Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-26-1979
Reported in : AIR1979P& H183
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.1. Whether the National Insurance Company Limited is ''a State'' for the purposes of Art. 12, or a statutory Corporation amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the somewhat significant question which arises on the very threshold in this writ petition.2. The issue being pristinely legal, the f acts pale into relative insignificance. Suffice it to mention that the petitioner, who is the Branch Manager of the National Insurance Company Limited, claims to be aggrieved by his alleged supersession by officers junior to him and therefore, invokes Art. 16 of the Constitution in his aid. Further a grievance is made about a marginal reduction in his basic salary, which, has been labelled as reduction in rank, for which' the remedy is sought for in the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.3. Apart from the merits, a significant preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the writ petition has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-09-1979
Reported in : (1979)IILLJ1Ker
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The petitioner entered the service of the Cochin Divisional office of the General Assurance Society Ltd., as a field officer with effect from 1.10.1969. One of the terms of appointment was that she should guarantee a minimum business of Rs. 35,000 in Fire, Motor, Marine and Miscellaneous Insurance and a minimum premium income of Rs. 3,000 per mensem. As part of her duty she has to organise an effective agency force and work in consonance with the provisions of the Insurance Act and the Rules. She was on probation for six months and during that period her appointment was terminable without any notice. She completed her probation successfully and her service was regularised in due course. While so in September, 1972 the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, Act 57 of 1972 was passed by the Parliament. By this Act the shares in the capital of every Indian Insurance Company was statutorily transferred to and vested in the Central Government. The Central Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-03-1979
Reported in : 1979WLN1
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This revisional application by defendant No. 3 Deva Ram is directed against the order of the Additional Civil Judge. Jodhpur dated 24-1-1977 by which he decided issue No. 6 in favour of the plaintiff Jas Raj (non-petitioner No. 3) and against the defendants.2. Defendant No. 1 State of Rajasthan is non-petitioner No. 1 and defendant No. 2 Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, is non-petitioner No. 2 in this revision.3. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this revision may briefly be noticed : plaintiff Jasaram instituted a suits in the court of Munsif City, Jodhpur against the defendant on July 28, 1971 for declaration and perpetual injunction.4. The suit was transferred from the Court of Munsif City to the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur.5. The case of the plaintiff is that he submitted applications for grant of rent-com-royalty lease in respect of allotment of quarry No. 377 situate in Kali Beri Area. Jodhpur in the office of the defendant No. 2 on December 27,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-10-1979
Reported in : (1979)10CTR(Bom)238; [1979]118ITR399(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN282(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference which is at the instance of the Commissioner under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the following three questions are referred to the High Court for its opinion : '(1) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs. 11,712 on account of contribution to the insurance fund against third party risk (2) Whether it was rightly held that there was a clear conflict between the substantive section of the Act, viz., section 10(2) (vi) and rule 8 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922 (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to depreciation of Rs. 2,80,363 for the period April 1, 1960, to April 30,1960, in respect of assets transferred to the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ?' 2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, Mr. Joshi who appears for the Commissioner has drawn our attention to a decision of this court in Income-tax Reference No. 20 of 1966 (decided by Kantawala C.J. and Tulzapurkar J. on Au...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-18-1979
Reported in : [1979]118ITR721(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. This reference has been made under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, raising the following two questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 35,000 received from the Life Insurance Corporation is not includible in terms of Section 14 of the Estate Duty Act and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payment made by the Life Insurance Corporation was only ex gratia and not with reference to the insurance policy of the deceased ?' 2. The estate duty assessment came to be done on the-death of one L. Viswanathan, who was a planter and businessman. He had taken out a policy of life insurance for a sum of Rs. 50,000 on 4th October, 1954, withthe Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company. Subsequently, he submitted a proposal fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-25-1979
Reported in : (1979)GLR413; (1979)0GLR413; [1979]118ITR134(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. These two appeals under s. 269H of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-II, Ahmedabad, are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad of July 25, 1975, allowing the two appeals filed by the respective respondent-transferees herein from the order of the IAC of Income-tax, Acquisition Range-II, Ahmedabad, passed on January 16, 1975, acquiring two industrial sheds of type-A bearing block Nos. 1/3 and 1/4 situate in the industrial estate set up by the Baroda Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as BIDCO' for the sake of convenience) under s. 269F(6) of the aforesaid Act as the fair market value of the respective sheds exceeded the apparent consideration in the respective instruments of transfer of February 5, 1973, and had not been truly stated with the ulterior object of tax evasion and/or facilitating concealment of income or assets. Since the question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-25-1979
Reported in : 1979CENCUS97D; 1979(4)ELT117(Mad)
Natarajan, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company with its registered office situate in Bombay. Under a technical collaboration agreement with Messrs Witco Chemicals Corporation, U.S.A., the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of petro-chemical products at its factory at Manali, Madras. The products of surphonates manufactured by the petitioner are excisable goods and they fall under Tariff Item No. 15-AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1 of 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the petitioner, there is not much demand for sulphonates at Madras, though the petitioner has a wholesale price at factory gate and there are instances of sales at wholesale rates at the factory gates at Manali. On the other hand, the petitioner's products are in great demand at Bombay where about 80 per cent of the total production of the products are sold. Messrs Sikri and Grover are the main buyers for sale of the products of the petitioner, at Bombay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-29-1979
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas335(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The assessee before us in this reference is the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay, and will be hereinafter referred to as 'New India' for the sake of brevity. The reference is at the instance of the Commissioner and is under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. As many as nine questions are referred to us for our advisory opinion and these are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 1,50,983 received by the assessee-company as compensation under section 8 read with section 7 of the Life Insurance (Emergency Provision) Act, 1956, was a capital receipt not liable to be included in its business Profits 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the basis adopted by the Life Insurance Corporation Act for paying the compensation in 1956 need not be the basis for determining the market value of the life insurance business of the company as on January 1, 1954,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-02-1979
Reported in : AIR1979SC1132; (1979)2SCC616; [1979]3SCR12; 1979(11)LC338(SC)
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The short question for consideration in this appeal is whether the practice of the legal profession is 'business' within the meaning of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The question arises this way. The respondent, an Advocate filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the appellant, his tenant, from the premises in question on the ground that he required the premises for the purpose of carrying on his profession as an Advocate. The application was contested by the appellant who was carrying on the business of manufacturing art jewellery in the premises. We are not concerned in this appeal with the several defences which were raised by the appellant. Nor are we concerned with the vicissitudes which the case underwent. For the purposes of this appeal it is sufficient to say that the final Court of fact, namely the Chief Judge of the Court of Small causes, Hyderabad, found tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-05-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Bom9
Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge a notice dated 29th of January 1972, the contents of which would be shortly noticed, issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence in the circumstances which will be clear as we proceed to narrate the facts. The property involved is a piece of land situated at 17. Right Flank Lines in Poona Cantonment and measuring 0.85 acres equivalent to 4100 sq. metres. On the said land is also situated a bungalow. The petitioner is at present the owner of the said property viz. the land and the building as a trustee. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the land included in the property is of freehold tenure and it had been purchased by his father Temulji Anklesaria, on 19th of Sept. 1918 from one Abdul Kader who himself had become the full owner of the land by virtue of succession. It is unnecessary to refer in any detail to the history prior to 1918 because it is not relevant for...
Tag this Judgment!