Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1986]160ITR952(Raj); 1985(2)WLN142
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' herein), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated December 10, 1979, passed in ITA No. 764/JP/1978-79 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 11,039 incurred by the assessee on the tour of its managing director to the U.S.A. was allowable as revenue expenditure '2. The assessee (non-petitioner) is a private limited company. It derives income from selling tractors, luna mopeds, godrej steel furniture, etc. For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 11,039 on the foreign tour of the managing director, Shri P.S. Murdia. The case of the assessee is that the tour was undertaken to the U.S.A. mainly on the following two grounds :' 1. To take dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1995]214ITR453(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This petition is preferred by the Gujarat Tractor Corporation Ltd. The petitioner is a Government company, Hindustan Tractors Ltd., and was taken over by the Central Government under the provisions of the Hindustan Tractors Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1978. With effect from the appointed day, i.e., April 1, 1978, the undertaking of the company, namely, the Hindustan Tractors Ltd., and its right, title and interest in relation to its undertakings stood transferred and vested in the Central Government under section 3 of the Act. As per the provisions of section 4 of the Act, the whole assets, rights, leaseholds, powers, authorities and privileges, and all the property, movable and immovable, including lands, buildings, workshops, stores, instruments, machinery and equipment, bank balances, cash balances, cash on hand, reserve funds, investments and book debts and all other rights and interests in, or arising out of, such property as were immedi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1979)GLR413; (1979)0GLR413; [1979]118ITR134(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. These two appeals under s. 269H of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-II, Ahmedabad, are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad of July 25, 1975, allowing the two appeals filed by the respective respondent-transferees herein from the order of the IAC of Income-tax, Acquisition Range-II, Ahmedabad, passed on January 16, 1975, acquiring two industrial sheds of type-A bearing block Nos. 1/3 and 1/4 situate in the industrial estate set up by the Baroda Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as BIDCO' for the sake of convenience) under s. 269F(6) of the aforesaid Act as the fair market value of the respective sheds exceeded the apparent consideration in the respective instruments of transfer of February 5, 1973, and had not been truly stated with the ulterior object of tax evasion and/or facilitating concealment of income or assets. Since the question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1982)ILLJ224AP
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. Writ Petitions Nos. 3477, 3459 respondent-Corporation, viz., the Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation - a corporation created not by a statute but incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Before the learned Judges it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that an earlier Bench decision in W.P. No. 5904 of 78, dated 8th December, 1979, was not correctly decided. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority, [1979-II L.L.J. 217], and the opinion of Chinnappa Reddy, J., in U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, [1980-II L.L.J. 222]. When the matter came up before the Full Bench on 24th November, 1980, it was brought to our notice that the Supreme Court has dealt with this very question in a writ petition relating to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and it would be advisable for this Bench to await a copy of the decision in that case. According...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1981AP125
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Writ Petitions Nos. 3477, 3459 and 5923 of 1978 have been referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of Madhava Reddy and Muktadar, JJ., for deciding the question whether a writ can issue to the respondent Corporation, viz., the Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation -- a Corporation created not by a statute but incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Before the learned Judges it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that an earlier Bench decision in W. P. No. 5904 of 1978, D/- 8-12-1979, was not correctly decided. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority, : (1979)IILLJ217SC , and the opinion of Chinnappa Reddy, J., in U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, : (1980)ILLJ222SC . When the matter came up before the Full Bench on 24-11-1980, it was brought to our notice that the Supreme Court has dealt with this very question in a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These writ petitions filed in different High Courts and transferred to this Court under Article 139 of the Constitution raise issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary and they have been argued at great length before us. The arguments have occupied as many as thirty five days and they have ranged over a large number of issues comprising every imaginable aspect of the judicial institution, Voluminous written submissions have been filed before us which reflect the enormous industry and vast erudition of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and a large number of authorities, Indian as well as foreign, have been brought to our attention. We must acknowledge with gratitude our indebtedness to the learned Counsel for the great assistance they have rendered to us in the delicate and difficult task of adjudicating upon highly sensitive issues arising in these writ petitions. We find, and this is not unusual in cases of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas126(Mad); (1984)IILLJ34Mad
Mohan, J.1. An important question arising in this batch of cases is whether the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Shops Act), is applicable to the Nationalised Banks and to the State Bank of India. 2. We would first note the facts leading to Writ Appeals Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983. They arise out of Writ Petitions Nos. 2013 and 2014 of 1979. Writ Petition No. 2013 of 1979 is for a mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispense of the preliminary objection raised by the Management of the Bank of India, Regional Office, Southern Region, represented by the Assistant General Manger, Madras, in regard to the maintainability of T.S.E. Case No. 49 of 1875, of the file of the Second Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in the appeal preferred by the employee, C. V. Raman, under section 41 of the Act. 3. Writ Petition No. 2014 of 1979 is for prohibition to prohibit the Additional Commissioner from proceeding to take up for pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1985)2MLJ439
ORDERMohan, J.1. An important question arising in this batch of cases is, whether the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Shops Act) is applicable to the Nationalised Banks and to the State Bank of Indian.2. We would first note the facts; relating to W.A. Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983. They arise out of W.P. Nos. 2013 and 2014 of 1979. W.P. No. 2013 of 1979 is for mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the preliminary objection raised by the Management of Bank of India, Regional Office, Southern Region, represented by the Assistant General Manager, Madras, in regard to the maintainability of T.S.E. Case No. 49 of 1975 on the file of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, II, Madras, in the appeal preferred by the employee, C.V. Raman under Section 41 of the Act. W.P. No. 2014 of 1979 is for prohibition to prohibit the Additional Commissioner from proceeding to take up for disposal T.S.E. Case No. 49 of 1975.3. The emp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1987]61CompCas153(Delhi); [1987(54)FLR261]; (1986)IILLJ354Del
H.L. Anand, J. 1. This petition article 226 of the Constitution by a former general manager of the U.K. branches of a nationalised bank, concurrently in-charge of its European operations, assails the purported termination of his service by the Bank on the ground of 'loss of confidence' in him, as a sequel to and as part of a shake up in the higher echelons of the Bank in the wake of the largest bankruptcy of an Asian business house in the U. K., and failure of certain other accounts, allegedly exposing the Bank to the risk of loss of millions of pounds, and raises some interesting, as indeed, difficult questions of law, in relation to service in public sector, as indeed, interaction between the principles of industrial jurisprudence and administrative law following recent constitutional developments in the treatment of public sector undertaking as instrumentalities of the State under article 12 of the Constitution. Some of the questions that the petition raises are perhaps not appropri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1571; (1986)3CompLJ1(SC); 1986LabIC1312; (1986)IILLJ171SC; 1986(1)SCALE799; (1986)3SCC156; [1986]2SCR278; 1986(2)SLJ320(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. These Appeals by Special Leave granted by this Court raise two questions of considerable importance to Government companies and their employees including their officers. These questions are: 1) Whether a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, is 'the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? 2) Whether an unconscionable term in a contract of employment is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as being opposed to public policy and, when such a term is contained in a contract of employment entered into with a Government company, is also void as infringing Article 14 of the Constitution in case a Government company is 'the State' under Article 12 of the Constitution? 2. Although the record of these Appeals is voluminous, the salient facts lie within a narrow compass. The First Appellant in both these Appeals, namely, the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to in sh...
Tag this Judgment!