Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(4)KLT432
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The facts of this case once again proves that time is a great leveller. A member of the erstwhile Cochin Royal Family, the head of which, the Maharaja of Cochin, once ruled part of the present Kerala State, has come down to the earth and is fighting for rights in family property just like lesser mortals. Stage by stage, the members of the royal family lost their pre-eminent position in the society and have now become very ordinary citizens, which is exemplified by this case.2. With the advent of democracy, the Monarch lost his Kingdom and throne. Still, the family was not subject to all the personal laws of the land. By virtue of Sub-section (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Succession Act, which applied to all the other Hindus in the country, properties of the Cochin Royal Family, which is known as Valiamma Thampuran Kovilagam Estate and the Palace Fund were exempted from the purview of the said Act, although the members of the family were Hindus. By virtue of Procla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)86BOMLR609; 1985(21)ELT392(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal against a Judgment and order of Pendse, J., dated 25th June, 1979 allowing the aforesaid writ petition filed by the respondent herein. By the said judgment certain orders passed by the appellants were quashed and the appellants were directed to refund to the respondent an amount of Rs. 9,91,537.14.2. As we are inclined to accept the view taken by the learned trial Judge and as the facts have already been set out in the impugned judgment, it is not necessary to set out the same in detail here. We do propose, however, to set out such facts as are essential for the appreciation of the controversy arising before us.3. The main question which arises in this appeal is whether the imported component parts utilised for the assembly or manufacture of the type of diesel engines manufactured by the respondent are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 82/60, dated 6th August, 1960 issued under section 23 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (hereinafter referred to as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997IIIAD(Delhi)333; 2(1997)CLT273; 67(1997)DLT145; 1997(42)DRJ131
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) There are two sets of writ petitions before us. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1016/92, 1272/92, 1631/92, 1749/92 the petitioners challenge certain amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991 whereby the trade in imported ivory and articles made there from have been banned. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1303/92 and 1964/93 the grievance of the petitioners is that though they are not covered by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991, the authorities are taking action against them for their being in possession of mammoth ivory and articles made there from. Besides, like Writ Petition No. 1016/92 etc. they also challenge the amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991.(2) In so far as the first category of cases are concerned it will be convenient to deal with Writ Petition No. 1016/92 as the points raised in this writ petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1988]71STC10(Kar)
ORDER1. The above writ petitions and revision petitions are disposed of by a common order since a common point arises for consideration in all these petitions. 2. In the writ petitions, we are concerned with the question whether tarpaulin cloth comes within the meaning of the word 'cotton textiles'. In the sales tax revision petitions, we are concerned with the question whether P.V.C. rexine cloth comes within the meaning of the word 'cotton textiles'. 3. The facts are not in serious controversy and briefly stated are : The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 11213 to 11221 of 1987 are registered dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act as also under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.S.T. Act'). Some of them are manufacturers and some of them are traders in tarpaulins. It is not in dispute that tarpaulin is manufactured out of cotton fabric. Likewise, the petitioners in the revision petitions are dealers in P.V.C. rexine cloth. Cotton fabrics are declared goods under s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(5)ALD687
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ appeal is filed by the South Central RailwayEmployees Co-op. Credit Society Employees Union, the 5th respondent in the writ petition, assailing the correctness of the order of the learned single Judge dated 6-8-1996 made in WP No. 17756 of 1998. The above writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 7 herein praying for a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings No. CC.5/14/Court/ Resn/1998 dated 12-6-1998 issued by the 4th respondent in the writ petition on the ground that the proceeding was issued in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 313 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to the appellant herein to implement the earlier proceedings dated 1-4-1998 issued by the appellant itself.2. The facts of the case be noted briefly as under: The South Central Railway Employees Co-op. Credit Society (for short, the Society), the 4th respondent in the writ petition, which is 11th respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)ALT1(SC); JT1994(1)SC692; 1994(1)SCALE512; (1994)2SCC434; [1994]1SCR682; [1994]93STC95(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Ready, J.1. The question in this batch of appeals is whether the publishers of newspapers are entitled to the benefit of Section 8(3)(b) read with Section 8(l)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. If they are so entitled, they can purchase the raw material required by them at the concessional rate of 4%. If not, they will be liable to pay tax @ 10%. The Madras and Kerala High Courts have taken the view that they are entitled to the said benefit while the Karnataka High Court has held to the contrary. We may briefly indicate how the question arises.2. The publishers of newspapers require various goods, hereinafter referred to as the raw material, for producing, i.e., for printing and publishing their newspapers. These publishers are registered as dealers under the Tax Act. They purchase their raw material from other registered dealers. Most of these purchases are inter-slate purchase; in the hands of the selling dealers they are inter-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3127; JT1997(6)SC637; 1997(5)SCALE90; (1997)8SCC522; [1997]Supp2SCR507
K. RAMASWAMY, J. (dissenting) 1. Application/s for impleadment allowed. 2. These appeals and transfer cases are wrapped up of complex facts interwoven with diverse principles in service jurisprudence, compounded by legislative intervention impinging upon judicial review by enacting Act 20 of 1995 to regulate the conditions of service of persons appointed to the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department Buildings and Roads Branch, Public Health Branch and Irrigation Branch respectively. The said Act 20 of 1995 (for short the Act) came into force with effect from 13-11-1995. It amended and repealed the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Buildings and Roads Branch), (Public Health Branch) and (Irrigation Branch) Rules, Irrigation Branch by Ordinance 6 of 1995. The latter repealed the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Buildings and Roads Branch), (Public Health Branch) Rules, 1960 and (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1961 (sic 1964) issued under proviso to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1979]49CompCas686(Bom)
R.L. Aggarwal, J.1. This writ petition arises under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter refereed to as 'the MRTP Act'). The petitioner seeks withdrawal, cancellation and annulment of the Notice of Enquiry dated 6th December, 1974, and quashing of the order dated 25th February, 1975, passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the petitioner's application for disclosure of information, copy of the complaint and the report of the Director of Investigation, and for further and better particulars. A writ of prohibition is sought prevent the 1st and 2nd respondents from proceeding further pursuant to the said impugned Notice of Enquiry and the impugned order and from taking further steps in the matter of Restrictive Trade Practice Enquiry No. 27 of 1974. An order directing the 2nd respondent not to participate in the said enquiry and also an order directing the 1st respondent to disclose the complaint and report and to give particulars and inspection are also so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1970]78ITR584(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the original respondents from the judgment and order of Mr. justice Vimadalal dated September 28, : [1968]67ITR399(Bom) , granting an order of injunction restraining the original respondents from assessing or reassessing the Colaba, Land and Mills Company Ltd., hereinafter ter referred to as the ' mills company to income-tax for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1955-56.2. It is sufficient to notice that in the Company Petition No. 221 of 1958 the official liquidator was appointed interim liquidator of the mills company by an order dated May 1, 1959. By an order dated October 7, 1959, the mills company was ordered to be wound up and the official liquidator was confirmed as liquidator of the mills company with all powers under section 457 of the Companies Act, 1956. By six different notices dated August 23, 1966, issued under section 148, the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle 1(8), Bombay, recorded in respect of the assessment years 1950-51 to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994CriLJ1813; 1994(1)MhLj452
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. Being unable to see eye to eye with a view expressed by several learned single Judges of this Court namely Rele, J. in the case of 'Rama Niwrutti Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra' in Criminal Revn. Application No. 24 of 1980, Salve, J. in the case of 'Ramrao Patil v. Vasant Ahirrao' (Criminal Application No. 360 of 1987) and Tated, J. in the case of 'Pralhad Shamburao Newale v. State of Maharashtra' '1988 MLJ 161' (All Judges of this Court as they then were), another learned single Judge Chaudhari (a sitting Judge of this Court), in the present proceedings, has referred a question to a larger Bench, and that is how the present proceedings are taken up for hearing by us. 2. The present proceedings arise out of prosecutions filed against the respondents under various offences such as Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, Section 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Pr...
Tag this Judgment!