Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1988)24ITD51(Ahd.)
1. The Revenue has made this appeal against the order dated 24-6-1983 of Shri K.S. Rao, Controller of Estate Duty (Appeals)-VIII, Ahmedabad who allowed the appeal (statistical purpose) against the order dated 25-2-1982 of Shri R.B. Bhatt, Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty, Ahmedabad.2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the deceased Harigangaben K.Nagori died on 19-2-1977, who was the widow, being her husband died on 20-2-1971. The family of the deceased consisted of her husband, two sons and a daughter in the year 1971 and prior to the date 20-2-1971 on which day her husband died. Her husband before his death made a will dated 21-4-1969 vide which he devolved his interest in the HUF property which was to devolve on the HUF itself, for his two sons and his wife, 3. In view of these facts, it was claimed and contended before the Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty that the deceased (widow) was not owner of any property and therefore, no property passes on her death, which is to be subj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)6MLJ1141
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner, as a party-in-person has filed this writ petition for a direction to the first respondent to forthwith ensure compliance of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the second and third respondents by ensuring that all the information sought by him including the documents to be supplied by the second and third respondents are provided to him and further direct the first respondent to proceed further with the show cause notice issued for imposition of penalty, compensate him and initiate such other steps as are provided under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, including initiation of departmental proceedings against the person(s) responsible for denying the information sought by him.2. The case of the petitioner is, as follows:(i) Since 2001, the petitioner has been trying to expose one self proclaimed 'Kalki Bhagawan' and his multi crore business activities behind the scene, through media and subject his unlawfu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023INSC845 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2151 OF2011First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Appellants versus Anil Rishiraj & Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTUAL ASPECTS1 The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short, FEMA) was brought into force with effect from 1st June 2000. By virtue of subsection (1) of Section 49 of FEMA, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, FERA) stood repealed. On 11th February 2002, the first respondent, who was an Enforcement Officer appointed under clause (e) of Section 3 of FERA, filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, against the appellants for various offences punishable under FERA and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken by the learned Additional Chief Criminal Appeal No.2151 of 2011 Page 1 of 17 Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, on the said complaint ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC77; [1955]2SCR1117
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property dated the 20th May, 1953, revising an order of the Additional Custodian of East Punjab, Delhi, dated the 20th March, 1952. The two questions raised before us on the facts and circumstances, to be stated, are (1) whether the Custodian-General had the revisional power which he purported to exercise, and (2) was the order of the Custodian-General on its merits such as to call for interference by this Court. 2. The appellant before us, one Mrs. Indira Sohanlal, is a displaced person from Lahore. She was the owner of a house at Lahore known as 5, Danepur Road. Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon of West Pakistan owned 766 bighas of agricultural land in a village called Punjab Khore within the State of Delhi. An oral exchange is said to have taken place between these two, of the said properties, on the 10th October, 1947. In pursuance of that exchange Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon is said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2006(109)FLR1180]; (2006)IILLJ1027MP; 2006(1)MPHT551; 2006(2)MPLJ289
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of notification dated 10-10-2005 issued by the State Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 as well as the vires of Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the said Act.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the petition are that under Entry 22 of List III to the Second Schedule to the Constitution read with Article 246 of the Constitution, both Parliament and State Legislature have concurrent power to make law relating to trade union and industrial and labour disputes. In exercise of such powers, the State Legislature has enacted the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') with the assent, of the President of India. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act provides that Section 1 and Section 112 of the Act shall come into force at once and the State Government may, by notifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC554; [1959]1SCR313
Sarkar J.1. The Princely States that existed in British India, merged themselves in the Union of India not very long after India became independent. Before the merger some of these States passed through certain stages which may be called transitional. The decision of this appeal depends on certain laws that came into existence during the transitional stage through which the Princely State of Indore passed before it became merged in the Indian Union. 2. Up to April 22, 1948, Indore as one of the Princely States of India enjoyed internal sovereign rights and had its own laws and courts. These laws and courts derived their authority from the Ruler of Indore in whom the sovereign power was vested. The highest court in Indore was called the High Court. 3. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the appellant against the respondents in the Indore High Court on November 6, 1947. It was a suit for the specific performance of an agreement whereby it is said, Govindram Sakasaria, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1967]65ITR84(Raj)
D. D. Dave C.J. - This is a reference by the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, under section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, No. 34 of 1953, which will hereafter be refereed to as 'the Act'.The question which has been referred to this court is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 6,85,193 was correctly included in the estate of the deceased as property deemed to pass on her death under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?'Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the said question, as detailed in statement of the case, are as under :Smt. Purna Bai, widow of Shri Sagarmal Mody, died on 15th February, 1956. She had no natural issue of her own but was survived by her adopted son, Shri Satyanarayan Mody and a grandson, Shri Suryakant Mody, son of Satyanarayan, who have been treated as accountable persons concerned under section 53 of the Act. Smt. Purna Bai, deceased, had an account in the Bank of Bikaner at Jaipur in her name from 1st A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR841; 2006(2)BomCR307
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard.2. Rule.3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.4. Though the writ petition has been filed seeking various reliefs, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has sought leave to restrict the petition to the relief pertaining to the quashing of levy and collection or octroi by Dhule Municipal Corporation without following the procedure prescribed under the statute, and further has sought leave to withdraw the petition as regards other reliefs with liberty to file fresh petition for those reliefs.5. Few facts relevants for the decision are that :The petitioners are businessmen and ordinary residents of District Dhule. Respondent No. 3 Dhule Municipal Corporation is the Corporation constituted under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, (hereinafter called 'Corporation Act') and came in existence from 30th June, 2003. Prior to the establishment of said Corporation, Dhule Municipal Council constituted under the Maharashtra Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(5)BomCR445; 2003(90)ECC293; 2003LC143(Bombay); 2003(156)ELT467(Bom); 2003(3)MhLj645; [2004]135STC168(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India seeks to challenge the order dated26th October 1989 passed by then Collector of CentralExcise & Customs, Division Aurangabad. The 1stpetitioner herein is a Company Limited by shares and is aCivil Contractor engaged in civil construction works atsites of various party. The other petitioners aredirectors and/or shareholders of this Company. Therespondent no. 2 is the Collector of Central Excise whoseorder is challenged. The respondent No. 1 is Union ofIndia. The Attorney General of India was also joined andnotice was issued to him since a declaration is sought inone of the prayers with respect to unconstitutionality ofHeading No. 7308 of Schedule to the Central ExciseTariff Act, 1985. 2. Mr. Kanade, learned Counsel, has appearedfor the petitioners and Mr. Godhamgaonkar, StandingCounsel, has appeared for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 3. The facts leading to this petition are asfollows : (a) An industrial estate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad203; (1952)IMLJ174
Rajamannar, C.J.1. In this batch of applications filed on behalf of several land-holders in the State a common question arises as to the validity of Madras Act XXX (30) of 1947 & of Madras Act VII (7) of 1951 which amended the former Act in certain particulars. Individual applications also raise other questions, but it was considered convenient to hear and dispose of the main question before dealing with other subsidiary questions. Madras Act XXX of 1947 received the assent of the Governor on the 6th January 1918. It is called the Madras Etsates Land (Reduction of Bent) Act, 1947 The descriptive title runs as follows: 'An act to provide for the reduction of rents payable by ryots in estates governed by the Madras Estate Land Act, 1908, approximately to the level of the assessments levied on lauds in ryotwari areas in the neighbourhood.' The following is the preamble to the Act, 'Whereas the rents now payable by ryots in estates governed by the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, are in many...
Tag this Judgment!