Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-15-1979
Reported in : [1979]118ITR300(HP)
D.B. Lal, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, who are Messrs. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd., Solan, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, has referred to us the following question of law for opinion :' Whether on a true interpretation of Rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the action of the Income-tax Officer in excluding Rs. 13,685 only instead of Rs. 34,212 and Rs. 11,576 instead of Rs. 29,441 for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, respectively, from the total income for arriving at the chargeable profits under the said Act '2. The facts giving rise to this reference may now be stated. Messrs. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. which is a public limited company carries on the business of manufacture and sale of beer, Indian made foreign liquors, malt, breakfast food and soft drinks, etc. The assessee-company besides doing their ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : May-25-1979
Reported in : AIR1980HP5
T.U. Mehta, C.J.1. Petitioner Shanker Dass has filed this writ petition with the prayer that the show cause notice found at Annexure A of Oct., 1978 and the action pursuant to it for disqualifying him from contesting panchayat election for five years and for dispensing with his services as the President of the Gram Panchayat Nalag be quashed.2. The short facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner was elected as a President of Gram Panchayat Nalag in the year 1973 and thereafter in Dec., 1978 he was re-elected as such. On 15th Jan., 1979 he took oath of his office.3. By order, dated 22nd February 1979 found at Annexure D, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh has been pleased to disqualify the petitioner from contesting panchayat election for five years and also to dispense with his services as a President of Gram Panchayat, Nalag, under Section 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act 1968. This order is passed on the basis of an enquiry conducted and the subsequent sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-18-1979
Reported in : AIR1980HP16
T.U. Mehta, C.J.1. All these eight appeals arise out of the compensation award given by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kangra Division to various claimants. All of them contain some common points of law. These claims have arisen out of the same motor accident and, therefore, some of the important facts relating to all these cases are also the same. In view of this, we propose to dispose of the common points arising in these appeals by a common judgment. After disposing of these common points, we shall take up the individual appeals and shall dispose of individual cases on merits 2. Facts of the case are that on 9th October, 1970, a passenger bus, which at the relevant time belonged to the Government transport, and which was having No. HIM 4174, was travelling from Tisa. It was bound for Chamba. When this bus arrived at a place known as Majra Ghar at 3 p.m. on that day, it met with this unfortunate accident in which 44 persons died and 11 were injured. The claims with which we are con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-14-1979
Reported in : 1980CriLJ889
T.U. Mehta, C.J.1. The appellant Jai Parkash Sharma had filed a private complaint against the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. The incident which is referred to in the complaint is said to have taken place about six years ago, i.e. on 6th October, 1973 at 10-30 A. M. According to the complainant, respondents 1, 2 and 3 had caught him and had given 'blows on his body with an electric-type hunter'.2. After the process was issued, the matter came up before the learned Magistrate on 18-12-1973 when the complainant Jai Parkash was present in person and the respondents Nos. 1 and 3, Jagdamba Prasad and Mata Prasad, were also present in person. However, the respondent No. 2 Shakti Prasad was not present and the summons which was issued to him was also not received back, served or unserved. The court, therefore, ordered that fresh address of respondent Shakt...
Tag this Judgment!