Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-12-1970
Reported in : [1970]40CompCas611(All); [1971(21)FLR357]; (1970)IILLJ393All
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution a certain regulation framed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereafter referred to as the ' Corporation ') has been challenged. Shyam Lal Sharma is the petitioner. The Corporation is respondent No. 1. The chairman of the Corporation is respondent No. 2.2. The Corporation was established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') with effect from the 1st of September, 1956. The petitioner is an employee of the Corporation. Section 49 of the Act has conferred on the Corporation power to make regulations. By virtue of that authority, the Corporation has made a number of regulations. Regulation No. 25 prohibits employees of the Corporation from participating in politics and standing for elections. According to the petitioner, regulation No. 25 violates a number of fundamental rights conferred on him by Article 19 of the Constitution, and is, therefore, void. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-08-1970
Reported in : [1971]80ITR701(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J. 1. This reference purports to have been made under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the case is in fact governed by the Income-tax Acts 1961. We may, therefore, dispose of the reference as one made under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Jaswant Rai Churamani, assessee, is an individual. The assessment year is 1962-63. The accounting period ended on March 31, 1962. In the year 1962, the assessee took out an insurance policy from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The sum assured was Rs. 25,000. The assessee had to pay five annual premiums of Rs. 4,687'50. As required under the insurance policy, the assessee paid the Corporation the sum of Rs. 4,687.50 in March, 1962. The assessee claimed rebate for the sum of Rs. 4,687 as premium paid under the insurance policy. The claim for rebate was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. His view was upheld in appeal b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-01-1970
Reported in : AIR1970All428; [1971]27STC73(All)
Dwivedi, J. 1. These are two references under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax has made these references. He has formulated a common question of law and has referred the cases for opinion to this Court. The common question of law is this: 'Whether under the circumstances of the case Section 14 of the Limitation Act extended the period for filing of the revisions by the time during which the restoration applications remained pending as being prosecuted bona fide?'2. Facts giving rise to these references are these: The respondent, M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur, carries on business at Kanpur. The Sales Tax Officer assessed sales tax for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 on the respondent. Two separate orders were made. There were two appeals by the respondent. On the date of the hearing of the appeals the respondent was absent. So the appeals were dismissed in default on May 10, 1963. The appeals were dismi...
Tag this Judgment!