Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1979Raj209; 1978(11)WLN517
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J. 1. The petitioner Bharat Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Jaipur, has filed this stay petition under Section 151 C. P. C. for restraining the respondent No. 1, the State of Rajasthan, 2, Urban Improvement Trust, 3. The Land Acquisition Officer and 4. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur from interfering in the possession of the petitioner Society over Khasra Nos. 87 and 88 situated in Jaipur. 2. The respondents U. I. T. Jaipur and Rajasthan Housing Board, hereinafter referred as 'the Housing Board', have vehemently opposed this stay application on the following grounds: (i) That the disputed land is already in possession of the Housing Board and, therefore, the application of stay is misconceived. (ii) that the disputed land has been acquired for the work and project of public utility, namely, the construction of a colony under the provisions of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act for providing cheap accommodation to the low income group who have got no residential accommo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1979Raj120
Sidhu, J. 1. These two appeals from the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court raise a common question as to the true meaning of the words 'till the validity of the aforesaid permits' appearing in the scheme of nationalisation of passenger road transport services on the Jaipur-Bharatpur route and of similar words appearing in the similar scheme as to the Jaipur-Alwar route, both duly approved and published in accordance with the provisions of Section 68-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the Act), in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated, December 14, 1960. The expression 'approved scheme' will hereafter be used as having reference to either or both of these schemes.2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to state a few facts here. The approved schemes which admittedly carry the force of law and which are pari materia lay down, inter alia, that:--(1) The State Road Transport Service shall commence to operate from the 28th January, 1961, or therea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]117ITR434(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. In the year of assessment 1963-64, the accounting period being the year ending the 30th June, 1962, the Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, claimed development rebate in respect of dumpers owned by it. The ITO disallowed this claim on the ground that the dumpers were road transport vehicles for transporting materials from one site to another.2. On an appeal preferred by the assessee, the AAC accepted the contentions of the assessee and held that dumpers were not road transport vehicles and accordingly allowed the claim for development rebate.3. On a further appeal by the revenue, it was contended before the Tribunal that dumpers should be treated as road transport vehicles. The assessee contended that in the Table under the I.T. Rules, 1962, prescribing rates for depreciation dumpers have been categorised as earth movingmachinery and not as road transport vehicles. It was contended further that under a circular issued by the Board of Rev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1979P& H118
Prem Chand Jain, J.1. This judgment of ours would, dispose of Civil Revision No. 1509 of 1977 and 1510 of 1977 as common question of law arises en both these petitions.2. The land of Shangara Singh and other respondent, who were the landowners, was acquired. The Collector gave an award determining the compensation to which the landowner ere found entitled to Dissatisfied from the award, Shangara Singh and others, made an application under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) requiring the Collector to make a reference to the Court. During the pendency of the reference before the Court the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) made an application praying that the Corporation be impleaded as a party and be permitted to appear and defend the case and to lead evidence. The application was opposed on behalf of the landowners. The learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide his order dated 16th of August, 1977, dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1979)10CTR(Bom)238; [1979]118ITR399(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN282(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference which is at the instance of the Commissioner under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the following three questions are referred to the High Court for its opinion : '(1) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs. 11,712 on account of contribution to the insurance fund against third party risk (2) Whether it was rightly held that there was a clear conflict between the substantive section of the Act, viz., section 10(2) (vi) and rule 8 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922 (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to depreciation of Rs. 2,80,363 for the period April 1, 1960, to April 30,1960, in respect of assets transferred to the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ?' 2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, Mr. Joshi who appears for the Commissioner has drawn our attention to a decision of this court in Income-tax Reference No. 20 of 1966 (decided by Kantawala C.J. and Tulzapurkar J. on Au...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1770; 1979CriLJ466; (1979)1SCC568; [1979]2SCR997; 1979(11)LC328(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant has been convicted under Section 27(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- as modified by the High Court. The trial court also convicted the appellant under Section 27(a)(ii) and Section 28 of the Act but no separate sentence was awarded under these counts. The trial court had, in fact, imposed a sentence of imprisonment only till the rising of the Court but the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction enhanced the sentence to one year's rigorous imprisonment, and hence this appeal by special leave. According to the prosecution, on 5.5.1970 at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant Drugs Inspector, Jalagaon received a telephonic meassage from the Senior Railway Sub-Inspector Bhusawal to the effect that the appellant had been caught at the Bhusawal railway station with 17 plastic containers containing 17,000 white coloured tablets. On receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1979)IILLJ140Ker
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The writ petitioner is a retired employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation in its Water Transport section. He had been working as Assistant Traffic Inspector in the water transport section at Ernakulam during 1963 to 1978.2. The Traffic Inspector on duty at Ernakulam died early in 1964, and the petitioner had been directed to look after the duties of the Traffic Inspector also in addition to his normal duties as Assistant Traffic Inspector. This is seen from the orders Exts. P1 and P2 issued by the Water Transport Officer in June, 1964 and August, 1964 respectively.3. An Industrial dispute between the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and its workmen was referred for arbitration in 1967 under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act). The writ petitioner also participated in the arbitration proceedings, which was conducted by Sri G. Kumara Pillai, a retired Judge of this Court who had been appointed as Arbitrator...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1979)2MLJ259
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein is a transport operator operating a vehicle from Madras to Pondicherry. A draft scheme of nationalisation was published in relation to this route on 6th January, 1971. Objections were called for and 28th April, 1975 was fixed as the date for hearing the objections. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 21st April, 1975 seeking a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from taking any further proceedings in pursuance of the said draft scheme, dated 6th January, 1971. The following contentions have been urged by the petitioner in this writ petition:(1) Section 68-HH which has been introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act by Tamil Nadu Amendment Act XVIII of 1968 is invalid for the reason that the State Legislature cannot directly amend the Motor Vehicles Act enacted by the Parliament notwithstanding Article 254 (2) of the Constitution. (2) That the nationalisation of the route in question which is an inter-State route is violative o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1980]123ITR395(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J. 1. The petitioner is the Orient Club, an unregistered association of persons, thorough its honorary secretary, and in this petition the petitioner club has challenged the notice dated January 5, 1979, issued by the respondent herein, the WTO, Circle IV, Ward-K, Ahmedabad, under s. 14(2) of the W.T. Act for the assessment year 1978-79. The petitioner prays that this notice of January 5, 1979, should be quashed and set aside and the respondent should be permanently restrained from taking any proceedings or making any assessment against the petitioner in pursuance of the said notice. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a members' club which has been running in Ahmedabad since 1935. The primary objects of the petitioner-club are to organise, promote, encourage and provide all facilities and convenience for various sports for the use of the members and for such purpose to have a club house and to afford various facilities to its members. The petitioner is not reg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1980Kant209; 1979(2)KarLJ412
ORDER1. On 31st July, 1976, the petitioner made an application before the Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga (Respondent No. 1), for grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Chikkabadihalli to Kadur and back viz., Thippareddihally, Oblapura, Jajur, C. R. Jajur, Nagondanahally, Karikere, Meerasabihaalli, Dodderi Challakere, Ganjugunte, Madhure, Sondekere, J. N Kote, D.S. Hally, Kurubarahatty, Chitradurga Chitrahally, C. R. Eachagatta, H. D. Pura. Nakikere, Kittadahally, Madadkere, Hosadurga, Antharagatte, Tamatadahally Gate, Sollapura, Hirenallur and Giriyapura for one return trip or two single trips per day. This application was duly published as required by Section 57 (3) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Sixteen operators including the General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, filed objection& The first respondent considered the application in subject Number 88177 and came to the conclusion that there was a ...
Tag this Judgment!