307; (1983)ILLJ228SC; 1983(1)SCALE33; (1984)1SCC191
Amarendra Nath Sen, J.1. The validity of an order dated 31st December, 1962 passed by the State Bank of India dismissing the appellant from service is questioned by the appellant in this appeal filed with special leave granted by this Court.2. In March, 1948 the appellant was appointed as a clerk in the Head Office of the Imperial Bank of India. The State Bank of India was constituted in 1955 by the State Bank of India Act (Act No. 23 of 1955) to take up the undertaking of the Imperial Bank of India and the entire undertaking of Imperial Bank of India vested in the State Bank of India by virtue of the provisions contained in the said Act. Under Section 7 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 the appellant's services were transferred to State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). In February 1961 the appellant was transferred to Dinhata Pay Office of the Bank in the District of Coochbehar. In December, 1961 the appellant was served with a show cause notice on a charge of m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-26-1983
Reported in : 1983(2)SCALE513; (1984)1SCC222; [1984]1SCR594; 1984(16)LC6(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah. J.1.The constitutional validity of Clause (b) of Section 32 of the Andhra pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Act XV of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as'the Act') which exempts all buildings constructed on and after August 26,1957 from the operation of the Act is challenged in these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.2. On October 1,1953, the State of Andhra came into existence under the provisions of the Andhra State Act, 1953 comprising the area specified in Section 3 of that Act which formerly formed a part of the then State of Madras. By virtue of the provisions contained in Part VI of that Act, the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXV of 1949) continued to be in operation in the State of Andhra. On November 1,1956 under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 with the merger of the area known as the Telangana area, which formerly formed a part of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, with the terri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Nov-24-1983
Reported in : (1984)(15)ELT260TriDel
1. This appeal filed by M/s. Rishi Enterprises is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 3rd July, 1982 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay whereby he disposed of the appeal filed by the appellants, against Adjudication order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bombay passed on 11-7-1979.2. Proceedings emanated from a notice to show cause having been issued on 2-1-1978 by Superintendent of Central Excise, Range IV, Bombay indicating that the party had been manufacturing 'nib slitting wheels' which attracted excise duty under T.I. 51(2) of the Central Excise Tariff (hereinafter referred to as the (CET), and that they cleared the same/consumed captively during the period October 1972 to April 1977, without obtaining Central Excise Licence as required under section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with rule 174 of the Rules framed thereunder, (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules respectively). Infringement of other provisions of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-23-1983
INS v. Chadha - 462 U.S. 919 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) INS v. Chadha No. 80-1832 Argued February 22, 1982 Reargued December 7, 1982 Decided June 23, 1983 * 462 U.S. 919 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) authorizes either House of Congress, by resolution, to invalidate the decision of the Executive Branch, pursuant to authority delegated by Congress to the Attorney General, to allow a particular deportable alien to remain in the United States. Appellee-respondent Chadha, an alien who had been lawfully admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant student visa, remained in the United States after his visa had expired and was ordered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to show cause why he should not be deported. He then applied for suspension of the deportation, and, after a hearing, an Immigration Judge, acting purs...
Tag this Judgment!