Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-13-1991
Reported in : (1992)105CTR(P& H)378; [1993]199ITR490(P& H)
B.C. Varma, C.J.1. As similar questions of law and facts arise for consideration, this order shall also govern the disposal of the following petitions :Civil Writ Petitions Nos, 5562, 5477, 6018, 6019, 5476, 7457 and 7456 of 1988 ; C. W. P. Nos. 4617, 11494, 11490, 6868, 6585, 6584, 6869 of 1989 ; C. W. P. Nos. 4450, 8424, 8420, 6351, 1545, 1544, 9758, 11513, 5410 and 649 of 1990 ; and C. W. P. Nos. 10752, 10751, 10750, 11495, 13683, 5130, 1608, 14237, 13776, 13408, 12887, 13761, 14068, 15582, 13394, 13395, 13396, 13397, 13398, 7820, 13399, 13400, 13401, 14891, 12804, 12805, 12806, 12807, 12808, 12809, 12810, 12811, 12812, 12813, 12814, 12815, 12821, 12822, 13030, 12280, 12442, 10987, 10988, 6186, 649, 11413, 6206, 13422, 13511, 14456, 14429, 13039, 13042, 13043, 14745, 14752, 14177, 9819, 8279, 10100, 7823, 8042, 8039, 7842, 8038, 7822, 7821, 7816, 7819, 7818, 7817, 7829, 10555, 10556, 10557, 10558, 10559, 10560, 11898, 13291, 13292, 13293, 13294, 13295, 13296, 13297, 13298, 13299, 13...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-23-1991
Reported in : (1992)40ITD142(Mum.)
1. This is a group of 30 cross appeals by the assessees and by the revenue in the case of five assessees (Rajeshkumar Porwal, Rakeshkuniar Porwal, Sushilkumar Porwal, Sunilkumar Porwal and Sanjivkumar Porwal) which were heard together since the issue involved in all these appeals is the same. These appeals are disposed of by a common and consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. Since the main order of the CWT (Appeals), Nagpur, dated 14-10-1988, is in the case of Sanjivkumar Porwal for the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, we will deal with the facts and arguments stated in this order. The arguments advanced by the learned Departmental Representative and the learneu counsel for the assessees with reference to this order and our decision on the issues raised in this order will apply to other connected cases, namely, Rajeshkumar Porwal, Rakeshkumar Porwal, Sushilkumar Porwal and Sunilkumar Porwal. The brief facts as culled out from the papers filed before us and as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-28-1991
Reported in : AIR1962SC1621; 1963(1)SCR778
VENKATARAM AIYAR, J.The petitioner is a partner in a firm called Messrs. Mohan Lal Hargovind Das, which carries on business in the manufacture and sale of biris in number of States, and is dealer registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act 15 of 1948 with its head office at Allahabad. In the present petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner impugns the validity of a levy of sales tax made by the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad, by his order dated December 20, 1958.On December 14, 1957, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under section 4(1)(b) of the Act exempting from tax, sales of certain goods including biris, provided that the additional Central Excise duties leviable thereon had been paid. In partial modification of this notification, the Government issued another notification on November 25, 1958, exempting from tax unconditionally sales of biris, both machinemade and handmade, with effect from July 1, 1958. The effect of the two notifications ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-21-1991
Reported in : AIR1991Mad284
ORDER1. On 4-3-1988 the plaintiff filed the O. P. No. 197 of 1988 under Ss. 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with O. XXV, Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules. In the said petition, the petitioner sought to prove the writing propounded by her as the last Will and Testament of Dr. A. L. Annamalai, one of the very eminent and leading medical practitioners in Tamil Nadu who passed away on 12-5-1987 at Madras. The prayer in the O.P. is to prove the Will in comon form and for grant of probate to have the effect throughout India. In the petition she has described herself as a Christian and claims to be second wife of the deceased and avers that the estate of the deceased was governed by the Hindu Succession Act. In paragraph No. 7 of the original petition she has stated as follows :--'7. The estate of deceased was governed by the Hindu Succession Act and the following persons are his heirs: (1) The petitioner herein who is the second wife is residing at No. 112, Poonamallee H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-10-1991
Reported in : (1992)(38)ECC22
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants M/s.True Chem Pharma (P) Ltd. were granted loan licence by the Drugs Controller, Lucknow for the manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines falling under Item 14E of the Central Excise Tariff from M/s.B. Pharma Labs. (P) Ltd., Lucknow, holders of L. 4 licence for the manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines. The appellants were also granted L. 4 licence for the manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines by the Suptd. of the Central Excise. They were getting patent and proprietary medicines manufactured under their (appellants) brand name from M/s. B. Pharma Labs. (P) Ltd. who were also manufacturing patent and proprietary medicines for M/s. Sach Laboratories. On their own account M/s. B. Pharma Labs (P) Ltd. were manufacturing both patent and proprietary medicines and general pharmocopoeial items falling under Item 68 of the Tariff. The Supdt. of Central Excise demanded duty amounting to Rs. 24,745.94 und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-22-1991
Reported in : JT1991(4)SC538; (1992)2MLJ42(SC); 1991(2)SCALE1128; (1992)1SCC673; [1991]Supp2SCR478; 1992(1)LC229(SC)
M.H. Kania, J.1. Leave granted. Counsel heard.2. As the controversy before us is a limited one and relates only to the question of granting of benefit of the provisions of Section 23(1-A) introduced into the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, (referred to hereinafter as 'the Amendment Act of 1984) only a few facts are necessary for the appreciation of the submissions made before us.2. This appeal, arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14297 of 1990 by Special Leave, is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1251 of 1987. The other appeals before us are connected appeals filed by the Union of India or the claimants. The respondent was the owner of a piece of land in one of the villages in District Bhatinda in Punjab. Land admeasuring 74375 acres situated in various villages in Bhatinda District including the land of the respondent wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-18-1991
Reported in : AIR1991Kant317; ILR1991KAR1057; 1991(2)KarLJ172
ORDERVenkatachala, J. 1. Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shivaraj Patil, J., who, sitting in a Division Bench, heard the appeals on 3-8-1990, gave expression to their view of the important question involved in the appeals and the need for its decision by a Special Bench, by making the following order :--'In view of the important question involved whether the delimitation order under S. 5(5) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983, and the amendments thereon, could be questioned in a writ petition, the consequences of which will be far-reaching, the matter is directed to be heard by a Special Bench.'A Special Bench consisting of three of us (including Shivaraj Patil, J.) having been constituted pursuant to the said order, the appeals were heard by us and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Karnataka State Legislature, with the object of establishing and constituting Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-22-1991
Reported in : AIR1992SC522; JT1991(4)SC361; 1991(2)SCALE1049; [1991]Supp2SCR497
ORDERSawant, J.1. On July 27, 1991 the President, under Article 143 of the Constitution, referred to this Court three questions for its opinion. The Reference reads as follows.:Whereas, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Central Government constituted a Water Disputes Tribunal Called 'the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal' (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') by a notification dated 2 June, 1990, a copy whereof is annexed hereto, for the adjudication of the Water Dispute regarding the Inter-State River Cauvery; WHEREAS on 25 June 1991, the Tribunal passed an interim Order (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order'), a copy whereof is annexed hereto; WHEREAS, differences have arisen with regard to certain aspects of the Order; WHEREAS, on 25 July 1991, the Governor of Karnataka promulgated the Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-13-1991
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR289
S.M. Daud, J.1. An issue of some consequence debated fully before this Court, though not raised in the forum below is the subject of this order.2. The appellant-plaintiff has filed a suit in the City Civil Court (City Court) Bombay for a declaration and injunction alleging Breach of Trust by Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (defendants Nos. 1 to 3) vis-a-vis property known as Dhan Bhavan and by the induction of Respondent No. 4 (defendant No. 4) as a trustee of the Bai Dhankorabi Morarji Thakoriji Trust (trust). Interim reliefs were claimed by way of the appointment of a Receiver to take over the trust property and an injunction to restrain defendants from using or dealing with the said property through a motion. The same having been dismissed, plaintiff has come in appeal. The issue under consideration is whether the CitFV.y Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. If the answer to the issue be in the negative, the order impugned in appeal will naturally not survive.3. Plaintiff a co-trustee of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-10-1991
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ471
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Two learned Judges of this Court who heard this petition, having disagreed on a vital question of constitutional import, this matter has come up before me to resolve the conflict, on an order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in that regard. The Presiding Judge (K. M. Agrawal, J.) has dismissed, by his order dated 26-3-1991, the writ petition holding that by efflux of time, the petition had become infructuous and further that in the changed circumstances, alternative remedy of civil suit was available. His Companion Judge (K. M. Pandey, J.), on the other hand, by his order dated 27-3-1991, held that the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition had no force and the petition should be heard on merits. Accordingly, the learned Judges recorded jointly the order that they had reached different conclusions in their separate orders on the preliminary objection about maintainability of the petition and as such the controversy needed to be resolve...
Tag this Judgment!