Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2006]145STC226(All)
A.K. Yog and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. The issue which is both interesting and significant that needs to be decided in these petitions is whether the goods manufactured and marketed by the petitioners as Mosquito Mats/Coils or Refills would fall under entry titled 'Pesticides and Insecticides' in the notifications issued under Section 3-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. 1948 (for short 'the Act').2. Above three Writ Petitions have been taken up together and decided finally at the admission stage itself since all the respondents are represented by their respective Counsel as contemplated under Chapter XXII Rule 2, Second Proviso, Allahabad High Court Rules, 'Rules of the Court, 1952'. Parties have exchanged pleadings by filing counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit and there is no dispute on relevant facts. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the question raised for adjudication in these Writ Petitions is the same and all the writ petitions may be decided by a common judgment.3. For ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1252; JT1997(2)SC243; 1997(1)SCALE720; (1997)3SCC410; [1997]1SCR24; [1997]105STC4(SC)
ORDERK. Venkataswami, J.1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.2. In all these cases, common questions of law arise and arguments were also addressed on that footing and consequently, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The principal common question of law that arises for consideration can be broadly stated as follows:Whether the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called 'the FCI') is liable to pay sales/ purchase tax to the States while purchasing foodgrains or in distributing fertilizers pursuant to orders issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955?3. There is a difference of opinion among the High Courts on this question. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has taken the view that the FCI is liable to pay purchase tax in the light of the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (thereinafter called 'the Act'). A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, however, has taken a view that the FCI is not l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : III(2005)BC56(SC); [2005]125CompCas545(SC); (2005)4CompLJ385(SC); 2005(4)CTC209; JT2005(5)SC506; (2005)5SCC465; [2005]60SCL249(SC)
Ruma Pal, J.1. There are five main protagonists in these appeals, the appellant, Technip, a company incorporated in France, Coflexip, also incorporated in France, the Institut Francais du Petrol (referred to as IFP) which through its subsidiary ISIS, a company incorporated in France, was a shareholder in Technip and Coflexip, South East Asia Marine Engineering and Construction Ltd. (referred to as SEAMEC), a company incorporated and registered in India and finally the respondents who are the shareholders of SEAMEC. SEAMEC is a subsidiary of Coflexip in the sense that Coflexip through a chain of wholly owned subsidiaries controls the majority shareholding in SEAMEC.2. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether Technip acquired control of SEAMEC through Coflexip in April, 2000, or in July, 2001? There is no dispute that if Technip controls Coflexip then it also controls SEAMEC and if there has been a change of control of SEAMEC then Technip would be bound to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1284a; 1981(1)SCALE401; (1981)2SCC535; [1981]2SCR962
Tulzapurkar, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Allahabad High Court on February 16, 1979 in Second Appeal No. 430 of 1970 whereby the High Court decreed the respondents' (landlords) suit for ejectment against the appellant (tenant) and the only question of substance raised in the appeal is whether when the landlords' notice demanding arrears and seeking eviction is sent by registered post and is refused by the tenant the latter could be imputed the knowledge of the contents thereof so that upon his failure to comply with the notice the tenant could be said to have committed wilful default in payment of rent ?2. The question arises in these circumstances : The appellant occupied shop No. 5 in Ivanhoe Estate, situated at Landure Cantonment, Mussorie, originally owned by one Parvij Waris Rasool, on an yearly rental of Rs. 250 payable by December 31, every year. The property at all material times was admittedly governed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2334; 2007(3)CTC574; 139(2007)DLT506(SC); JT2007(6)SC25; 2007(5)MhLj545; (2007)4MLJ660(SC); 2007MPLJ205(SC); RLW2007(3)SC2325; 2007(5)SCALE236; (2007)5SCC231; 2007AIRSCW4040; 2007(3)KCCRSN181
B.P. Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. In the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6093 of 2003; 6095 of 2003 and 6384 of 2003 the appellants have impugned the common judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated February 13, 2003 disposing of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2672 of 1996; 1851 of 1986 and 2003 of 1986. In the appeal arising out SLP ) No. 8574 of 2003, M/s. Punjab Potteries has assailed the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 2168 of 2003 dated 26th March, 2003. The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions preferred by the appellants herein. 3. A few broad facts may be noticed at the threshold to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the parties in these appeals.A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on January 23, 1965 for acquisition of lands measuring 6241 bighas 12 biswas in village Mahipalpur which was required for a public p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1984(17)ELT268(Guj); [1973]31STC115(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The assessee, Messrs Hind Engineering Co. is a firm carrying on business in an article known as rubber belting. The said article is marketed by it under two different trade names, namely, 'Hind Rubber Belting' and 'Cooper Rubber Belting'. The article in question is a rubber coated belt used as an accessory in the machinery employed for transmission of power. The assessee sold the articles marketed under the aforesaid two trade names under two separate invoices each dated September 30, 1966. The assessee thereafter made two applications each dated December 22/24, 1966 to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, under Section 52(1)(e) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for determination of the question whether any tax was payable in respect of the said two sales and, if so, the rate at which it was payable. The contention of the assessee in the said proceedings was that the articles sold by it were 'Cotton fabrics' within the meaning of Entry ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(112)BomLR154
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties and at the request of the counsel, taken up for hearing.2. The applicant, who is an advocate, is the author of a book entitled 'Islam - A concept of Political World Invasion By Muslims' ('the book'). The book was published in 2003 by National Publications, 76, Bajaj Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai of which the applicant claims to be the proprietor. The book was translated into Hindi by Dr. Anil Misr.3. In exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code') the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification dated 9/3/2007 ('the Notification') and declared that every copy of the book as well as of the translation thereof shall be banned and forfeited to Government. The Notification is as follows:NOTIFICATIONGeneral Administration DepartmentMantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032Dated the 9th March, 2007Code ofCriminalProcedure, 1973.No. PUB2007-C.N.15/07...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1970Bom232; (1970)72BOMLR369; ILR1970Bom841; 1969MhLJ933
Kotval, C.J.1. The short question that arises for decision in this reference is whether the interpretation of the amended Sub-section (7) of Section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 (XCIX of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the new Tenancy Act), in the decision of this Court in Salubai v. Chandu, : AIR1966Bom194 is correct, and if not, what is the correct interpretation.2. The circumstances under which the reference came to be made are as follows: One Mohanlal was a landholder of survey No. 74/3, area 9.17 acres, In village Uttar Wadhona in Yeotmal District. Mohanlal had a wife Radhabai and a son Lakhanlal who was born on 29-4-1937. Mohanlal died on 15-4-1938 and on that date Lakhanlal was a minor. Lakhanlal attained majority on 29-4-1958, the age of majority in his case being twenty-one years because a guardian had been appointed. After he attained majority, the property belonging to the joint family came to be partitioned between Radhabai and Lakhanlal. This...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1979]118ITR609(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN393(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, and the question referred to us is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the rebate of Rs. 3,00,000 could be withdrawn for the assessment year 1959-60 on account of the bonus shares issued during the accounting year ending 30th June, 1956 ?' 2. A few facts may be stated : The assessee is a company owning a number of shipping vessels. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1959-60, the relevant accounting period being the year ending 30th June, 1958. During the accounting year ending 30th June, 1956, i.e., relating to the assessment year 1957-58, the assessee had issued bonus shares. In his assessment order for the assessment year 1959-60, the ITO worked out the rebate of corporation tax allowable to the assessee at Rs. 14,50,933. From this, however, he deducted a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 as withdrawal of rebate on account of the bon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(4)ALT1138
Lingaraja Rath, J.1. Questions of deep significance, some of which in many respects are perplexing in nature have teen referred to this Bench in the context of consideration of the vires of Sections 10 and 22 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.').2. W.P. No. 9717 of 1983 was filed as public interest litigation raising the question of vires of the Sections. During the hearing of the case the learned single Judge felt the matter should be appropriately heard by a Division Bench as 'this case raises very important questions touching the personal law of the Christians as contained in 1 he Indian Divorce Act.' The learned Judge also felt that it is appropriate for the Court to hear representations of organisations of the Christian community including of women which should be vitally interested in the matter. Notices were issued to seven organisations whose names were ascertained from the Bar and permission was also allowed to any other person, organisation ...
Tag this Judgment!