Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: konkan passenger ships acquisition act 1973 section 14 penalties Year: 1988 Page 3 of about 40 results (0.693 seconds)

Laxman Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1989)75CTR(Bom)76; [1988]174ITR465(Bom)

V.A. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner, Laxman Joshi, was a clerk in Savatram Mills, Akola. On September 9, 1974, he filed returns of his income for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1975-76, prior to the issuance of a notice to him under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessment for the assessment year 1974-75 was completed on April 24, 1977, and for the rest of the years on March 10, 1978. All the returns excepting for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 were accepted by the Income-tax Officer. For the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, the valuation of the building then under construction shown in the returns was not accepted due to the different valuation made by the authorised surveyor. Some additions were made only on that basis. In appeals, some relief was granted. No penalty proceedings for concealment of income were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. But, for late filing of the return and for not filing the estimate of advance tax, penalt...

Border Security Force (B.S.F.) Vs. State of Meghalaya and ors.

Court : Guwahati

A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. Baghmara is the Head Quarter of a Revenue Sub-Division in West Garo Hills of Meghalaya State. This town is on the Bangladesh border and is situate between International border pillars 1143 and 1158. The town is divided by a P. W.D. Road Along the two sides of the highway there is a bazar. Near the bazar there is Police Station, a Primary School building and residential quarter of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The inhabitants of the town speak more than one language and follow different customs and celebrate festivals in their day to day life. 2. On April 14,1987 the Rishi Community of the town were celebrating Charak Puja in the Primary School building. The establishment apprehended disturbance to peace and tranquillity in the town therefore alerted the law enforcement agencies. The Sub-divisional Officer who is also an Executive Magistrate was present in the town. The incharge officer of the Police Station was at the Thana. The Deputy Superintendent of Police arri...

Markandey Singh, I.P.S. and ors. Vs. M.L. Bhanot, I.P.S. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT1988(2)SC509; 1988(1)SCALE855; (1988)3SCC539; [1988]3SCR847; 1988(1)SLJ193(SC); 1988(2)LC195(SC)

Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1.These two appeals are connected. These deal with the rectification of year of allotment of absorption of the appellant in the first appeal and respondent in the second one- Shri Markandey Singh (hereinafter called the appellant in the first appeal and respondent in the second appeal) in the Indian Police Service. Shri M.L. Bhanot is the respondent in the first appeal. He is appellant in the second appeal being Civil Appeal No. 1336 of 1976. By the order dated 21st July, 1973, Shri Markandey Singh was assigned 1956 as the year of allotment in I.P.S. cadre. Shri Bhanot challenged the said order. The same was quashed by the learned single judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court on 4th April, 1974. Letters Patent Appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Division Bench of the said High Court on 9th December, 1975. The first appeal aforesaid arises from the said decision. In order to appreciate the position, it may be relevant to note that Shri Markandey Singh...

Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspap ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1989SC190; (1988)90BOMLR459; [1989]66CompCas577(SC); (1988)3CompLJ179(SC); JT1988(3)SC749; 1988(2)SCALE748; (1988)4SCC592; [1988]Supp3SCR212

Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. At this stage, we are concerned with the question whether there is need for the continuance of the Order of injunction passed by this Court on 25th August, 1988. In order to appreciate the question it is necessary to state a few facts. A petition was moved before this Court on 19th August, 1988 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiation of contempt proceedings against the proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd., Shri Arun Shourie, Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd., Shri Hari Jaisingh, Resident Editor, Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd., Shri A.C. Saxena, News Editor, Indian Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, Shri H.K. Dua, Chief, New Delhi Bureau, Indian Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, and Shri V. Ranganathan, Indian Express Bombay Pvt. Ltd. The petition was moved on behalf of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. (hereinafter called 'Reliance Petrochemicals'). It was stated therein that this Court should take cog...

Pandurang Chimaji Agale Vs. New India Life Insurance Company Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : II(1988)ACC353; (1988)90BOMLR144

..... ] ker 89 question arose before the learned single judge as under: the taxi drivers were parking their taxies in the parking area adjacent to cochin aerodrome building and collecting passengers alighting from the various flights. the aerodrome-building and the parking area are situate about one furlong away from the national highway and both are connected by a link road ..... thirdly, the expression used in the definition is 'a right of access' and not 'access as of right'. lastly, when it states that any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or sat down by a stage - carriage, is a public place, it shows that it is not so much concerned with the 'ownership of the place as ..... a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage.the first thing to remember with regard to the definition is that it is an inclusive one. secondly, it in .....

Braja Gopal Bhuyan Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 1989CriLJ1653

..... checked by the appellant. vehicle checking report and receipt showing realisation of compounding fee of rs. 800/- were handed over to the driver and conductor of the passenger bus. but a sum of rs. 400/- was deposited in the regional transport office by making alteration in the vehicle checking report and the receipt showing therein ..... fixed by the state transport authority, the checking officer considered the amount reasonable and accepted the same as compounding fees. p. w. 7 was the driver of the passenger bus belonging to jhansi district in rajasthan. he stated that the appellant imposed fine of rs. 800/-. as the conductor did not have sufficient money to pay rs ..... the aforesaid contract carriage and issued check report no, 43237 and money receipt no. 324380 of book no. 6488 as the aforesaid vehicle was found carrying 8 passengers in excess against the sitting capacity. shri bhuyan m.v.i. being a public servant by abusing his official position committed criminal breach of trust of rs. .....

Anand Sarup Sharma Vs. P.P. Khurana and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : I(1990)ACC155

..... ? section 94 of the act, on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant, simply prohibits the use of a motor vehicle by any person, except a passenger, unless it was insured as required in chapter viii which deals with insurance of motor vehicle against third party risk. these provisions, in our considered judgment, do not make the ..... and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place for the purpose of carrying passengers or goods unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries .....

Drupad Kumar Barua Vs. Assam State Trans. Corpn. and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... different damages to the same plaintiff. as an illustration of the first, reference has been made to the case of drinkwater v. kimber, (1952) 2 kb 281, where a passenger in a motor car was injured in a collision between that car and another. morris, lj. said that the two drivers both of whom were negligent were separate tortfeasors whose ..... shares in the commission of the tort are done in furtherance of a common design. reference was made to brooke v. bool (1928) 2 kb 578. but where two ships collided with each other because of the independent acts of negligence of each of them, which were the facts in kurask (1924), p. 140, and one of them then ..... without further negligence collided with a third. it was held that owner of the third ship had independent cause of action against the two negligent ships.19. the law relating to joint tortfeasors may thus be explained by stating that except in case of agency or vicarious liability or imposition of joint .....

Physical Research Laboratory and ors. Vs. Dr. Mukul Sinha

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (1988)2GLR1355

P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned single Judge of this High Court allowing Special Civil Application No. 3337 of 1979. The main prayers in the Special Civil Application were: (a) declare the notice dated 2-11-1979 of termination of services of the petitioner, at Annexure 'E' as unconstitutional, being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 and null and void and quash the same; (b) direct the respondents to treat the impugned notice at Annexure 'E' as having never been issued and to treat the petitioner in the Special Civil Application to be in service as if the impugned notice has never been issued and to grant him all the benefits flowing from his continuous service; and (c) direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages.2. To appreciate the contentions of the respective parties, we have to look into certain relevant facts in this case. The Physical Research Laboratory was originally set up on November...

Drupad Kumar Barua Vs. the Assam State Transport Corporation and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... different damages to the same plaintiff. an illustration of the first, reference has been made to the case of drink water v. kimber (1952) 2 kb 281 where a passenger in a motorcar was injured in a collision between that car and another. morris, l.j said that the two drivers both of whom were negligent were separate tortfeasors whose ..... when their separate shares in the commission of the tort are done in furtherance of a common design. reference was made to brooke v. bool (supra). but where two ships collided with each other because of the independent acts of negligence of each of them, which were the facts in kurask (1924) p. 140, and one of them then ..... without further negligence collided with a third. it was held that owner of the third ship had independent cause of action against the two negligent ships.19. the law relating to joint tortfeasors may thus be explained by stating that except in case of agency, or vicarious liability or imposition of .....