Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-13-1981
Reported in : (1981)22CTR(Kar)83; ILR1981KAR666; [1981]128ITR527(KAR); [1981]128ITR527(Karn); [1981]6TAXMAN144(Kar)
Rama Jois, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following three question for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Commissioner was competent to consider before initiation of proceedings under section 263, material which was brought on record subsequent to the passing of the order which is the subject-matter of revision (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that where the Income-tax Officer has exempted a particular sum from tax and the Commissioner acts under section 263 to withdraw such exemption it is for the assessee to lead evidence to show that the sum in question was exempt from tax (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Additional Commissioner or Income-tax that the amount of $ 7,725 equivalent to Rs. 57,938, received by the assessee from the Asst. Director of Jewish Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-15-1981
Reported in : [1983]54CompCas814(Cal)
Salil Kumar Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application for the winding up of the company under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. This petition has a chequered career as the winding-up petitioner was presented on 10th June, 1970, and the same was admitted on 16th June, 1970, and fixed for hearing on 29th June. 1970.3. The claim of the petitioning creditor arises out of money lent andadvanced for the purpose of the business of the company being a sum ofRs. 3,00,000 and the repayment of the said loan and interest was securedby a second charge created on the assets of the company by a registeredmortgage and at the time of filing of the winding-lip petition the claimwas Rs. 3,99,936.09 inclusive of interest up to 31st December, 1969, particulars of which are set out in para. 8. It appears that the company inits balance-sheets for the years 1961-67 duly acknowledged its liabilityto the petitioning-creditor company and also by a letter dated 21st June,1968, the company ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-12-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Raj170; 1981()WLN53
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. Petitioner's Tender, State's Pleasure and peoples' treasure, the juxtaposition of these trio postulates are on test and trial. Administrative discretion is to be put to judicial post morterm on the touch-stone of 'rule of law'.2. The new dimensions of scope ofjudicial review in the field of administrative law, by celebrated decisions of the Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (AIR 1979 SC 1628) and Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (AIR 1980 SC 1992), having smashed the VETO power of the administrative wing of the State, proverbially known as the 'BUREAUCRACY' in matters of State Contracts, Tenders, Licences, Quotas and Permits; flood gates have been opened for citizens for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution and claiming the enforcement of 'ubi jus ibi idem remedium'.3. Overt and covert disregard, flagrant violations of the laws, norms and fair play principles, by those who are trustees and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-13-1981
Reported in : ILR1981Delhi568; 1981LabIC1633; (1981)IILLJ174Del
T.P.S. Chawla, J.1. These are four petitions by four different persons seeking similar relief in almost identical circumstances. 2. Each of the petitioners was employed by the Railway as a 'substitute'. Three of them were taken on as safaiwalas (cleaners) and one as a khalasi. They came to be so employed on different dates in the years 1971, 1972 and 1973. The exact dates are not material. All of them continued to work as 'substitutes' for many years until, by notices dated 8th September, 1978, their services were suddenly terminated. The notice were verbatim the same, except for the name employee to whom they were addressed. They read as follows : 'In pursuance of Rule 149 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I, I hereby give notice to .......... s/o ........., Substitute S and W. Safaiwala under CFO-DLI that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which this notices is served on or, as the case may ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-24-1981
Reported in : AIR1981All265
ORDERK.P. Singh, J. 1. This writ petition is against the judgment of Shri Lalta Prasad, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, dated 28-4-1972, whereby the revision petitions filed by Mata Sewak and Rai Pati were allowed. 2. In this writ petition the only question under consideration is how further claim of the contesting opposite parties Nos. 4 to 7 is barred by Explanation 6 to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Necessary facts relating to the question posed are as follows :-- 3. In the basic year the names of the petitioners were recorded over the disputed Khatas and the contesting opposite parties had claimed co-tenancy right in the same. The opposite parties Raj Pati, Ram Lakhan and Ram Shiro-mani in the present writ petition, had filed a suit under Sections 59/49 of the U. P. Tenancy Act and had set up the following pedigree :-- SHEO DUTT |_______________________________________________ | | | Ram Tahal Sitaram Matroo=Mst. Majhari ___________________________|_______...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-02-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Ori70; 51(1981)CLT371
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. Each of the petitioners was a registered Homoeopathic practitioner within the meaning of Section 29 of the Orissa Homoeopathic Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act) and was given appointment as doctor for a term in a dispensary as would appear from the order of appointment appended to the respective writ applications. The term of appointment was extended by subsequent orders from time to time, but each of them was later informed that service was being terminated from a specified date. The writ applications have been filed on the footing that the termination was under a misapprehension that the petitioners were not qualified to continue as doctors in dispensaries in view of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (Act 59 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act), and though similarly placed doctors continued in service and have even been absorbed as regular employees under the State Government, the petitioners have been discriminated again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-03-1981
Diamond v. Diehr - 450 U.S. 175 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) Diamond v. Diehr No. 79-1112 Argued October 14, 1980 Decided March 3, 1981 450 U.S. 175 CERTIORARI TO TIE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS Syllabus Respondents filed a patent application claiming invention for a process for molding raw, uncured synthetic rubber into cured precision products. While it was possible, by using well-known time, temperature, and cure relationships, to calculate by means of an established mathematical equation when to open the molding press and remove the cured product, according to respondents, the industry had not been able to measure precisely the temperature inside the press, thus making it difficult to make the necessary computations to determine the proper cure time. Respondents characterized their contribution to the art to reside in the process of constantly measuring the temperature inside the mold and feeding the temperature m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-04-1981
Schweiker v. Wilson - 450 U.S. 221 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221 (1981) Schweiker v. Wilson No. 79-1380 Argued December 2, 1980 Decided March 4, 1981 450 U.S. 221 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which is part of the Social Security Act, provides a subsistence allowance to needy aged, blind, and disabled persons. Inmates of public institutions are generally excluded from this program, except that, under 1611(e)(1)(B) of the Act, a reduced amount of SSI benefits are provided to otherwise eligible persons in a hospital, extended care facility, nursing home, or intermediate care facility receiving Medicaid funds for their care. Appellees, aged 21 through 64 and residing in public mental institutions that do not receive Medicaid funds for their care, brought a class action in Federal District Court challenging their exclusion from the reduced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-09-1981
Reported in : (1982)27CTR(Guj)84; (1983)1GLR799; [1982]135ITR158(Guj)
Thakkar, J.1. A very vital question which was res integra till the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court consisting of A. P. Sen C.J. (as he then was) and J. S. Verma J., rendered their decision in CIT v. Seth Gopaldas (HUF) on April : [1979]116ITR577(MP) has given rise to the present reference at the instance of the assessee. The question is as to whether a Hindu father by virtue of his overriding powers as patria potestas recongnised by traditional Hindu law can effect a partial partition (in the sense of partion in respect of only some of the assets as contradistinguished from all the assets) at his own volition in respect of an HUF, consisting only of himself and his minor sons. By the aforesaid decision, which is the only decision on the point, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken the view that a Hindu father does not have any such power to effect a partial partition in the sense of division only of a part of HUF assets whilst maintaining or continuing the status of H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-23-1981
H. L. v. Matheson - 450 U.S. 398 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981) H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 No. 79-5903 Argued October 6, 1980 Decided March 23, 1981 450 U.S. 398 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH Syllabus A Utah statute requires a physician to "[n]otify, if possible," the parents or guardian of a minor upon whom an abortion is to be performed. Appellant, while an unmarried minor living with and dependent on her parents, became pregnant. A physician advised her that an abortion would be in her best medical interest but, because of the statute, refused to perform the abortion without first notifying her parents. Believing that she should proceed with the abortion without notifying her parents, appellant instituted a suit in state court seeking a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement. She sought to represent a class consisting of unmarried minors "who are suffering unwanted pregnanci...
Tag this Judgment!