Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1994HP17
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. Petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of Memorandum (Annexure PB) dated 18th April, 1984 issued by the Commissioner Transport, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.2. Petitioners, the petty transporters are owning and possessing public carrier trucks having national permits. For purchase of their vehicles they had obtained loan from various financial institutions namely Nation-, alised or non-Nationalised Banks, Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation etc. It is their case that respondent No. 2 on 18th April, 1984 issued a Memorandum, purpoting to insist upon the production of no objection certificate from financial institutions at the time of issuance/renewal of certificate of fitness. This requirement, according to petitioners is not in consonance with the provisions of law and the same is under challenge being ultra vires and unconstitutional.3. Writ petition is contested by respondents. Reply has been filed on the affidavit of Secretary State Transport Auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993HP84
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The election of respondent No. 1, the returned candidate from Hamirpur Parliamentary constituency is under challenge in this Election Petition. Nominations for filing papers to the Lok Sabha from 4-Hamirpur Parliamentary constituency commenced on 20th April, 1991. Last date for the same was 26th April, 1991 and the dates for scrutiny and withdrawal were 27th and 29th April, 1991, respectively. The polling was held on 20th May, 1991. Counting of votes could not commence on 26th May, 1991, due to the assassination of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and was deferred to I6th June, 1991. The counting commenced on 16th June, 1991 at Hamirpur, Una, Bilaspur and Dehra simultaneously. The result was declared on 17th June, 1991. Respondent No. 1 secured 2,05,970 votes as against the petitioner, who secured 2,02,232 votes. Respondent No. 1 was declared duly elected having won the election with a margin of 3738 votes. Respondents No. 2 to 16 were the other candidates who contested the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (1993)114CTR(HP)16,[1993]200ITR79(HP)
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. Both these petitions (Cr. M. Ps. (M) Nos. 1023 and 1024 of 1988) are being disposed of by a common judgment as these involve identical facts and questions of law and the parties are also the same.2. The facts giving rise to Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1023 of 1988 are that pro forma respondent No. 3, Naubat Rai, who was Karyana dealer at ]oginder Nagar, filed his income-tax return for the year 1971-72 with the Income-tax Officer, Mandi. He had shown in his income-tax return rental income of Rs. 3,500 net from his building alleged to be let out to his son, Vinod Kumar, the petitioner. It was also the case of Naubat Rai that in the said building his son, Vinod Kumar, was running a hotel in the name and style of Messrs. Tourist Hotel. But from the evidence, the Income-tax Officer found that Naubat Rai, the assessee, washimself running the hotel and in order to conceal his income from the hotel business and evade tax, he had put up the false plea of givi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : [1993]200ITR517(HP)
Leila Seth, C.J.1. The first thirteen writ petitions pertain to the taxability of various allowances, e.g., dearness allowance, house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance, special compensatory allowance, compensatory allowance, hill compensatory allowance, capital allowance, hill and fuel allowance and special compensatory allowance for remote areas.2. It is pertinent to mention that the question of not taxing dearness allowance was not pressed by the petitioners. On the question of house rent allowance, the respondents have conceded that it is not to be included in the total income to the extent prescribed as per the provisions of Section 10(13A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 2A of the Income-taxRules, 1962. Consequently, we are not dealing with the question of taxability of dearness allowance and house rent allowance.3. The main contention of the petitioners which are associations of employees and employees working in Simla and its suburbs, as asserted in the wri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992HP53
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the order, Annexure P-5, passed by respondent No. 2 on March 2, 1991 superseding and suspending the Board of Directors (hereinafter called the Board) of the Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, Dharamsala (hereinafter called as the bank) and directing the appointment of an Administrator till elections of the new Board take place. 2. The bank is a co-operative society duly registered under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (Act No. 3 of 1969) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). Petitioners were the members of Board of the bank, duly elected in the year 1988, representing various co-operative societies, the area of operation of the bank is within the districts of Kangra, Hamirpur, Una, Kullu and Lahaul-spiti with 78 branches spread over in all these districts. The board consists of 16 directly elected representatives f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : [1991]192ITR134(HP)
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenses amounting to Rs. 49,750 under the heads 'Hotel bills', Travelling and taxi expenses' and 'Presentation items' for the assessee's guests, suppliers and customers fell outside the purview of the provisions of Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether the Tribunal has rightly held that Rs. 25,250 as expenditure incurred on eating facilities by the assessee to its customers did not constitute entertainment expenditure within the meaning of Section 37(2B) ?'2. The facts necessary, in brief, are that the assessee who is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of beer, Indian-made foreign liquor, malt, breakfast food and soft-drinks, etc., and has a number of branches at various p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1992CriLJ1065
Bhawani Singh, J.1. The accused has challenged his conviction by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1982. He was prosecuted in F.I.R. No. 25 of 1982 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that the deceased (Chaudhari Ram), an agricultrist, was also practising witch-craft. The accused had also been going to him for treatment. On 19-7-1982, at about 6 a.m., the deceased was visited by the accused in his village and asked him about his buffalo which was not giving milk. He demanded money from the deceased on the ground that the deceased had done something wrong to the buffalo. The deceased not only denied having done anything wrong to the buffalo, but also declined to pay any money to the accused. At this time, the deceased was sitting in the corner of his Verandah. The accused gave a stick blow on the head of the deceased and in order to rescue himself, the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991HP68
ORDERV.P. Bhatnagar, J. 1. Shri Moti Ram respondent was declared to have been elected a Member of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 60-Chachiot Assembly Constituency in the elections held during February, 1990. His election has been challenged by way of filing two separate election petitions on the ground that the nomination paper of Shri Karani Singh was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer vide his order dated February, 7, 1990. Since both petitions involved determination of similar questions of facts and law, it was ordered on July 25, 1990 that the petitions be consolidated and further, that proceedings would henceforth be recorded in Election Petition No. 2 of 1990.2. The petitions were contested by Shri Moti Ram respondent by way of raising a number of preliminary objections. It was averred that the copies of the petitions served upon him were not the true copies of the original and, therefore, the provisions of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the Peop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : [1991]187ITR58(HP)
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. The petitioner, Shri Yogendra Chandra, filed returns under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for brief, 'the Act'), for the years 1970-71 to 1975-76 on January 21, 1976, before the Wealth-tax Officer, A-Ward, Shimla. His case is that the returns could not be filed within the prescribed period for various reasons. His father, late Raja Rana Digvijay Chand of Jubbal, died and it took some time before he could get the succession certificate in respect of the property of his father ; a fire accident destroyed the palace at Jubbal and two other buildings in the year 1969 ; the petitioner's wife was ailing necessitating her treatment at Delhi in the year 1972 ; the previous tax counsel who was looking after these matters withdrew and counsel engaged later took a long time in getting the material collected, etc.2. The Wealth-tax Officer imposed penalties for late filing of returns for each of these years by order dated March 25, 1980. According to the petitioner, due regard was no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : II(1991)DMC87
Bhawani Singh, J.1. This appeal, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. 25 of 1985) for short 'the act'), is directed against the judgment of District Judge, Shimla, in case No. 2 3-S/3 of 1988 whereby the petition moved by the appellant under Section 13 of the Act, for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce, has been dismissed.2. The facts, in brief, are that the marriage was solemnised between the parties on November, 7, 1980 at Nirankari Colony, Delhi. Out of this wedlock, Saravpreet was born on 4.1.1982 at Delhi. At the time of the marriage, the appellant was serving as Captain in the Indian Army and was posted at Ranchi. The respondent was taken- to Ranchi where both of them lived together for sometime and thereafter they went to Banglore and came to Shimla as well.3. The grievance of the appellant is that after the marriage, the respondent had been treating him with cruelty. She had been wilfully inflicting pain and misery to the appellant. She woul...
Tag this Judgment!