Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC311; 1980CriLJ328; (1979)4SCC484; 1979(11)LC284a(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant has been convicted under Section 135(b) of Customs Act, 1962 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. He has also been convicted under Section 85 (ii) of the Gold Control Act and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. It appears that the appellant has already spent about a month in jail & after a lapse of ten years it does not appeal to be conducive to the ends of justice to send the appellant back to jail. In these circumstances, therefore, while upholding the convictions of the appellant, we would reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already served. In lieu of the sentence remitted we impose a fine of Rs. 15,000/ under each count, total being Rs. 30,000/ , in default six months rigorous imprisonment on each count. The appellant is allowed to pay Rs. 10,000/- with a m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)1ITD244(Mum.)
1. The appeal of the assesses and interveuers involves question of far-reaching importance vitally affecting particularly individual assessees engaged in profession who maintain their accounts on what is called "the cash system". The question has been referred to the Special Bench in view of conflict of views by different Benches of the Tribunal and also its considerable general importance to persons engaged in profession, either individually or in partnership with others. We have, therefore, had the benefit of hearing not only the counsel appearing for the particular assessee, but also hearing the counsels for interveners, representatives including professional bodies and associations like the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and the Bombay Chartered Accountants' Society, who sought permission, and were allowed to intervene. Counsel for another assessee, Y. P. Trivedi in WT Appeal No. 197 (Bom.) of 1980, on somewhat different facts, was also heard as involving some identic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the legal representatives of the original defendant No. 3, challenging the judgment and decree dated March 22, 1974, made against them in O.S. No. 86 of 1969 by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City. 2. Respondent No. 1, Andhra Bank Ltd., since nationalised and now called as the Andhra Bank ('the bank'), sued defendants Nos. 1 to 3 to recover a sum of Rs. 1,63,300 on the following allegations. 3. That defendant No. 1, Seth Menghraj Parasuram ('Parasuram'), was having financial accommodation with the bank under various sets of accounts. As security for the amounts advanced, he has endorsed promissory notes and other securities in favour of the bank executed in his favour by his customers. On April 4, 1966, defendant No. 2, Abdul Jabbar, executed a promissory note in favour of Parasuram along with a consideration receipt agreeing to pay on demand to him or to his order, the sum of Rs. 1,20,000 together with interest th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1081; 1982(1)SCALE180; (1982)2SCC134; [1982]3SCR500; 1982(14)LC259(SC)
1. These three appeals arise out of a common judgment dated June 30, 1977 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, setting aside the judgment of a learned single Judge dated November 18, 1975 in Writ Petitions Nos. 1539 of 1974 and 798 of 1975. Civil Appeal No. 2031 (NCM) of 1977 is by special leave while the other two appeals are by certificate granted by the High Court, The question which these appeals involve is whether the appellant, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, has the power to evict the respondents summarily in exercise of the power conferred by the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. This question arises on the following facts :2. We are concerned in these appeals with three groups of lands situated in Habsiguda, Hyderabad East Taluk, Andhra Pradesh. Those lands are : R.S. No. 10/1, which corresponds to plot No. 94 admeasuring 10 acres and 2 guntas, R.S. No. 10/2 which corresponds to plot No. 104 admeasuring 9 acres and 33 guntas; and R.S. Nos. 7, 8 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1983)34CTR(Guj)230; (1983)1GLR623; [1983]142ITR211(Guj)
Ahmadi, J. 1. Where any immovable property is subjected to acquisition under the provisions of Chap. XXA-of the I.T. Act. 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), can the tenants who are in occupation of different parts of the said property be evicted therefrom under s. 269I of the Act with a view to vesting it absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances, is the question which we are required to consider in these three petitions brought by the tenants of the acquired property. The facts giving rise to these petitions, briefly stated, are as under : The property which is the subject-matte of acquisition is a three-storeyed building known as 'Shamalaji Kripa' standing on a parcel of land, bearing Tikka No. 8-3, Survey No. 3-7 of Revenue Survey No. 554/B, situate at Sayajiganj, Station road, Baroda. It consists of the ground floor and three storeys. The ground floor of the said property was let some time in November, 1966, to the Union Bank of India, Sayajiganj Branch, Bar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. The petitioners herein were the accused in C.C. No. 18/1979 on the file of the Munisff and J.M.F.C., Somwarpet. They were tried by that Court for offences under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (the Act) read with Rr. 154 and 155 of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1967 (the Rules) on the allegation that they had been found transporting in a car bearing No. MYG 1518 on 28-11-1976 at about 5 a.m., on the public road at Seegehosur near Kakkehole bridge in Somwarpet Taluk of Kodagu District some sandalwood without a permit. 2. On the accused claiming to be tried the learned Magistrate received the evidence for the prosecution questioned the accused, and thereafter hearing the concerned, by his judgment dated 13-6-1979, found these persons guilty and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I., for 3 months and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default to pay the said sum, to suffer further R.I., for 3 months. The Sandalwood seized was confiscated to the Government. 3. This...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1984Kant182; 1984(2)KarLJ236
ORDER1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.), these cases were posted before us for disposal.2. As the petitioners in these cases have challenged the validity of one and the same Act, we propose to dispose of them by a common order.3. As early as on 31-12-1932, the then Maharaja of Mysore. who was the sovereign Ruler of the then Princely State of Mysore, a model Princely State, aided by a representative assembly and a legislative council, gave his assent to a fairly simple enactment called the Mysore Betting Tax Act, 1932 (Mysore Act 9 of 1932) (hereinafter referred to as the 1932 Act) providing for the imposition of taxes on certain forms of betting in that State. Even after the merger of that Princely State in the Indian Union. the promulgation of the Indian Constitution, the formation of the new State of Mysore, now called as Karnataka, under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the 1932 Act has continued on the statute book of the new State with its operation in the ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR298
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1.This Petition is directed against the transfer order dated 18-4-1983 by which the Petitioner has been transferred from Ramnagar to Nagamangala. He is an employee of the*W.P. No77783 of l984 Dated 31at July 1984Department of Industries and Commerce. He holds the post of Assistant Training Instructor at the Artisan Training Centre, Ramanagar. The said order is said to be illegal and therefore not enforceable against him inasmuch as it is opposed to the policy enunciated by the Government in what purports to be the clarification circular issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government .Such clarifications have been issued from time to time, the one on which he strongly relies upon is dated 11-3-1983, a copy of which is at Annexure-E.2. These Official Memorandums have fallen for consideration before this Court in a number of other cases earlier. This Court has taken the view that these are no more than declarations of policy and governs the relationship betwee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR339; [1985]59STC302(Kar)
ORDERHakeem, J. 1. This revision petition under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order dated 12th June, 1978 passed is S.T.A. No. 153 of 1976 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, confirming the levy of purchase tax under section 6 of the Act in respect of the turnover of raw cashewnuts for the assessment year 1st October, 1970 to 30th September, 1971. 2. The petitioner, which is a company, is a dealer carrying on business in cashewnuts, chemical, fertilisers, copper sulphate, gunny bags and other commodities. The petitioner is also having its cashew factory and coffee curing works. For the period from 1st October, 1970 to 30th September, 1971 the petitioner-company declared the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 3,85,90,385.96 and Rs. 71,50,695.93 respectively. The assessing authority rejected the declared turnover and estimated that same at higher figures. In this petition, however, we are concern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR820
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Order dated 15-11-1982 of Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, declining to accord permission for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revenue Act') has been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal as per impugned order with a further direction to accord sanction for conversion imposing such conditions as are permissible under law.2. Relief sought for conversion of S. No. 16 situate at Uttarahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, has been refused by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore solely on the ground 'land in question lies' in rural tract (agricultural zone) where no developments are permissible as per the approved Outline Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as 'ODP' of Bangalore.3. Appellate Tribunal has held that there is no justification to refuse permission when adjoining lands such as S. Nos. 15, 17 & 18 are permitted to be used as no...
Tag this Judgment!