Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)753; AIR1998Delhi266; 4(1996)CLT513; [2000]100CompCas839(Delhi); 69(1997)DLT874
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The plaintiff moved this Court in December 1977 for permission to file the suit as an indigent person under the provisions of Order 33 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court granted permission by order dated 22/03/1982. The plaintiff, as a consequence, filed a suit for recovery of Gold ornaments weighing 480 Tolas i.e. 5596.80 grammes deposited in safe deposit box under receipt No. 17/47 dated 3/06/1947 with the defendant .Bank or in the alternative for the price thereof amounting to Rs. 3,72,400. The plaint was subsequently amended and the plaintiff claimed recovery of the gold ornaments/jewellery or price there of as on the date of the judgment/decree in the suit.(2) The brief facts of the case are that late Rai Sahib Mool Chand,father of the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 and husband of Smt. Washeshran Devi, who was arrayed as defendant No. 2 but was deleted by the Court's order as she had expired during the pendency of the suit was an eminent civ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1975]99ITR24(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has stated the following question of law and referred the same for our opinion, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 53,49,374 was part of the actual cost of the plant and machinery to the assessee under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for purposes of development rebate as claimed by the assessee '2. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda, and incorporated in 1951. It had an old 40 tonne plant for the purpose. A new 60 tonne caustic soda plant was acquired and installed by the company and commenced production from November 15, 1967. For the accounting year ending March 31, 1968 (assessment year 1968-69), the Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation on the full cost of the new machinery and plant as claimed by the assessee. But regarding development rebate, he noted tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT791
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. The defendants in O.S.No. 103 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam, are the appellants in the appeal. The basic facts stated in the plaint are as follows.2. The plaintiff is a native of Meenachil Taluk. He was working as lecturer in St.Thomas College, Palai, from 1959 to 1961. In 1961, he went to Canada for higher studies. He took his master degree in Mathematics from the University of Toronto and took his Ph.D. He joined as Assistant Professor in Mathematics and Statistics in Mcgill University, Montreal in Canada and now he is the senior most Professor in that University. The defendants 2 to 4 are the wife and children of the 1st defendant who was working as attender in St.Thomas College, Palai. The 2nd defendant is a distant relative of the plaintiff and defendant also belong to Meenachil Taluk. The plaintiff used to come to India every year and in 1985 he accepted the post of Director of Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Thiruvananthapuram, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1979]117ITR86(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The following question is referred to us for out opinion: 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 20,000 contributed by the assessee-company to the District Panchayat Board for constructing a road leading to Bhaili Project was a capital expenditure ?' 2. A few facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the import of this question and the dispute involved in this reference. 3. The relevant assessment year with which we are concerned in this reference is 1970-71. The assessee is a limited company carrying on business of manufacturing photo-chemicals, such as sodium sulphite, sodium bisulphite, etc. The company has been in existence for the last more than 15 years and has established the manufacturing unit at Pratapnagar, Baroda. It appears that the company undertook to set up a new project at village Bhaili near Baroda. In the course of the construction of this project, the company was required ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1976]104ITR132(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J.1. In all these five matters, the question which is referred to us by the Tribunal is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in finding that the payment of the betterment charges to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation under the provisions of the Town Planning Act, 1954, made by the assessee was allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the facts of only one case, which is covered by Reference No. 9/74, and which relates to the assessee, Rohit Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad. In that case, the year of assessment with which we are concerned is 1962-63. The question relates to the admissibility or otherwise of the payment which is made by the assessee under section 66 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' as contribution towards the costs of town planning scheme. The facts of the case show that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. This is a reference made to this court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as I.T. Act) against the judgment dated 19.05.1994 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal). Accordingly, a statement of case was drawn up and the following question of law was referred, pursuant to order dated 08.09.1994 passed by this court :- "whether, on all facts and circumstances of the case, the expenses incurred by the assessee on coronary by-pass operation should have been allowed as a allowable deduction either under Section 31 or Section 37 of the I. T. Act, 1961?" 2. As is apparent from the questions of law extracted hereinabove by us, the issue raised in the captioned reference is both ingenious and novel. The question raised is the product of experience, deftness and obvious artfulness of the petitioner who is a seasoned, experienced and an eminent Advocate of the country. 3. What is at the heart of the matter, as a m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005ACJ479; 2004(5)KarLJ7
R.V. Raveendran, J. 1. Respondent herein was the driver of lorry bearing Registration No. CAM-105 of which second appellant is the owner and first appellant is the insurer. Respondent sustained an employment injury on 4-2-1996 when driving the said lorry. He sustained serious injuries to the right leg (comminuted fracture of middle and lower one-third of right fibula, oblique fracture of midshaft of right tibia, fracture of head of left fibula, fracture of lower pole of right patella and oblique comminuted fracture of distal shaft of second metatarsal).2. The petitioner filed a claim petition (W.C. No. 4 of 1996) under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act' for short), praying for award of Rupees Three lakhs as compensation, in respect of the said injuries. In the claim petition the respondent (also referred to as the 'workman') averred that he was aged 35 years and was getting a salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month apart from Rs. 25/- per day as batta, at the time of acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2001Kant373
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved of the action of the respondent-Government in taking over the management and maintenance of Palace Muzrai Temples under G.O. R.D. 54-MLI-72 dated 28-9-1974 under Section 7 of the erstwhile Mysore Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1927 (in short called Act of 1927) by vesting the management in a Committee constituted in the impugned order has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Government order Annexure 'A' dated 28-9-1974 and subsequent orders of renewals and further issuance of a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to hand over the physical possession of all the Palace Muzrai Temples and also the management records, jewellary etc., of these temples situate in and around Palace, and, also at Chamundi Hills, forthwith to the petitioner for the maintenance and management and further to declare that the petitioner is the shebait of these Palace ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All774
Wall Ullah, J.1. I agree to the order proposed to be passed in this appeal. I, however, wish to deal with the main question of law which has been discussed in this case.2. The main question of law which calls for decision in this case is whether the rule laid down in the English case, Merryweather v. Nixon, (1799) 8 T. R. 186: 16 R. R. 810 : 101 E. R. 1337, applies to India. On this question, there is a serious conflict of judicial opinion in India. There is a serious conflict of opinion even in this Court. This is the principal reason for reference of this case to a Full Bench.3. The case of Merryweather v. Nixon was decided by the King's Bench in 1799 by Lord Kenyon, C. J. It was a Court of Common Law as distinct from a Court of Equity. It was an action based upon an implied 'assumpsit' on these facts. The plaintiff and the defendant had destroyed the machinery and injured the mill of a millowner. The mill owner brought an action 'on the case' against both of them. Having recovered 8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1964All457
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. This is a statement of a case referred to this Court at the assessee's instance by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Tribunal has formulated the following question as one of law arising out of the statement:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the sale proceeds of the bonus shares (received in respect of ordinary shares held by the assessee as a part of his stock in trade) is an income taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act?'.The connected I. T. R. No. 193 of 1955 is another statement of a case referred by the same Tribunal at another assessee's instance under Section 66(i) and the question of law arising out of it and referred by the Tribunal is:'Whether the sale proceeds of bonus shares which had been issued in respect of shares which formed part of the assessee's stock in trade of the share dealing business are liable to inclusion in the assessee's total incomes for the res...
Tag this Judgment!