Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(AP)108
Chennakesav Reddy, J. - The problem that is primarily presented and debated in detail in these Tax Revision Cases preferred by the Food Corporation of India is whether the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), which is a corporate body, is a dealer as defined in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. T.R.G. No. 33, 34 and 35 of 1976 relate to the levy of tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act), while T.R.G. Nos. 28, 31, 32 and 40 of 1976 relate to the levy of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) in respect of the inter-state sales of rice and Milo to other State Governments.2. The facts are not in dispute and may profitably be made plain at the outset. The Food Corporations Act, 1964, was enacted by the Parliament to provide for the establishment of Food Corporations for the purpose of trading in fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)201CTR(Guj)243; [2006]283ITR116(Guj)
H.N. Devani, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'SC', has referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) :-Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv) as claimed by the assessee on the gross income and not on the net income as worked out by the Income-tax Officer. 2. The Assessment Year is 1981-82 and the relevant accounting period is the year that ended on 30.6.1980. 3. The assessee is a registered co-operative society deriving income from dividend, interest and from its trading activities. In the previous year relevant to assessment year 1981-82, the assessee had dealt in a number of commodities, including articles intended for agriculture. The assessee filed its return of income on 26.6.1981 declaring total income at Nil. Assessment was finalized on 30.6.1982 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B on a total income ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Considering the nature of controversy and as requested by the parties, matters have been heard finally at the stage of admission by issuing Rule, and making it returnable forthwith. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners before this Court are dealers within the meaning of said term as defined in Section 2[16A] of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, (Act No. LIX of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation Act? for short). The Local Body Tax (LBT) is being charged on goods imported by them within city limits of respondent no.2 Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The tax is assessed on goods imported by them for use, consumption or sale within the city limits. As they are dealers whose annual turnover exceeds Rs. 50 Crores, the tax is being recovered from them. Other dealers whose annual turnover is less than Rs.50 Crores, are exempted from paying any tax on such goods. 3. Petitioners state that they are required to pay the local body tax at 8.5% and hence,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR259; 1998(3)BomCR590
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule in all petitions. Respondents waive service. By consent heard forthwith.Writ Petition No. 1761 of 1997 is preferred by the company against the order dated 25th September, 1997 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai. The company has been restrained temporarily to act on the V.R.S. application or to refuse to allot work and to pay wages to enlisted workers till further orders with a further direction that the 55 (fifty-five) enlisted employees be allowed to work and be paid wages subject to deposit of their cheques with the respondent company.Writ Petition No. 1917 of 1997 has been preferred by the Union claiming to represent the workers employed by the company, being the only trade union of employees of the petitioner company. The reliefs in the petition amongst others are to restrain the company from acting on the V.R.S. announced by notice dated 8th August, 1997; restrain the company from selling, disposing or in any manner alienating the plant, machinery,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999IIIAD(Delhi)640
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by one of the Unions in the above Power Project which is owned by the Government of India and maintained by the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Though this petition arose from a refusal of Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour Respondent No.1, to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication, inter alias for the reason that demand for holding a secret ballot cannot form the basis of an industrial dispute, the real issue now arising in this petition is the method and manner of determination of majority character of trade unions in an establishment. 2. On the issue arising in the writ petition there is now a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India Staff Union Vs . Food Corporation of India and Others : (1995)IILLJ272SC wherein it has been held as follows: 'Collective bargaining is the principal raison d'etre of the trade unions. However, to see that the trade union, which takes up the matter concerni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2006(5)CTC546; [2007(112)FLR954]; (2007)IIILLJ265Mad; (2006)4MLJ1447
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. On an order of reference dated 11-04-2000 passed by a learned single Judge in the above writ petition, the matter is placed before us for consideration of the following issue:Whether in an enquiry initiated under Section 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, the contractors of the principal employer should be made as parties or not? 2. The reference arose under the following fact situation:Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short ESI Corporation') issued a notice dated 3-9-1992 to Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (in short 'BHEL') pointing out that they had not till then paid the employer's as well as the employees' contribution as per the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act (in short 'the Act') and that the Corporation is proposing to determine the contribution payable under Section 45-A of the Act. The notice also afforded an opportunity to BHEL to explain their stand. The notice also made clear that in the event of any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1991Delhi25; [1991]70CompCas388(Delhi); 41(1990)DLT633
Sunanda Bhandare, J.1. This suit for recovery of Rs.7,40,606.65 together with costs and interest has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant - National Insurance Co. Ltd. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at E-5, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The plaint has been signed and instituted by one Shri G. Jhajharia who claims to be the director and principle officer of the plaintiff company authorised to sign the plaint and institute the suit. The defendant is a nationalised company. 2. The plaintiff has a factory at Delhi Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. It is stated in the plaint that the factory of the plaintiff was insured by the defendant since 1973 against, theft, fire, damage, etc., from time to time under the policies taken by the plaintiff. The plaintiff with a view to reinsure its factory requested Shri Dilip Bhattacharjee, the Development Officer of Division No.II of the defendant, to visit and inspect the premises. Accodin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1995IIIAD(Delhi)1090; 60(1995)DLT147
P.K. Bahari, J.(1) In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashment of departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner vide memo dt. June 2, 1994 and also for quashing the adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. for the year 1986 and a writ of mandamus requiring the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager from which date his juniors had been promoted and also for regularising the period of his service from 19th August 1987 to 31st August 1990 and to pay his salary and other allowances for that period and also for placing the petitioner in Selection Grade with effect from 1st December 1987 with consequential reliefs.(2) Facts leading to the filing of the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioner joined the Food Department of Government as Watchman in 1964 and was promoted to the post of AC-III (Depot) in 1968 and to the post of AG-II (Depot) in 1970 and AG-I (Depot) in 1971. In 1985. he was posted at AG-I (Depot) at Food...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1991RLR215
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Petitioner joined Govt. of India in 1958. He was transferred to Food Corp. of India in 1969. He became Dy Manager in 1977. In 1982, he was working as Distt. Manager and was alleged to have taken bribe. He was charged with misconduct u/Reg. 31, 32 of Fci (Staff) Regulations. Enquiry was begun on 17.2.84 and concluded on 25.5.85, when Govt. was not allowed further time to produce evidence & its case was closed. Petitioner was exonerated and re-instated. In Aug., 88, he was promoted. Then in Jan., 89, Chairman of Fci ordered u/Reg. 74, review of the order of 1985 by which petitioner was exonerated and ordered holding of enquiry by examining witnesses who were earlier not allowed to be examined. Petitioner Challenged this by filing W.P.] After detailing above, Judgment is :(2) The most important question now to be considered is as to whether the impugned order dated 17.1.89 has been passed by the Chairman, Fci within a reasonable period. It may be noted that the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2007(3)ARBLR9(Madras)
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. OA No. 452 of 2006 has been filed for an order of interim injunction restraining respondents 1, 2 and 3 by themselves, either jointly or severally or their men, agent/s, employee/s, representative/s, attorney/s and/or directors, and/or authorised representatives and/or its officers and any other person/s claiming through or any of them from in any manner dealing with or disposing of their shareholding or any part thereof or creating any encumbrances, charges, lien or entering into any kind of agreement with regard to its shareholding or any part thereof as set out in Schedule A or attempting to do any of the above, pending the adjudication of the disputes which have arisen between the applicant and the respondent by the learned arbitrator to be appointed.2. OA No. 453 of 2006 has been filed for an order of interim injunction restraining respondent No. 4, by itself or its agent/s, directors, authorised representative/s or employee/s, representative/s, attorney/s and/...
Tag this Judgment!