Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1065; 1983(2)SCALE212; (1984)1SCC375; [1983]3SCR740
D.A. Desai, J.1. Appellants and petitioners in this group of appeals and special leave petition and writ petitions are persons who have obtained or were desirous of obtaining temporary tourist permits valid for the whole of India styled as 'All India Tourist Permit'.2. The chronology of events leading to the appeals and writ petitions may be briefly stated. Sub-section (7) was inserted in Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939(Act for short) with effect from October 1, 1970 empowering State Transport Authority in each State, for the purpose of promoting tourism, to grant permits valid for the whole or any part of India, in respect of such number of tourist vehicles as the Central Government may, in respect of that State, specify in this behalf. The Central Government specified that the State Transport Authority in each State may grant permit as contemplated by 'Section 63 (7) not exceeding 50 in number. Armed with this power, the State Transport Authority of Karnataka State in all ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC977; (1983)3CompLJ48(SC); [1983]144ITR171(SC); 1983(2)SCALE406; (1984)1SCC190
1. We have heard counsel on both sides. Having regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case it is difficult to sustain the judgment and order of the High Court particularly when the High Court has observed that 'on the record as it stands it is not possible to hold that there was any collusion' between the appellant and the Chartered Accountant nominated by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The High Court has further observed that though nothing of the kind could be suggested, 'it is obvious that the reason set forward by the Chartered Accountant (pendency of Company Petition No. 21 of 1976 under Section 397 etc.) for declining to audit the petitioner's (appellant's) accounts is patently frivolous'. But if for a frivolous reason the Chartered Accountant declines to undertake the audit of the appellant's accounts, obviously the appellant could not be held responsible. There is no default nor failure to comply with the direction issued under Section 142(2A) on the part of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC974; 1983CriLJ1494; 1985(5)ECC189; 1983(13)ELT1666(SC); (1983)3SCC447; [1983]3SCR500
Bhagwati, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against a common judgment dated 27th August, 1973 passed by a single Justice of the High Court of Bombay in so far as it acquitted the first respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1973, respondent No. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1974 and the first respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the accused) of the offence under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The entire controversy between the parties in these appeals turn on the true interpretations of Section 135(1)(a)(ii) and it is therefore not necessary to set out the facts in detail, but in order to appreciate how the question arises for consideration we may briefly reproduce a few relevant facts. 2. On 9th June 1968 at about 2 p.m. Shri Mugve, the Assistant Collector of Customs, who was then Principal Appraisar in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay, received information that a fishing vessel was going to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC954; 1983(2)SCALE40; (1983)4SCC1; [1983]3SCR493
D.A. Desai, J.1. Third respondent Smt. Savitiri Devi filed a small causes case No. 43/76 in the Court of Civil Judge, Rampur designated as Court of Small Causes for recovering arrears of rent, electricity charges etc. in respect of House No. 368 situated in Adarsh Colony, Civil Line, Rampur against the present appellant. On service of the summons, the appellant appeared and contested the suit by filing his written statement. The suit came to be adjourned for hearing to August 6, 1977. On that day, the appellant and his advocate were absent and the suit was decreed exparte. On August 6, 1977, appellant appeared and moved an application under the proviso to Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 ('Act' for short) requesting the Court to permit him to give such security for the performance of the decree in lieu of the liability to deposit in cash the amount due from him under the decree. On the same day, the Court granted him the permission subject to the condition t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC899; [1983]54CompCas711(SC); (1983)2CompLJ309(SC); 1983(2)SCALE44; (1983)3SCC458; [1983]3SCR479
D.A. Desai, J.1. Plaintiff whose car was destroyed in fire way back in July 1953 and claimed a paltry sum of Rs. 7,000 from the respondent (Insurance Company for short) is knocking at the doors of Courts of Justice since last three decades and mirage of justice is still eluding him, and in his chase presumably he must have spent double the amount than prayed for in the plaint because this is the second round when the matter has reached the apex court.2. Plaintiff, who is the appellant was the owner of Austin 16 H.P. Motor Car, which he had insured with the original first defendant Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. ('Insurer' for short) in respect of accident, loss or damage. The period covered by the policy of insurance Ext. P-1 dated March 4, 1952 was from March 1, 1952 to February 28, 1953. This car suffered damage in an accident which occurred on December 21, 1952. The car was taken to car repairing workshop of P.S.N. Motors Ltd., Trichur and left there and an intimat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1090; 1983(2)SCALE78; (1983)4SCC7; [1983]3SCR475
A.P. Sen, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is clearly not maintainable and must be dismissed but in view of the growing trend of filing such frivolous applications, we deem it necessary to state the reasons therefor.2. It appears that the petitioner along with two others was arraigned before the Sessions Judge of Alwar in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 1976 for having committed an alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, alternatively, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code. By his finding and sentence dated April 21, 1977 the learned Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner and his two associates for having committed the murder of the deceased Jharia in furtherance of their common intention under Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life, while recording their acquittal under Section 302. On appeal, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) in Criminal Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1092; 1983CriLJ1445; 1983(2)Crimes590(SC); 1983(2)SCALE166; (1984)2SCC443
ORDER1. This is an application by the petitioner for permission to go back to Canada on the ground that she is suffering from cancer of the left ovary and she has been advised to take chemotherapy. The report of Dr. Talang who performed the operation of the petitioner at the Moolchand Hospital shows that the cancer is in the secondary stage and she is in a very bad state of health. When the application was made before us yesterday we requested Dr. Dhawan of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences to examine the petitioner and to make a report to us. Dr. Dhawan acceded to our request and examined the petitioner. He has made a report to us today. The report confirms that the petitioner is 'sick, thin and endemic and that the positive findings were a mass in the left fornis. The histology slides from the previous operation shows cancer of the left ovary. Dr. Dhawn also states that it was not possible for him to give an independent opinion as to the extent of cancer unless a major oper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC937; [1983]54CompCas674(SC); (1983)2CompLJ281(SC); 1983(2)SCALE16; (1983)4SCC166; [1983]3SCR438
D.A. Desai, J.1. In this group of writ petitions under Article 32 and appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, constitutional validity of Rule 3A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 1975 ('Deposits Rules' for short) introduced by Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Amendment Rules, 1978 which became operative from April 1, 1978 and incidentally of Section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 ('Act' for short) inserted by Companies (Amendment) Act, 1974 which came into force on February 1, 1975 is challenged. The challenge proceeds on diverse grounds which may be briefly summarised.2. At the very outset, it must be noticed that the factual matrix has little or practically no relevance in this case.3. The contention put in the forefront was that in the absence of guidelines both Section 58A and the Rule 3A of the Deposits Rules enacted in exercise of the power conferred by Section 58A confer arbitrary and uncanalised powers and hence are violative of Article 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC952; (1983)2CompLJ305(SC); (1983)35CTR(SC)395; [1983]144ITR57(SC); 1983(2)SCALE37; (1983)3SCC561; [1983]3SCR470
1. In this tax reference made under Section 257 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, we are called upon to express our opinion on the following question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the loss suffered by the assessee was not a loss incurred in a speculative transaction within the meaning of Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, 19612. The assessee, M/s. Shantilal Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, is a private limited company. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1971-72 it claimed a sum of Rs. 1, 50,000/- paid by it as damages to M/s. Medical Service center as a business loss. During the previous year relevant to the said assessment year the assessee had contracted to sell 200 Kilograms of Folic acid USP at the rate of Rs. 440/- per Kilogram to M/s. Medical Service center and the delivery was to be effected on or before November 1, 1969, within about three months of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1154; 1983(2)SCALE338; (1984)1SCC29
ORDER1. This appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is directed against an order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated July 13, 1977 rejecting an application for review.2. By an order dated May 9, 1977 the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India directed the appellant, who had misappropriated the decretal amount of Rs. 11,760.70 payable to the respondent, to pay the same to her in two instalments, one of Rs. 6,000/- by May 25, 1977 and another of Rs. 4,000/-within three months from May 9, 1977. The appellant was held guilty of grave professional misconduct and the Disciplinary Committee took a serious view of the matter but gave the appellant another chance. It accordingly directed that if the appellant paid the amount of Rs. 10,000/-as directed, he shall remain suspended from practice for a period of one year from August 10, 1977. On his failure to deposit Rs. 6,000/- by May 25, 1977 as stipulated, his name shall stand removed from the ...
Tag this Judgment!