Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1986(8)ECC6; 1985(5)LC2554(Karnataka); 1986(23)ELT48(Kar)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases were posted before a Division Bench for disposal. 2. As the questions of law that arise for determination in these cases are either common or interconnected, we propose to dispose them by a common order. 3. M/s. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited, a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act of 1956, which is the petitioner in W.P. 3548 of 1978 is engaged in the manufacture of chemicals and fertilisers, at its factory situated near Mangalore. M/s. Ballapir Industries Limited, also a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, which is the petitioner in W.P. No. 4766 of 1981, is engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda, liquid chlorine, Hydrochloric Acid and Sodium Tripoly-phosphate at its factory situated near Karwar. The goods manufactured by the petitioners are exigible to payment of excise duty under and in accordance with the Central Excises and Salt Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC244; 1986(2)SCALE393; (1986)4SCC184; 1986(2)LC594(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The principal submission of Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned Counsel for the petitioners was that the undertaking was not a 'Sick Textile Undertaking' within the meaning of Section 2(b)(ii) of the Sick Textile Under takings (Taking Over Management) Act, 1972 as it had not remained closed for a period of not less than three months immediately before the appointed day. In support of this submission learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on two letters written by the petitioners, one addressed to the Inspector of factories and the other to the 'Tehsildar, in which it was stated that the Mill had started working partially with effect from January 12, 1972. The 1st letter is dated January I4th, 1972 and the 2nd letter is dated January 20th, 1972. Whatever effort may have been made to start the Mill partially, it is clear from the other material available in the case that the petitioner did not succeed in restarting the Mill. The letter dated September 22, 1972 addressed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1976; [1989(59)FLR626]; JT1989(3)SC570; (1990)ILLJ169SC; 1989(2)SCALE473; (1989)4SCC468; 1990(1)LC24(SC)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. Special leave granted.2. We must first express our disapproval of the way in which the department of Director General Border Road ('DGBR') has behaved in this pitiable case.3. Ram Kumar was working as Storekeeper in the Department of Director General Border Road (DGBR). In October 1982, he died in harness leaving behind the appellants. Appellant No. 1-Sushma Gosain is his widow and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are their minor children.4. In November 1982, Sushma Gosain sought appointment in DGBR as Lower Division Clerk on compassionate grounds. In January 1983, she was called for the written test and later on for interview. She was said to have passed the trade test. But nonetheless she was not appointed. Whenever she approached DGBR, she was told that her case was under consideration.5. In September 1985, Sushma Gosain filed writ petition in the High Court of Delhi for a direction against DGBR to appoint her in a suitable post. She was entitled to appointment in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC83b; 1990(1)Crimes461(SC); JT1990(1)SC102; 1990(1)SCALE95; 1990Supp(1)SCC20
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. In this appeal, all the ten appellants who stood convicted under Sections 148, 450, 326, 307, 324 and 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment in addition to the imposition of fine amount with the usual default clause with a direction that all the substantive sentences should run concurrently and that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- be paid as compensation to the victim Jaspal Singh (PW-3) out of the fine amount, if realised, preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which for the reasons assigned in its judgment set aside the conviction of all the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. but confirmed the convictions of all the appellants in respect of the remaining offences. Coming to the question of sentence, the High Court reduced the sentences Of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellants under each count but enhanced the fine amount to Rs. 2,ooo/- in respect of each ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(4)SC704; 1990(2)SCALE1014; (1991)1SCC662; [1990]Supp3SCR108; (1991)1UPLBEC710
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Special Leave granted.2. The above two writ petitions and four civil appeals are disposed of by one single order as identical questions of law are involved in these cases. In order to appreciate the controversy in these cases we shall refer to the paper book of civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14292 of 1989. All the appellants as well as the two petitioners in the writ petitions would be referred herein as the petitioners.3. An advertisement was published in the Tribune (English) On August 3,1988 by the office of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab - Chairman Selection Committee, Patiala for appointment to 47 posts of Excise and Taxation InspectOrs. In the advertisement it was provided that there will be three written papers of English, Punjabi and General Knowledge of B.A. standard. Those who get 33 per cent marks in each paper and 40 per cent marks in aggregate will be called for interview. Total marks for the written test were kept at 300 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1992)103CTR(Del)42; ILR1992Delhi996; [1992]198ITR26(Delhi)
Arun Kumar J.1. This judgment will dispose of a bunch of references under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, pending in this court. 2. The assessed are partners in a firm known as Messrs. Wengers and Co., which owns A-15 and A-16, Connaught Place, New Delhi, known as Wengers Building. The Wealth-tax Officer, while making the assessment, accepted the assesses' claim that, in respect of the assesses' share in the said immovable property owned by the firm, they were entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax was of the opinion that the order of the Wealth-tax Officer allowing the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) to the extent of rupees one lakh was erroneous and, thereforee, he served a notice on the assesses to show cause why the same should not be cancelled and the assessment be not made afresh by withdrawing the benefit of the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(4)SC409; 1992(2)SCALE73; (1992)3SCC576; [1992]3SCR642; 1992(2)LC279(SC); (1992)2UPLBEC1052
1. Special leave granted.2. J.N. Kaul was elected president of Zilla Parishad, Lucknow on January 25,1989. D.K. Anand and Nand Kishore Verma a were nominated as members of the Zilla Parishad. On the date of its Constitution the Zilla Parishad had total of 62 membeRs. On August 17, 1990 56 members of the Zilla Parishad moved a no confidence motion against the president under Section 28 of U.P. Kehhetra Samiti and Zilla Parishad Adhiniyam, 19661 (hereafter called as the Adhiniyam). Section 28(11) of the Adhiniyam which is relevant is as under:If the motion is carried with the support of more than half of the total number of members of the Zila Parishad for the time being....The meeting to consider the motion of no confidence was held on September 14, 1990. 34 members were present at the meeting. 33 members including Anand and Verma voted in favour of the motion while one member voted against and as such the motion of no confidence was carried out against the president.3. J.N. Kaul filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1993)ACC367; 1993(2)BLJR918; 1993(1)SCALE171; (1993)3SCC91
1. This appeal by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') is directed against the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench dated 10.10.1991. Sushil Kumar Vohra - respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court for quashing the order of the State Road Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority') dated 20.7.1991 granting one permit to the, Corporation on the route Hazaribagh to Calcutta for two trips daily in pursuance of a reciprocal agreement entered into between the State of Bihar and the State of West Bengal. A permanent permit was granted in favour of the Corporation by an order of the Authority in its meeting dated 16.1.1991 and signed on 22.1.1991. Against the grant of this permit, Shri Sushil Kumar Vohra filed a Writ Petition No. 311 of 1991 in the High Court. The High Court quashed the aforesaid decision of the Authority by order dated 12.4.1991 and directed it to reconsider the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (1993)45ITD500(Pune.)
1. These appeals by the revenue are consolidated and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience, as they relate to same assessee and involve common issue.2. These appeals pertain to assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 and arise out of the common orders passed by the CWT (Appeals), Belgaum for these years dated 26-9-1991. wherein he has cancelled the re-assessments made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 and allowed the appeal for the assessment year 1987-88. According to the CWT (Appeals), the Assessing Officer had no fresh material enabling him to re-open the assessments. Even after re-opening, the assets brought to tax would have been exempt under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. Revenue is in appeal on the following common grounds, viz. : (1) The order of the CWT (Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case. (2) The CWT (Appeals) erred in cancelling the assessment on the ground that the Assessing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1994KAR195; 1994(1)KarLJ354
Shivaraj Patil, J. 1. The claimant aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 18.1.1988, passed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Bagalkot, in L.A.C.No. 1081 of 1981, has filed this Appeal with a prayer to modify the said judgment and award by granting further enhancement of compensation on various grounds.2. The facts essential for the disposal of this Appeal are the following:An area of 5 acres 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.119/2 of Muranal village in Bagalkot Taluk was acquired pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dated 18.1.1979 published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act 1894). The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Malaprabha Project, Saundatti - respondent herein, passed the award as per Ext. D-1. The said land was acquired for the purpose of construction of office and staff quarters of Superintendent Engineer, M.C.C.2 and A.E.M.P.C., Bagalkot. The said land was converted for non-agricultural purpose as per the order dated 21.4.1973...
Tag this Judgment!