Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)62BOMLR236
Tambe, J. 1. Petitioner Narayan and Ratanlal, respondant No. 1 hereto, were the two contesting candidates at the general election of the Amravati Town Muncipal Committee in Vidarbha. They were contesting for a seat from ward muncipal committee in Vidarbha. They were contesting for a seat from ward Muncipal committee in Vidarbha. They were constesting for a seat from ward No. 10 of the said municipality. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 also had filed their nomination papers for that seat but had withdrawn their candidature. Poll was taken on May 1, 1959. As a result of the counting that took place on May 2, the petitioner was declared elected by the Supervising Officer. Before the result of this election was notified by the Deputy Commissioner, Amravati, in the Official Gazette, as required by the provisions of the C.P. & Berar Municipalities Act, hereinafter called the Act, respondent No. 1 filed an election petition on May 11, 1959, before the District Judge, Amravati, challenging the electi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom11; (1960)62BOMLR735; ILR1961Bom101
Naik, J. 1. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff originally against Miraj State for the following reliefs : 1. A full and detailed account be taken of defendant's management of the Saranjam Estate from 1915 to the data of suit in respect of income from all items of income such as court fee, registration, stamps, fines, Abkavi, excise, opium and other items received or deemed to have been received by the State in its capacity as the Manager of the Estate. 2. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the income from the date of suit from such items as Abkari, excise opium and such other items as have no relation to the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction rights over the villages. The plaintiff's case may be outlined as follows : The plaintiff's ancestor, Moro Ballal Patwardhan, was a member of the Branch of Govind Had Patwardhan, who founded tile Miraj Saranjam. The Peshwas granted a 'Tainat' or a Saranjam in favour of Govind Hari in 1764 for a su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant275; AIR1960Mys275
Narayana Pai, J.(1) The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, impugns in this writ petition the legality of tax imposed in respect of transactions covered by sales effected by him outside the District of South Kanara but within the areas of the old Mysore State, both of which were since integrated into the new Mysore State. This argument is pressed only in respect of the period 1-4-1957 to 30-9-1957 till which date different statutes levying sales tax were in force in different areas of the new Mysore State. Prior to the reorganisation of the States, territories of the old Mysore States as it then was and such turnover of the petitioner had been exempted or excluded from taxation under the Madras Act as constituting turnover in respect of transactions in the course of inter-State trade.It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the position was not different even after the reorganisation of States until on 1-10-1957 the Mysore Sales Tax Act was passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1960Raj185
Bhandari, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The case set out by the petitioner in his petition is that he carried on business in the name of Messrs. Jai Ambey Pustak Bhandar at Jaipur of publishing educational books for schools and colleges in Rajasthan. It is alleged that the petitioner being desirous of submitting the books for courses of study prescribed by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan (hereinafter called 'the Board') got himself registered under Regulation 16(1) of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Regulations, 1957, (hereinafter called 'the Regulations') framed under the Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, 1957, (hereinafter called 'the Act') Under Registration Certificate dated the 14th of October, 1958.This registration was valid for a period of five years from June, 1958 to June, 1963. On the 30th of July, 1959, the petitioner presented 21 books to the Board for approval for study in various subjects in the Higher Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961AP46
ORDERSeshachalapati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records in R. C. 8 BM/58 from the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and in R. C. 8 BM/58 dated 28-8-1958 from the Commissioner of Government Examinations, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and to quash the order dated 28-8-1958 recorded in S. S. L. Certificate of the petitioner.2. The petitioner was a student in the VI form in the Board High School, Nandigama. Krishna District in the year 1957-58. He sat for the S. S. L. C. Public Examination held in March 1958 with the register No. 18572. The examination was conducted at the Board High School, Nandigama, where 212 students from five neighbouring high schools sat to write their papers. The examination would appear to have been held on 12-3-1958 and the following days. On 13-3-1958, a telegram was sent by some person alleging that the examiners were helping the studen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant247; AIR1961Mys247
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. Respondents 3 and 4 who were Excise Assistant Inspectors in the service of the new State of Mysore were promoted as Excise Inspectors in December, 1958. The petitioner who is an Excise Assistant Inspector of that State seeks their removal by quo-warrantor from their posts and his own appointment by mandamus to one of them. He applies for a further direction that, after his appointment in that way, he should be placed, in the list of seniority, above respondent 5, who, although appointed as Excise Inspector in December, 1957, is, according to him, is junior in the service of the State.2. The dates on which these four persons entered the service of the former State of Mysore and those on which they were promoted as Excise Assistant Inspectors arc set out in the following tabular statement:--NameRank inthe provisional Inter-State Seniority list.Date of employment. Date ofpromotion as Excise Assistant InspectorRudraradhya(Petitioner)1213-7-194514-9-1949Chikkarangiah(Res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC845; [1960]3SCR250
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. In accordance with the directives issued by the Prima Ministers of India and Pakistan, on September 10, 1958, the Commonwealth Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and the Foreign Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth, Government of Pakistan, discussed 10 items of dispute between the two countries and signed a joint note recording their agreement in respect of the said disputes and submitted it to their respective Prima Ministers; and with a view to removing causes of tension and resolving border disputes and problems relating to Indo-Pakistan Border Areas and establishing peaceful conditions along those areas, the Prima Ministers, acting on behalf of their respective Governments, entered into an agreement settling some of the said disputes and problems in the manner set out in the said joint note. This agreement has been called the Indo-Pakistan Agreement and will be referred to hereafter as the Agreement. 2. In the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker36; [1960]11STC747(Ker)
Ansari, J.1. This group of sixteen petitions are under Art. 226, and challenges the constitutionality of the General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, No. XIV of 1959 whereby sales of toddy have been, charged with the tax, and three amendments been made in the General Sales Tax Act, No. XI of 1125. Firstly a new clause (j-3) has been added to Section 2 of Act No. XI of 1125 and runs as follows:(j-3) 'toddy' means the fermented or unfermented juice drawn from cocoanut, palmyra date or any other kind of palm tree, but shall not include juice drawn into receptacles freshly coated internally with lime or otherwise treated so as to prevent any fermentation'.2. The next is in Section 4 where the words 'other than today, arrack' have been substituted, and the section now reads as follows :'The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the sale of electrical energy and any goods other than toddy, arrack and foreign liquor on which duty is or may be levied under the Travancore-Cochin Prohibition Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Flora v. United States - 362 U.S. 145 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960) Flora v. United States No. 492, October Term, 1957 Argued May 20, 1958 Decided .June 16, 1958 Rehearing granted June 22, 1959 Reargued November 12, 1959 Decided March 21, 1960 362 U.S. 145 ON REHEARING Syllabus Under 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(1), a Federal District Court does not have jurisdiction of an action by a taxpayer for refund of a part payment made by him on an assessment for an alleged deficiency in his income tax. The taxpayer must pay the full amount of the assessment before he may challenge its validity in an action under 1346(a)(1). Flora v. United States, 357 U. S. 63 , reaffirmed. Pp. 362 U. S. 146 -177. (a) The language of 1346(a)(1) can more readily be construed to require payment of the full tax before suit than to permit suit for recovery of a part payment. Pp. 362 U. S. 148 -151. (b) The legislative history of 1346(a)(1) is barren of any clu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 196011STC50Tribunal
1. These three applications which raise a common question may be disposed of by a common judgment and it would be sufficient to mention the facts in Revision Application No. 347 of 1959.2. The applicants are a partnership firm who do business under the name and style of Messrs Shah Manekchand Kundanmal & Co. The period of assessment is from 1st April, 1954, to 31st March, 1955 and in respect of this period the applicants were assessed by the Sales Tax Officer in the manner set out in his order dated 21st February, 1958. The applicants pre-ferred appeal from that order to the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax who, by his order dated 23rd February, 1959, confirmed the order made by the Sales Tax Officer. From the appellate order the applicants went in revision before the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay City Division (Revision), Bombay and that authority by his judgment dated 14th July, 1959, confirmed the order made by the Assistant Collector. It is the correctness of this ...
Tag this Judgment!