Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1970)2MLJ212
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 69 of 1960 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, is the appellant before us. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs, Sri Rajendra Mills Limited, Salem and the Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited, Bombay, against the Union of India representing Southern Railway and Central Railway for damages in a sum of Rs. 10,128 being the loss suffered by them as a result of the damage to the first plaintiff's goods by fire. The facts which gave rise to the suit are not in dispute. The first plaintiff was a consignee of 100 bales of pressed cotton from Messrs. Naran Das Rajaram (Private) Limited, Bombay. The bales were securely packed and delivered in good condition at Banosa in the Central Railway and were accepted for carriage at railway risk to be delivered to the plaintiff at Salem in Southern Railway; under invoice No. R.R. No. 9120 of 34 dated 2nd March, 1959. Out of the said consignment of 100 bales, 90 bales were loaded in one wagon and 10 bales were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC155; (1954)56BOMLR280; [1954]25ITR50(SC); [1954]1SCR444
Mahajan, J.1. This is appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay delivered on a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, whereby the High Court answered the first referred question in the negative.2. The assessment in question concern the year 1943-44. A Hindu undivided family was carrying on business in Bombay, Madras and the Mysore State. Its business was taken over by a registered firm on March 17, 1942. For the purpose of this appeal however this circumstance is not material. The case has been dealt with on the assumption that a single assessee carried on business from October 10, 1948, to November 8, 1942, the relevant accounting year. According to the accounts of the assessee, during this period the Mysore branch purchased goods from the Bombay head office and the Madras branch of the value of Rs. 2,45,455. The Income-tax Officer estimated these purchases of the Mysore branch in British India at Rs. 3,00,000 and its profits at Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Mandujano - 425 U.S. 564 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (1976) United States v. Mandujano No. 74-754 Argued No;ember 5, 1975 Decided May 19, 1976 425 U.S. 564 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus As a result of certain information concerning respondent's participation in an attempted sale of heroin, he was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating narcotics traffic in the area. The prosecutor warned him that he was not required to answer any questions that might incriminate him, that all other questions had to be answered truthfully or else he would be subject to a charge of perjury, and that, if he desired a lawyer he could have one, but that the lawyer could not be inside the grand jury room. Subsequently, respondent was charged with perjury for admittedly false statements made to the grand jury about his involvement in the attempted heroin sale. The District Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3453/2002 JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.& ANR. Appellants VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondents WITH C.A. No.6383-6421/1997, C.A. No.6422-6435/1997, C.A. No.6436/1997, C.A. No.6437-6440/1997 , C.A. No.3381-3400/1998, C.A. No.4651/1998, C.A. No.918/1999, C.A. No.2769/2000, C.A. No.4471/2000, C.A. No.3314/2001, C.A. No.3454/2002, C.A. No.3455/2002, C.A. No.3456-3459/2002, C.A. No.3460/2002, C.A. No.3461/2002, C.A. No.3462-3463/2002, C.A. No.3464/2002, C.A. No.3465/2002, C.A. No.3466/2002, C.A. No.3467/2002, C.A. No.3468/2002, C.A. No.3469/2002, C.A. No.3470/2002, C.A. No.3471/2002, C.A. No.4008/2002, C.A. No.5385/2002, C.A. No.5740/2002, C.A. No.5858/2002, W.P.(C) No.512/2003, W.P.(C) No.574/2003, C.A. No.2608/2003, C.A. No.2633/2003, C.A. No.2637/2003, C.A. No.2638/2003, C.A. No.3720-3722/2003, C.A. No.6331/2003, C.A. No.8241/2003, C.A. No.8242/2003, C.A. No.8243/2003, C.A. No.8244/2003, C.A. No.8245/2003, C.A. No.8246/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1987Delhi323
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) Navjivan Cooperative House-Building Society Ltd. has filed his writ petition against an order passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal in an appeal No. 46/1585/78/H Commissioner of Income Tax /876 dated 20-7-1984. . (2) The case of the petitioner is that it is a society which, was originally registered under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, as extended to Delhi. On coming into force the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, it become a Society under that Act. it is the case of the petitioner Society was formed in the year 1956 with the object, inter alias of acquir. ing land for housing for its members. It is not petitioner Society that respondent No. 3 of its founder members who had formed the on 4th August, 1956 as one of its founder members. He was also a member of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society. It is further the case of the petitioner Society that respondent No. 3 had deposited on 19th February', 1963 a sum of Rs. 8,000.00 towards l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Limited against the Order-in-Original No. 87/2002-RP dated 31.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Bulk Horlicks falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 1901.92 of the Central Excise Tariff. They are availing Modvat credit on the inputs namely Hydrochloric Acid, caustic Soda Lye and Malted barely, Hydrochloric acid and caustic soda lye are common inputs for manufacture of horlicks which is dutiable, and ghee and husk are chargeable to NIL rate of duty. As per rule 57 C(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, modvat credit is not allowed on such quantity of inputs which is used in the manufacture of final products which are exempt from the whole of the duty of Excise or are chargeable to NIL rate of duty. according to Rule 57C(2) of Central Excise Rules, where a manufacturer avails of the credit of specified duty on any inputs and is engaged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1950SC27; 1950CriLJ1383; (1950)IIMLJ42(SC); [1950]1SCR88
1. This is a petition by the applicant under article 32(1) of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus against his detention in the Madras Jail. In the petition he has given various dates showing how he has been under detention since December, 1947. Under the ordinary Criminal Law he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment but those convictions were set aside. While he was thus under detention under one of the orders of the Madras State Government, on the 1st of March, 1950, he was served with an order made under section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, IV of 1950. He challenges the legality of the order as it is contended that Act IV of 1950 contravenes the provisions of articles 13, 19 and 21 and the provisions of that Act are not in accordance with article 22 of the Constitution. He has also challenged the validity of the order on the ground that it is issued mala fide. The burden of proving that allegation is on the applicant. Because of the penal provisions of sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR33
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of the respondent who was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act for having contravened Section 18(2) of the same Act in that he did not send copies of the accounts in respect of three money-lending transactions dated 24-12-57 27 and 30-12-57 relating to loans advanced by him to Kisnad Group Co-operative Multi-purpose Society. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Broach who tried the case acquitted the respondent on the ground that a loan to a Co-operative society was not included in the definition of loan contained in Section 2(9) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act. On this ground he acquitted the respondent although according to the Magistrate all the facts about the advancing of the loans were admitted by the respondent who was accused.2. In appeal it is contended by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that the view taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2006Raj128; I(2006)DMC667; RLW2006(1)Raj612; 2006(1)WLC648
V.K. Bali, J. 1. Sudarshan Bhatia, born and brought up in the State of Rajas-than, but stated to be a Canadian citizen, died on 21.4.1989 in Germany leaving behind considerable movable and immovable properties. Poonam Bhati his wife and Smita Bhatia, minor daughters, said to have been born out of the wedlock of Sudarshan Bhatia and Poonam Bhatia, successfully sought succession certificate with regard to the movable properties of deceased Sudarshan Bhatia, details whereof have been given in the application under Section 372 of the Indian succession Act itself as the same was allowed vide orders dated 6.12.1999 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Whereas Surendra Bhatia brother of Sudarshan Bhatia resisted grant of succession certificate to Poonam Bhati and her daughter Smita on the basis of Will dated 17.4.1989 (Ex.A.l) said to have been executed by Sudarshan Bhati, his sister resisted the same on the ground that movable properties owned by Sudarshan Bhatia were made from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2006(1)CHN297
D.K. Seth, J. The preliminary objection : Maintainability of the appeal:1. Mr. Santanu Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the respondent, had taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal. According to him, the decree was passed on 20th December, 2001. Against the said decree, a review application was preferred on 3rd/4th January, 2002. This review was partly allowed by an order dated 15th July, 2002. Therefore, when the appeal was preferred on 11th September, 2002 against the judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2001, there was no judgment and decree, which stood modified by reason of the order dated 15th July, 2002, being the decree against which the appeal could have been preferred. The subsequent dismissal of the review application or rejection thereof on account of not being pressed by the applicant would not alter the situation and would still affect the maintainability of the appeal. In support of his contention. Mr. Mukherjee had relied upon a decision i...
Tag this Judgment!