Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-19-1989
Reported in : AIR1990SC781; [1991]188ITR402(SC); JT1989(4)SC229; 1989(2)SCALE982; (1990)2SCC71; [1989]Supp1SCR510; [1990]76STC71(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Except Civil Appeals Nos. 41620-63 of 1988, in these appeals along with the special leave petitions and the writ petition, we are concerned with Sections 9(1) and 24(3) as well as the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 50 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), So far as Civil Appeals Nos. 4162-63 of the 1988 are concerned, these involve the scope, effect and validity of Section 13AA of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act') as introduced by the Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 1982. It will, therefore, be desirable first to deal with the question of the Act, and then with the provisions of the Bombay Act as mentioned hereinbefore.2. The appellant/petitioner - Goodyear India Ltd., was engaged at all relevant times, inter alia, in the manufacture and sale of automobile tyres and tubes. It manufactured the said tyres and tubes at its factory at Ballabhgarh in the district of F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-19-1989
Reported in : AIR1990SC104; JT1989(3)SC148; 1989(2)SCALE28; (1989)3SCC537
M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. These appeals, by certificate, preferred against the common order dated 17-6-1987 of the High Court of Calcutta in Full' Bench Reference 1 of 1983 (reported in : (1987)1CALLT354(HC) ) raise a short and interesting question, of some general importance, whether the choice of the forum for the cognizance of suits envisaged in Section 80 of the Railways Act, 1890 (As substituted by Section 14 of the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act 39 of 1961)) is limited by Section 80 itself or whether provisions of Section 20 of the CPC, 1908 and Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as the cases may be, in regard to places of suing, are also applicable to the suits referred to in the said Section 80.The question, in other words, is whether the said Section 80 is a complete, self-contained, exhaustive Code in regard to the place of suing respecting suits constituting a special law for such suits excluding, by necessary implication, the operation of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-19-1989
Reported in : AIR1990SC104a; (1990)1CALLT25(SC); [1989]3SCR440; 1989(2)LC382(SC)
ORDERM.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. These appeals, by certificate, preferred against the common order dated 17.6.1987 of the High Court of Calcutta in Full Bench Reference 1 of 1983 raise a short and interesting question, of some general importance, whether the choice of the forum for the cognizance of suits envisaged in Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (As substituted by Section 14 of the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act 39 of 1961) is limited by Section 80 itself or whether provisions of Section 20 of the CPC, 1908 and Section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as the cases may be, in regard to places of suing, are also applicable to the suits referred to in the said Section 80.The question, in other words, is whether the said Section 80 is a complete, self-contained, exhaustive Code in regard to the place of suing respecting suits constituting a special law for such suits excluding, by necessary implication, the operation of provisions of Section 20 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-19-1989
Reported in : AIR1989SC2227
Saikia, J.1. This plaintiff's appeal by special leave is from the Appellate Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Judicature at, Bombay reversing those of the trial court and dismissing plaintiff's special suit.2. The appellant is a Limited Company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office situate at Ahmednagar within the State of Maharashtra. The appellant carries on business, inter alia, as manufacturers of Ayurvedic preparations including 'Asavas', 'Aristhas'. At all times material to this appeal, the appellant was manufacturing and selling an Ayurvedic product called 'Ashvagandhaarist' which is a medicinal preparation containing self-generated alcohol but not capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverage.3. Under the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', which came into force on 1st April, 1957, excise duties were levied on medicinal and toilet preparations specified i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-11-1989
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC312
M.N. Venkatachaliah and; A.M. Ahmadi, JJ.1. Special leave is granted.2. These appeals are by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated May 20, 1983 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in L.P.A. Nos. 444 and 445 of 1982 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant against and affirming the orders dated January 13, 1983 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2054 and 2170 of 1982. By those writ petitions, the respondents assailed orders of assessment to sales tax under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 bringing to tax a turnover of sales of articles of food said to have been sold by the respondents in their restaurants.3. Against the respective orders of assessment the respondents filed appeals provided for in the statute. Section 39(5) of the Act contemplates that no appeal shall be entertained unless it is filed within sixty days from the date of the order appealed against and the appellate authority is satisfied that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-28-1989
Reported in : I(1990)ACC3; AIR1989SC2039; 1990CriLJ671; 1989(3)Crimes156(SC); JT1989(3)SC496; 1989(2)SCALE380; (1989)4SCC286; [1989]3SCR997
Ranganath Misra, J.1. The petitioner who claims himself to be a 'small human right activist and fighting for the good causes for the general public interest' filed this application under Article 32 of the Constitution asking for a direction to the Union of India that every injured citizen brought for treatment should instantaneously be given medical aid to preserve life and thereafter the procedural criminal law should be allowed to operate in order to avoid negligent death and in the event of breach of such direction, apart from any action that may be taken for negligence, appropriate compensation should be admissible. He appended to the writ petition a report entitled 'Law helps the injured to die' published in the Hindustan Times. In the said publication it was alleged that a scooterist was knocked down by a speeding car. Seeing the profusely bleeding scooterist, a person who was on the road picked up the injured and took him to the nearest hospital. The doctors refused to attend on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-25-1989
Reported in : AIR1990SC1927; JT1989(4)SC267; 1989(2)SCALE1045; (1990)1SCC109; [1989]Supp1SCR623
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. These writ petitions, civil appeals and review petitions relate to the right of the Slates to levy vend fee or duties in respect of industrial alcohol under different legislations in different states. We will first deal with writ petition No. 182/80. In Writ Petition No. 182/80 Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. we are concerned with the notification dated 31st May, 1979, substituting new Rule 17(2) for old Rule 17(2) and providing for a vend fee of Rs. 1.10 per bulk litre for all issues from distillery but in case of FL 39 Licence (like the petitionerin this case), the vend fee would be so charged that the amount of this fee and purchase tax together does not exceed 25 paise per bulk litre. Then there are three review petitions, namely. Review Petition Nos. 202-04/80 Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Review : Petition No. 17 of 1980 Kesar Sugar Works Ltd. v. State of U.P. These are directed against the judgment and order of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-08-1989
Reported in : [1990]68CompCas324(SC); (1989)3CompLJ127(SC); 1990(3)Crimes735(SC); JT1989(3)SC350; 1989(2)SCALE239; (1989)4SCC514; [1989]3SCR750
S. Natarajan, J.1. What falls for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether the High Court has erred in law in setting aside the judgments of the courts below in a matter arising under Section 630 of the Companies Act in exercise of its powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C.2. The facts are as under:- Messrs. Jenson and Nicholson (India) Ltd. (appellant company), had secured a flat in Bombay (No. 84, MehrDad, Cuffe Parade) belonging to one Mehdi Mandil, on leave and licence basis for the residential occupation of the flat by its officers/ employees. The leave and licence agreement was entered into on behalf of the company by the 1st respondent who was then the Divisional Sales Manager of the company at Bombay, the registered office of the company being at Calcutta. It is common ground the 1st respondent acted on behalf of the company under a Power of Attorney executed in his favour by the company. The leave and licence was for an initial Period of 1 months but subject to ren...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-02-1989
Reported in : AIR1989SC1949; (1990)3CompLJ275(SC); (1990)1GLR309; [1989]178ITR151(SC); JT1989(3)SC72; 1989(1)SCALE1200; (1989)3SCC677; [1989]2SCR893; [1989]74STC157(SC)
M.N.Venkatachaliah, J.1. In these civil appeals and writ petitions the constitutional validity of legislations of different States viz., State of Gujarat, State of Tamil Nadu, State of Karnataka and Stats of West Bengal, imposing a tax on 'Luxuries' under Entry 62 of List II of VII Schedule to the Constitution of India is challenged.Civil Appeal Nos. 338 and 339 of 1981, writ-petition Nos. 7990, 9119, 8338, 8339 of 1981 relate to the challenge to the legislation by the State of Gujarat viz., the Gujarat Tax on Luxuries (Hotels & Lodging Houses) Act, 1977. Writ Petition No. 162 of 1982 pertains to the corresponding legislation of the State of Tamil Nadu viz., Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries in Hotels & Lodging Houses Act, 1981. Writ-petitions Nos. 1271 and 1272 of 1982 pertain to the challenge to corresponding Karnataka Legislation viz., The Karnataka Tax on Luxuries (Hotels and Lodging Houses) Act, 1979. W.P. No. 5321 of 1985 pertains to the challenge to West Bengal Entertainments and Luxur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-12-1989
Reported in : AIR1989SC1629; 1989(1)SCALE1303; (1989)3SCC115; [1989]3SCR257; 1989(2)LC325(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. These are three petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution by three different groups of petitioners. In each of these writ petitions petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company and the second petitioner is a shareholder thereof. The petitioner-company in each of these cases obtained the right to collect oleo resin gum or to process the same for industrial purposes from the State of Jammu & Kashmir and each of them seeks to challenge the vires of the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Extraction of Resin Act (7 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. Though there are some variations of facts relevant to each of the writ petitions, the allegations are more or less similar in regard to the relevant contentions-both factual and legal. When rule was issued the respondent-State came with almost the same plea, traversing common grounds and revealing a common stand in its returns to the Court. These three writ petitions were heard at a time and are now bei...
Tag this Judgment!