Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-17-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Delhi225; ILR1976Delhi336
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner company, which manufactures aluminium, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the show cause notice dated 21-8-75 (copy of which is Annexure Z to the petition) issued by the Collector of Mirzapur (R-5), giving the petitioner an opportunity of making a representation and of being heard concerning why 2032.512 M. Tons of aluminium which was seized by the Superintendent of Central Excise Srp Ii (R-3) on 16th/17th July, 1975 should not be confiscated. for contravention of the orders referred to in the said notice.(2) After issuing a notice to the respondents to show cause why this Writ Petition should not be admitted the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents were heard. It was felt the petition required examination; it was admitted and the respondents were given an opportunity to file further retunis and the petitioner also to file further rejoinder. Having regard to nearly rupees t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-16-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Delhi283; ILR1976Delhi297
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J.(1) These two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 49 and 55 of 1975 are cross-appeals. Both have been filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, H. L. Anand J. dated February 27, 1975, in Civil Writ Petition No. 1087 of 1974, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, quashed an order of the Central Government, dated August 3, 1974, which was impugned in the Writ Petition, and remanded the matter to the Central Government with a direction that the Central Government should decide the matter afresh in the light of the judgment after giving an opportunity to the petitioner in the Writ Petition and to such other person or persons as the Central Government may consider necessary of making a representation. (2) The appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 49 of 1975 are (1) M/s Eklera China Clay Works through its partner, Shri Krishnalal lswarlal Patel, (2) Shantilal Ishwarlal Patel. (3) Amratlal lswarlal Patel. and (4) Gordhanbhai Ishw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-15-1975
Reported in : [1976]38STC39(P& H)
Ajit Singh Bains, J.1. The petitioner-company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and its registered office is at Dhuri. It is doing the business of manufacturing sugar at Dhuri, District Sangrur. The petitioner-company purchased sugarcane from producers/growers at purchase centres and also at the mill premises for the purposes of manufacturing sugar. It is alleged in the petition that in the assessment year 1973-74, the petitioner-company has purchased sugarcane from producers directly. The petitioner-company filed its quarterly returns and also placed statements showing the purchases of sugarcane and sales of sugar. The Assessing Authority vide its assessment order dated 25th March, 1975 (annexure A) held that the petitioner-company was liable for purchase tax to the tune of Rs. 6,68,963.76. The petitioner-company submitted written arguments before the Assessing Authority that it was not liable but its arguments were rejected. It is against the assessment order dated 25th Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-15-1975
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(P& H)261
Ajit Singh Bains, J. - The petitioner-company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and its registered office is at Dhuri. It is doing the business of manufacturing sugar at Dhuri, District Sangrur. The petitioner company purchased sugarcane from producers/growers at purchase centers and also at the mill premises for the purposes of manufacturing sugar. It is alleged in the petition that in the assessment year 1973-74, the petitioner company has purchased sugarcane from producers directly. The petitioner company filed its quarterly returns and also placed statements showing the purchases of sugarcane and sales of sugar. The Assessing Authority vide its assessment order dated 25th March, 1975 (annexure A) held that the petitioner company was liable for purchase tax to the tune of Rs. 6,68,963.76. The petitioner company submitted written argument before the Assessing Authority that it was not liable but its arguments were rejected. It is against the assessment order dated 25th Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-09-1975
United States v. Moore - 423 U.S. 122 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975) United States v. Moore No. 74-759 Argued October 7, 1975 Decided December 9, 1975 423 U.S. 122 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent, a licensed physician registered under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., was convicted of knowing and unlawful distribution and dispensation of methadone (a controlled substance or addictive drug used in the treatment of heroin addicts) in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), which makes it unlawful for "any person" knowingly or intentionally to distribute or dispense a controlled substance, except as authorized by the CSA. The evidence disclosed that respondent prescribed large quantities of methadone for patients without giving them adequate physical examinations or specific instructions for its use and charged fees according to the quantity ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-26-1975
Reported in : [1976]37STC336(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under S. 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') made at the instance of the Department. The question referred to us for consideration is as follows : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sales of dental chairs manufactured by the respondents were covered by the entry 22 of Schedule 'E' and not by entry 56 of Schedule 'C' of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?' The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessee is an importer and reseller of dental equipments. It is also a manufacturer of dental chairs which are sold by it. For the period from 1-1-1960 to 31-12-60 the Sales Tax Officer assessed the sales of dental chairs sold by the assessee as falling under entry 56 of Schedule 'C' to the said Act, rejecting the contention of the assessee that these sales were covered by entry 22 of Schedule E to the said Act. The appeal of the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-26-1975
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(Bom)260
Kania, J. - This is a reference under S. 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') made at the instance of the Department. The question referred to us for consideration is as follows :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sales of dental chairs manufactured by the respondents were covered by the entry 22 of Schedule E and not by entry 56 of Schedule C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?'The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :The assessee is an importer and reseller of dental equipments. It is also a manufacturer of dental chairs which are sold by it. For the period from 1-1-1960 to 31-12-60 the Sales Tax Officer assessed the sales of dental chairs sold by the assessee as falling under entry 56 of Schedule C to the said Act, rejecting the contention of the assessee that these sales were covered by entry 22 of Schedule E to the said Act. The appeal of the assessee to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-18-1975
Reported in : AIR1976AP134
A. Sambasiva Rao, Actg. C.J.1. Dry land of an extent of Ac. 3-11 juntas out of 'Survey No. 37 in Premavathipat village was acquired for the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of establishign the Agricultural University at Rajendranagar. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was made on 2-11-1965. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award determining the market value of the land, as on the date of notification at Rs. 600 per acre, though the owner of the land claimed at the rate of Rs. 3 per square yard. At the instance of the claimant, reference was made under section 18 of the Act to the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the same was numbered as O.P. 236/69. The second additional Chief Judge of that court enhanced the rate to Re. 0.75 per square yard by his order dated 10th December, 1970. The Special Tahsildar, who is the Land Acquisition Officer, did not prefer any appeal, but the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-17-1975
Rose v. Locke - 423 U.S. 48 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48 (1975) Rose v. Locke No. 74-1451 Decided November 17, 1975 423 U.S. 48 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Tennessee statute proscribing "crime against nature" held not unconstitutionally vague as applied to cunnilingus, satisfying as it does the due process standard of giving sufficient warning that men may so conduct themselves as to avoid that which is forbidden. Viewed against that standard, the challenged statutory phrase is no vaguer than many other terms describing criminal offenses at common law, which are now codified in criminal codes. Moreover, the Tennessee Supreme Court, by previously rejecting claims that the statute was to be narrowly applied, has given sufficiently clear notice that it would be held applicable to acts such as those involved here when such a case as this arose. Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U. S. 21 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-28-1975
Reported in : ILR1976Delhi278
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) These are two appeals. This judgment will govern them both.(2) The dispute arises this way. There are two industries engaged in the manufacture of dress hooks which are generally used in garments. One is Ropi Industries. Henceforward I will call them Ropis. It is a partnership concern. They set up this industry in 1963. They manufacture hooks at Navsari a town in Gujarat. They started with humble beginnings. In the beginning their sales were only a few thousand. Over the years the sales have increased. They sell their goods at various places in India including Delhi.(3) The other industry is called L. D. Malhotra Industries. Henceforward I will call them Malhotras. They also manufacture dress hooks. They are located in Delhi. They got their mark Kismat (word per se) registered with the Registrar of Trade Marks on December 26, 1967. On that date they were not using this word. In their application under s. 18(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1958 (the Act) to the Re...
Tag this Judgment!