Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-16-1993
Reported in : [1994]205ITR244(SC); 1995Supp(4)SCC247
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court see : [1977]109ITR474(All) , answering the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. These appeals are preferred on a certificate granted by the High Court and the only question in respect of which the certificate is granted is (at page 476) :Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no penalty could be imposed with reference to the cash deposits on the principle of Anwar Ali's case : [1970]76ITR696(SC) (SC), even after the amendment of Section 271 in 1964 ?2. The assessment years concerned herein are 1962-63, 1963-64, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. The assessee is an individual running a tea-stall in Nainital. The returns filed by him were not accepted and assessment was completed on best judgment. Subsequently, certain information came into the possession of the Department which indicated concealment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-08-1993
Reported in : [1993]203ITR641(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, J.1. On being moved by the Revenue by an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question to this court for opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The reference relates to Messrs. Prathi Hardware Stores (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee').2. The background facts as culled out from the statement of case are as follows :The assessee is a partnership firm deriving income from the sale of hardware goods and paints. For the assessment year 1983-84, relating to the accounting year ending on December 31, 1982, the assessee filed a return of income on July 11, 1983, showing a total income of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-23-1993
Reported in : ILR1994KAR103
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J1. In this Writ Petition a simple question seems to have been blown out of proportion, to be in proportion to the the subject matter of the sale deed. The petitioners seek to restrain the second respondent from proceeding with an appeal filed before him by the first respondent, apparently under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 ('the Act' for short). The petitioners also seek the quashing of an order made by the second respondent on 25.5.1993 whereby the first respondent held that he had competence to entertain and consider the said appeal. Another order sought to be quashed is dated 22.7.1993 (Annex-AC), though the order of the said date states that the second respondent has reserved his orders on l.As.1, 2 and 3 filed before him to be pronounced on 28.7.93. The Writ Petition was presented on 26.7.93 and on 28.7.93 after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent, Rule was issued and an interim order was made staying further...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-13-1993
Reported in : AIR1993SC2063; [1994]79CompCas298(SC); (1994)2CompLJ430(SC); JT1993(4)SC399; 1993(3)SCALE125; 1993Supp(4)SCC226; [1993]Supp1SCR54
ORDERYogeswar Dayal, J.1. This order will dispose of Civil Appeal No.448 of 1989 and the batch coupled with Writ Petition No.1092 of 1991 and the batch. Civil Appeal No.448 of 1989 arises from the judgment of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore dated 29th April, 1989 passed in Writ Petition Nos.19321/86, 17110/84, etc.2. The above appeals and writ petitions involve challenge to constitutional validity of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (Central Act No.40 of 1982) (hereinafter called as 'the Act' or 'the impugned Act').3. The various appellants/petitioners are either Public/Private Limited Companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 or proprietary or partnership concerns or individual organisers. According to Section 1(3) of the Act is will come into force on such date as the Central Government may by Notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different States. In all these matters, apart from challenge to the vires of various provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-10-1993
Reported in : 1993(3)BomCR265; [1994(68)FLR171]; (1994)IILLJ891Bom
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. Both writ petitions, being Writ Petition No. 321 of 1988 and Writ Petition No. 295 of 1988, have been heard together as the basic issues involved in these two writ petitions are almost identical.These writ petitions involve consideration of the following interesting and important questions of law:(a) Whether the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to consider the question of alleged invalidity of Clause 2 of the impugned settlement prohibiting the employer from retrenching its workmen without first obtaining consent of union of employees while considering complaint made under Section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV to the said Act? (b) Whether Clause 2 of the settlement in each case survived even after service of notice of termination of settlement and expiry of notice period as a part of contract of service or otherwise? (c) Whether Clause 2 of the settlement in each cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-04-1993
Reported in : [1993]77CompCas179(Kar); [1993]78CompCas96a(Kar); ILR1993KAR293; 1993(1)KarLJ212
K.A. Swami, Actg. C.J.1. This Division Bench consisting of N. Venkatachala, J. (as he then was) and K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. has referred the following question for consideration by a Full Bench under section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 : 'What is the correct period of limitation for claims to be made under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act having regard to the provision in section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 ?' 2. Hence, the matter is before us. 3. The reference is necessitated due to conflicting views expressed by several High Courts. 4. We have heard both sides. 5. Before we embark upon considering the question referred to us for opinion, it is necessary to notice sections 446 and 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as the answer to the question depends upon the interpretation to be placed on these sections. 6. Sections 446 and 458A of the Act read as follows : '446. Suits stayed on winding up order. - (1) When a winding up or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-10-1993
Reported in : I(1993)DMC204
S.M. Daud, J.1. This appeal takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant for the commission of offence punishable Under Sections 498A. 304B and 302 all of the Indian Penal Code.2. Appellant/accused is the husband of the deceased Suvarna. This girl's parents Limba and Kanta are prosecution witnesses Nos. 6 and 8. The two families i.e. the family of the accused and that of Limba hail from village Sayyad Varvade, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur. Accused was married to Suvarna some 3 years prior to 8-l2-1987. On 8-12-1987, Suvarna was taken from village Varvade to the District Hospital at Solapur. She was found to have 70% burns and her condition kept deteriorating. Eventually on 14-12-1987 the girl died. Her death was due to Septicemia due to 70% burns. The contents of the post-mortem notes which are at Exh. 16 are not seriously questioned.3. The prosecution case was that for some 2 to 2-1/2 years after the marriage, there was no serious discord between the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-07-1993
Reported in : 1994(3)BomCR91; 1993(68)ELT308(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. petitioners are a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1913 and are engaged in the manufacture of phenolic resins in the factory situated at Poisar Bridge, Kandivli. After manufacture of phenolic resin, certain fillers, pigments, plasticisers and other additives are added so as to modify the phenolic resins into what is popularly known as phenolic formaldehyde moulding power. The Company also manufactures Urea Formaldehyde resin and Melamine Formaldehyde resin at the factory. After these resins are fully manufactured, certain fillers, pigments, plasticisers and other additives are added so as to modify the resins into what is known as Urea Formaldehyde moulding powders and Melamine Formaldehyde moulding powders. Section 3 of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') provides that there shall be levied and collected duties of excise on all excisable goods which are produced or manufactured at the rates set forth in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-11-1993
Reported in : (1993)104PLR1
A.P. Chowdhri, J.1. This judgment would dispose of C.W.P. No. 15625 of 1991 and six applications under Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') being Crl. Misc. Nos. 3250-M of 1985, 6401-M and 8116 M of 1987, 1886-M of 1988 and 10674M and 11413-M of 1991 directed against different orders of forfeiture passed under Section 95 of the Code. As the material points arising in these petitions are common and overlapping, it would be convenient to dispose of the same by a common judgment.2. The writ petition came up for hearing before A. L. Bahri and V. K. Bali, JJ. The learned Judges were of the opinion that the matter involved was of considerable general importance and deserved to be considered by a larger Bench. That is how the same is before us.3. The writ petition was filed by Shri Barjinder Singh, Chief Editor of the Daily Punjabi newspaper. The Ajit Published from Jalandhar. It seeks three reliefs : --(1) Section 95 of the Code be declar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-11-1993
Reported in : (1993)103PLR682
A.L. Bahri, J.1. Vide this order two General Sales Tax Reference Nos. 24 and 25 of 1984 are being disposed of as common question of law stands referred to this Court. The petitioner in both the cases is the same i.e. Messrs Rajasthan Wool Industries, Ludhiana, a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, doing the business of manufacture of wool and yarn.2. For the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, quarterly returns were filed by the petitioner in time. The assessments were finalised in May 1980 by passing two separate orders for the two assessment years referred to above. Apart from imposing the tax, order of payment of penalty and interest was also made by the Assessing Authority. Two appeals were filed against such orders The Appellate Court maintained the orders with respect to the tax. However, with respect to imposition of penalty and charging interest, orders of the Assessing Authority were quashed. This was done on October 11, 1982. Amount of tax was determin...
Tag this Judgment!