Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-13-1988
Reported in : (1988)67CTR(Mad)289; [1988]170ITR238(Mad)
..... from a person whose land comes under the notification under section 4 after that date. the legislature has sought to improve upon the existing provisions of the land acquisition act and there is no discriminatory treatment which should be struck down as violative of article 14. the legislature in its wisdom thought that some time limit should ..... in udai ram v. union of india, air 1968 sc 1138, where, in paragraph 37, the supreme court while dealing with the challenge to the validity of the land acquisition (amendment and short title validation) act, 1967, on the ground of violation of article 14 of the constitution of india, has observed as follows (p. 1156) : ' ..... provisions in section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) arose because a partnership between the assessee, his wife and minor children would clearly be a nominal partner ship brought about with the express purpose of avoiding tax liability, because the income which purported to belong to the wife and minor son of the assessee would for all .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Oct-12-1988
Reported in : 1991(53)ELT234(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. This case arises out of a show cause notice being F. No. 574/CE/3/87 dated 27th March 1987 issued by the Directorate of Anti-Evasion (Central Excise). A writ petition challenging the aforesaid notice was moved before Bhagawati Prasad Banerjee J. On 18th August, 1987 an interim order was passed by Bhagawati Prasad Banerjee J. to the effect that the respondents were allowed to proceed pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice. It was further directed that the petitioner would be at liberty to submit their reply to the show cause notice without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner in the writ petition. The respondents were given liberty to conclude the proceedings and pass a final order on the proceedings. But the respondents were directed not to give any effect to or act upon or communicate the final order to the petitioner without leave of the Court.2. The writ petition came up for hearing before Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee J. On 14th August,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-12-1988
Reported in : AIR1988SC782; [1989]65CompCas1(SC); (1988)1CompLJ225(SC); 1988(36)ELT201(SC); JT1988(1)SC304; 1988(1)SCALE273; (1988)2SCC299; [1988]2SCR962; 1988(2)LC54(SC)
..... limited and swadeshi mining and manufacturing company limited were two separate undertakings distinct from the six textile undertakings belonging to swadeshi cotton mills company limited. acquisition of these shares having controlling interests in the said two companies was never intended and could never be said to be within the scope of ..... the take - over order.10. it was further urged before us that this act was preceded by an ordinance namely, swadeshi cotton mills company limited (acquisition and transfer of undertakings) ordinance, 1986 which was promulgated on 19th of april, 1986. section 10 of the ordinance entitled, it was submitted, ntc ..... mining and manufacturing company limited, held by the swadeshi cotton mills, vest in the central government under section 3 of the swadeshi cotton mills company limited (acquisition and transfer of undertakings) act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the other subsidiary question is whether the immovable properties, namely, the bungalow .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-29-1988
Reported in : AIR1989Kant125; ILR1988KAR1518
Bopanna, J.1. Constitutional validity of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (Act No. 40 of 1982) (in short the Act) is challenged in this batch of writ petitions.2. In Writ Petition No. 17110 of 1984 the petitioner is a Chit Fund Company registered in Tamil Nadu under the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act. But, it is carrying on the business in Bangalore through its branch office. The business in Bangalore is part of the total business carried on in Tamil Nadu and no separate balance sheet or audit report for the Bangalore branch is prepared and drawn up for the purpose of the Companies Act, 1956.2. 1. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8744 of 1986 is a registered partnership firm and it has averred that its main object is to promote the business of chit for the benefit of the common people. All the members of the partnership firm are alleged to be financially sound with good financial background and necessary experience in the Chit Fund business.2.2. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15062 of 1985 is a pri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-20-1988
Reported in : [1989(58)FLR731]; ILR1988Delhi467
..... .d. act) list some industries which may be declared to be pubic utility service under sub-clause (vi) or clause (n) of section 2 and transport for the carriage of passengers by land or water) has been included in the said list of industries which may be declared to be public utility service as in the aforesaid first schedule. the d .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-26-1988
Reported in : AIR1989MP152
Dr. T.N. SINGH, J.1. On unusual facts and under unusual circumstances our writ jurisdiction is invoked in this matter. What obtensibly is a claim to print and publish the Dainik Bhaskar, a local Hindi daily, is a tug of war, in fact and substance, for effective exercise of control and ownership of the newspaper, fought evidently on a slippery field. Most unfortunately, it is a family feud. Father and son are pitted against each other but they are currently the Managing Director, and Director respectively, of the Company owning the newspaper.2. As we proceed to state briefly the facts first, we make it clear that we would definitely deal, with though at the end, the legal contention concerning our jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Suffice it to say at this stage that though the controversy involves interpretation mainly of Sections 5,6, 8 and 8B of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1987, for short, the Act, it is Section 8C of the Act that gives rise to objection concerning...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-19-1988
Reported in : AIR1989SC122; 1988(2)SCALE1276; (1989)1SCC52; [1988]Supp3SCR60
..... himmatlal shah's case is therefore of little or no assistance.13. chainani, c.j. speaking for himself and v. m. tarkunde, j. in dr. manohar ramchandra sarfare v. the konkan cooperative housing society ltd. : air1962bom154 brought out the true concept of a tenant co-partner housing at p. 157 in these words:(t)he property in the whole estate remains .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-28-1988
Reported in : 1988(18)ECC180
..... difficult to hold that the end product of the activity 'waste and scrap', cannot be regarded as products of the industry. therefore, waste and scrap obtained by dismantling of ships in the instant case, must be regarded as 'goods' which are 'produced or manufactured in india', hence, liable to duty under section 3 of the central excise act. ..... of the said act being the charging section, levies duty on all excisable goods which are produced or manufactured in india. the question is whether the dismantling of a ship comes within the phrase, 'produced or manufactured in india'. it is to be noted that the definition of 'manufacture' given in section 2(f) is an inclusive definition ..... his submissions, he also referred to the case of in re: m/s. s. s. jain & co. and anr. : 1986(25)elt14(cal) , where on dismantling a ship, it has been observed by a learned judge of this court, that waste and scrap arising from such dismantling and used by mini steel plants, would amount to manufacture, because .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-29-1988
Reported in : (1990)ILLJ205Mad
Mohan, J. 1. The petitioner is a direct recruit to the post of Deputy Collector-Category II, in the year 1978. He successfully completed his probation on 1st January 1981. He was promoted as District Revenue Officer-Category I of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service. He was posted as Joint Director of Stationery and Printing on 26th August 1986. He was sent on deputation to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and posted as Senior Regional Manager at Madras on 27th February, 1987. By proceedings dated 6th February, 1988, he was posted as District Revenue Officer at Chengalpattu. He joined the same on 8th February, 1988. On 12th March, 1988, Mr. Sameer Vyas was posted as Collector of Chengalpattu at Kancheepuram. 2. According to the petitioner, the said Collector, not being well acquainted with Tamil, seems to have misunderstood the petitioner which led to some misunderstanding. While the matter stood thus, to the surprise and shock of the petitioner, by G.O.Ms. No. 534, Public (Special-A)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Dec-15-1988
Reported in : (1989)(21)LC125Tri(Delhi)
..... or corresponding benefit. he also cited the case of revenue divisional officer, guntur v. vasireddy wherein mode of calculation of interest under section 28 of the land acquisition act was stated. on the same analogy shri agarwal contended that the appellants are also entitled for the expenses incurred in contesting the confiscation proceedings and also ..... glive warehouse and a copy of letter dated 11.10.1966 written by under secretary to the government of india, ministry of transport & aviation. department of transport and shipping alongwith its annexures addressed to the chairman, calcutta port commissioners, calcutta. it is significant to note that despite the several opportunities the respondent no. 1 i.e. ..... v. governor-general of india air 1949 cal 591 while dealing with the liability of a bailee under section 161 held that where a passenger deposits his luggage in the clock room of a railway, and the luggage is lost, then, in the absence of any conditions limiting the liability, the .....
Tag this Judgment!