Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1848; JT1992(4)SC417; 1992(2)SCALE113; (1992)4SCC28; [1992]3SCR704; [1992]87STC377(SC); 1992(2)LC461(SC); (1992)2UPLBEC1162
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. The imposition of 'theatre tax' by the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow has been challenged by the cinema owners/lessees in these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.2. Sections 172 and 2(77) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (the Act) are reproduced hereunder : Section 172 : Taxes to be imposed under this Act.(1) For the purposes of this Act and subject to the provisions thereof and of Article 285 of the Constitution of India, the Mahapalika shall impose the following taxes, namely:(a) Property taxes,(b) & (c)(2) In addition to the taxes specified in Sub-section (1), the Mahapalika may for the purposes of this Act and subject to the provisions thereof impose any of the following taxes, namely.(a) a tax on trades, callings and professions and holding of public or private appointments; (b)to(h)(i) a theatre tax; and(j) any other tax which the State Legislature has the power under the Constitution of India to impose in the State.(3) The Mah...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(6)SC273; 1993LabIC129; 1992Supp(3)SCC212; [1992]6SCR321
..... backward sections of those classes become eligible to the benefit of reservation. classes, which are inadequately represented', can be identified by occupation, economic criterion, family income or from political sufferers, border areas, backward areas, communities kept out of state-services by the british or by any other method which the state may adopt. once a class which is inadequately represented, is ..... punjab v. hira lal and ors. : [1971]3scr267 upheld the reservation which was made not by a legislation but by an executive order. see also mangal singh v. punjab state police 0065/1968 .174. agreeing with the reasonings of balaji, i hold that the provision for reservation in the 'services under the state' under article 16(4) can be made by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR1292; 2008(3)CTC97; [2008(3)JCR176(SC)]; JT2008(5)SC1; (2008)3MLJ1105(SC); 2008(5)SCALE1; (2008)6SCC1; 2008AIRSCW2899; 2008(3)Supreme331; 2008(2)LH(SC)1534
..... power on the congress to impose any restriction on the exercise of the guaranteed right, still it has always been understood that the freedom guaranteed is subject to the police power - the scope of which however has not been defined with precision or uniformly. 166. in kesavananda bharati : air1973sc1461 case also, while considering the extent ..... separate accommodations for black and white passengers in trains, the united states supreme court was of the view that racial segregation was a reasonable exercise of state police power for the promotion of the public good and upheld the law. several affirmative actions were challenged and the landmark decision of brown v. board of education ..... of the united states cannot put them upon the same plane. 163 u.s. at 55227. he held that racial segregation was a reasonable exercise of state police power for the promotion of the public good and upheld the law.28. thus, even in this second phase, affirmative action was never truly initiated - the country .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1267
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. These two Writ Petitions call in question the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act of 1971 inter alia, on the ground that it violates the basic structure and essential features of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, outside the scope and ambit of constituent powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution as provided under Article 368 of the Constitution. In addition, certain directions or suitable orders are sought for declaring that the petitioners continue to be the Rulers or the 'Successor Rulers', as the case may be and directing the respondent-Union of India to continue to recognise their personal rights, amenities and privileges as Rulers of their erstwhile States and also continue to pay privy purse to them in addition to their arrears of amounts. For facilitating a proper understanding of the controversy that has led to the filing of these two writ petitions and the Interlocutory Applications 1 to 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(1)SC374; 1993(1)SCALE363; 1994Supp(1)SCC191
1. These two Writ Petitions call in question the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act of 1971 inter-alia, on the ground that it violates the basic structure and essential features of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, outside the scope and ambit of constituent powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution as provided under-Article 368 of the Constitution. In addition, certain directions or suitable orders are sought for declaring that the petitioners continue to be the Rulers or the 'Successor Rulers', as the case may be and directing the respondent - Union of India to continue to recognise their personal rights, amenities and privileges as Rulers of their erstwhile States and also continue to pay privy purse to them in addition to their arrears of amounts. For facilitating a proper understanding of the controversy that has led to the filing of these two Writ Petitions and the Interlocutory Applications 1 to 3 of 1992 in Writ Petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1831; [1992]75CompCas321(SC); 1992CriLJ2781; 1992(2)Crimes314(SC); (1992)108CTR(SC)84; 1992(40)ECC352; [1992]197ITR196(SC); JT1992(3)SC129; 1992(1)SCALE1006; (1992
ORDERS.Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The Criminal Appeal No. 631/90 is directed by the two appellants namely, K.T.S. Mohammed and M. Jamal Mohammed and Criminal Appeal No. 632/90 is directed by AmanuUah Quareshi. All the three appellants are challenging the correctness of the common order made by the High Court of Madras in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 229/81 and 239/81 respectively dismissing the revisions and confirming the judgment of the lower Appellant Court made in Cr. A. Nos. 221 and 222 of 1980 which in turn affirmed the judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.T. Act').2. The facts leading to the prosecution case are well set out in the judgments of the Courts below. Nevertheless, we think it necessary to recapitulate the basic matrix, though not in details, in order to enable us to give our own reasons for the findings which we will be arriving at.3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2599; 2007(6)ALLMR(SC)447; 2007(2)BLJR2218; JT2007(7)SC127; 2007(7)SCALE278; (2007)10SCC306
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P.2. Constitutionality and/ or applicability of the provisions of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (for short 'the Central Act') is in question herein.3. Before, however, embarking on the questions involved, we may at the outset notice that the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 11880 of 2006 arises out of a judgment and order dated 26.04.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Writ Petition No. 4619 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein in regard to the applicability of Section 30 of the Central Act was dismissed. In the said writ petition, the following prayers were made:(a) the declaration that the non-graduate Veterinary Practitioners who are registered under the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971 (for short to be referred as 'the State Veterinary Act') are eligible to practice Veterinary medicine in the same manner an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1; 1993(1)ALT(Cri)265; 1993(41)BLJR75; 1992CriLJ3712; JT1992(6)SC21; 1992(2)SCALE523; (1992)4SCC272; [1992]Supp1SCR545
..... bihar : 1987crilj157 a similar question came up for consideration. in that case on the night between 29th/30th november, 1984 the security police patrol on duty near jogbani check post on the indo nepal border intercepted a speeding jeep with five occupants, one of them being a dismissed ips officer. he was wanted. a detention order under ..... measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. in state of m.p. v. mubarak ali : 1959crilj920 , this court held that 'investigation starts after the police officer receives information in regard to an offence under the code. investigation consists generally of the following steps (a) proceeding to the spot; (b) ascertainment of the ..... a magistrate having such jurisdiction. the proviso thereto further enjoins that the magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police beyond the period of 15 days only, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so. but, however, he is enjoined that no .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1048; JT1992(6)SC182; 1993(37)KarLJ204; 1992(2)SCALE924; 1993Supp(4)SCC536; [1992]Supp2SCR182; [1993]88STC98(SC)
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J.1. Taking a cue from the decision of this Court in Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana : [1991]188ITR402(SC) , to which I was a party, a contention has been raised, in these appeals and writ petitions, that corresponding provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, are ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature insofar as they seek to levy a purchase tax in certain circumstances. My learned brother, Jeevan Reddy, J., has discussed the provisions and contentions elaborately and exhaustively in his judgment. It is unnecessary for me to set out over again the statutory provisions considered in Goodyear or those which are challenged in these petitions and appeals or the details of the decision in Goodyear as these have been discussed in great detail in the judgment of my learned brother. I however, think that I owe it to myself to add a separate judgment as I was a party to Goodyear and explain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1769; 1993(65)ELT305(SC); JT1993(3)SC297; 1993(2)SCALE843; (1993)4SCC120; [1993]3SCR802
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. We have had the benefit of the industry, erudition and exposition of the constitutional and jurisprudential aspects of law on the various questions urged before us in the judgment of our esteemed Brother K. Ramaswamy, J. But while concurring with the hereinafter mentioned conclusions recorded by him we would like to say a few words to explain our points of view. Since the facts have been set out in detail by our learned Brother we would rest content by giving an abridged preface which we consider necessary.2. It nil began with the receipt of a letter dated December 26, 1991, from Shri R.K. Jain, Editor, Excise Law Times, addressed to the then Chief Justice of India, Shri M.H. Kania, J., complaining that as the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for, short 'the CEGAT') was without a President for the last over six months the of functioning of the Tribunal was adversely affected, in that, the Benches sit for hardly two hours or so, the sittings com...
Tag this Judgment!