Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC629
M.N. Venkatachaliah and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondents before us were parties to an earlier proceeding in this Court being Writ Petition No. 657 of 1986 and had in terms of the directions of the Court dated May 2, 1986 given undertaking to the Court that they shall remove the handcarts, cabins etc. on or before December 31, 1986, and the undertaking would be subject to the provision made in clause 2 of the order, namely that they will be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in respect of location of the area or the place in the trading zones where the petitioners and other hawkers will be permitted to carry on their trade in the final scheme.2. After the said order of this Court, schemes were framed and finalised when the High Court approved the same. On the plea that the provisions in the scheme are not being worked out appropriately and the respondents have not been provided suitable places within the hawking zone, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC2138; (1989)2CompLJ95(SC); JT1989(2)SC338; 1989(1)SCALE1353; 1990Supp(1)SCC440; [1989]3SCR43
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In these transferred writ petitions and one suit, we are concerned with the powers, functions and the role of the Controller of Capital Issues. By an order dated 9th September, 1988 this Court had directed that the four writ petitions and one civil suit i.e., W.P. No. 1791/88 pending before the Delhi High Court, W.P. No. 2708/88 pending before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, W.P. No. 12176/88 pending before the Karnataka High Court, W.P. No. 4388/88 pending before the High Court of Bombay and Civil Suit No. 1172/88 pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division Bench, Baroda, Gujarat, be transferred to this Court for disposal. It would be appropriate to deal with the facts of one of these, i.e., W.P. No. 1791/ 88, which was filed in Delhi High Court in T.C. No. 161/88. The other writ petitions and the suit raise more or less identical problems and issues on more or less same facts. 2. The petitioner in that writ petition is one Narendra' Kumar M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1524; JT1989(2)SC588; 1989(1)SCALE1570; (1989)3SCC239
Ranganath Misra, J.1. These two appeals are by special leave and are directed against the reversing order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made in two connected civil revisions granting eviction from two shop-rooms located at Hoshiarpur.2. The ground for eviction was subletting and relying upon the evidence placed on record, particularly that of Ram Lal, son of Durga ass who was the tenant, the Controller and the Controller and the Appellant Authority had found that there was subletting. It is not necessary to refer to the evidence as counsel for the landlord-respondent on the suggestion of the Court and after obtaining instructions from the respondent has agreed to accept Ram Lal as the sole tenant of the twy shop-rooms. Parties have agreed that the per room shall be @ Rs. 200 per month. We direct that rent at this rate shall be payable from 1.1.1988. The rent due upto 30.4.1989 @ Rs. 200 per month per room shall be paid by the appellant on before 30.6.1989 after deducting such p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC448; 1989(22)ECC304; 1989(24)LC216(SC); JT1989(3)SC18; 1989(1)SCALE1488; [1989]2SCR871; 1989(2)LC341(SC)
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave and is connected with Civil 50 Appeal No. 859. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 30th May, 1986.2. It appears that in October, 1975, Trade Notices were issued on the basis of the directive of the Ministry of Finance to the effect that the owners of the brand name are to be treated as the manufacturers of the goods. In April, 1977, price list submitted by the respondent declaring the assessable value on the basis of the price at which the assessee-respondent sold the goods. Thereafter on 16th April, 1977, there was a letter written by respondent giving the list of the customers of the respondent and clarifying the terms and conditions on which the assessee sold the goods. On August 22, 1977, the appellants wrote a letter to the assessee-respondent seeking certain information, inter-alia, to the effect whether the assessee and its buyers were related persons. A reply was given o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1664; (1989)77CTR(SC)168; [1989]178ITR140(SC); (1989)3SCC698; [1989]2SCR880; [1989]74STC146(SC); 1989(2)LC391(SC)
M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India petitioners who are hoteliers challenge on grounds of lack of legislative competence and of violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) the constitutional validity of the Hotel Receipts Tax Act, 1980, ('Act' for short) which imposes a special tax on the gross receipts of certain category of hotels. Section 3 of the Act limits the application of the 'Act' to those hotels where the 'room-charges' for residential accommodation provided to any person during the previous year are Rs. 75/- or more per day per individual. If a hotel is within this class then Section 5 brings to charge the Hotel's 'chargeable-receipts' as defined under Section 6 of the Act.The Act was passed on 4-12-1980 and came into force on 9-12-1980 when it received the assent of the President of India. The levy under the 'Act' commences from the assessment-year 1981-82 and brings to tax the chargeable receipts of the correspo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1707; (1989)3CompLJ319(SC); (1989)77CTR(SC)166; [1990]183ITR43(SC); JT1989(2)SC335; 1989(1)SCALE1567; 1989Supp(2)SCC642; [1989]2SCR994
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. Special Leave granted.2. These appeals by Special Leave are directed against the dismissal by the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Writ Petitions filed by the appellant.3. The appellant, Messrs Electronics Corporation of India Limited, entered into a memorandum of understanding with a Norwegian company at Paris. This was followed by an agreement dated 2 May, 1986 executed at Hyderabad. Under that agreement the Norwegian company was to provide technical know-how and technical services, including facilities for the training of personnel, to the appellant in connection with the manufacture of computers. The consideration for the technical know-how and technical services was represented by Norwegian currency NOK 32 Millions equivalent to about Rs. 575 lakhs. Eighty five per cent of the consideration was to be paid from credit provided by Norwegian authorities and the balance fifteen per cent was to be paid out of free foreign exchange made available by the State Bank of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC239
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave and is connected with Civil Appeal No. 859. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 30th May, 1986.2. It appears that in October, 1975, Trade Notice were issued on the basis of the directive of the Ministry of Finance to the effect that the owners of the brand name are to be treated as the, manufacturers of the goods. In April, 1977, price list submitted by the respondent declaring the assessable value on the basis of the price at which the assessee-respondent sold the goods. Thereafter on 16the April, 1977, there was a letter written by respondent giving the list of the customers of the respondent and clarifying the terms and conditions on which the assessee sold the goods. On August 22, 1977, the appellants wrote a letter to the assessee-respondent seeking certain information, inter-alia to the effect whether the assessee and its buyers were related persons. A reply was given on 10th S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1710; (1989)77CTR(SC)177; [1989]177ITR490(SC); JT1989(3)SC177; 1989(1)SCALE1479; 1989Supp(1)SCC499; [1989]2SCR987
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. The facts in these appeals lie within a narrow compass. One Abdulhussein Gulamhussein Merchant died on 8 February, 1959. The accountable persons filed returns under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 and an assessment was made by the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty on 26 February, I960. The Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958, repealed the original sections 56 to 65. Section 59, which substituted for the original s. 62, made provision for reassessment. It came into force with effect from 1 July, 1960. On 21 February, 1962 a notice under the new Section 59 of the Act was issued to the accountable person concerned for reopening the assessment on the ground that some property had escaped the levy of estate duty. The accountable persons raised objections to the reopening of the assessment under Section 59. The Assistant Controller rejected the contentions of the accountable persons and reopened the assessment. Against the order of reassessment the accountable pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1637; (1989)77CTR(SC)141; [1989]178ITR97(SC); (1989)3SCC634; [1989]2SCR918; [1989]74STC102(SC); 1990(1)LC157(SC)
M.N. Vknkatachaliah, J.1. In these writ-petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, petitioners who are engaged in, or associated with, the Hotel Industry in India challenge the constitutional validity of the Expenditure-Tax Act, 1987 (Central Act 35 of 1987). The Act envisages a tax at 10 per cent advalorem on 'chargeable-expenditure' incurred in the class of Hotels wherein 'room-charges' for any unit of residential accommodation are Rupees Four Hundred per day per individual. The 'Chargeable-expenditure' as defined in Section 5 of the Act include expenditure incurred in or payments made in such class of hotels in connection with the provision of any accommodation, residential or otherwise, food or drink whether at or outside the hotel; or for any accommodation in such hotel on hire or lease; or any other services envisaged in that Section. However, any expenditure incurred in or paid for in 'foreign exchange' or by persons who enjoy certain diplomatic privileges and immu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1441; 1989CriLJ1459; 1989(2)Crimes257(SC); JT1989(2)SC586; 1989(1)SCALE1562; 1989Supp(1)SCC558
ORDERRanganath Misra, J.1. This is an application under Article 136 of the Constitution and is directed against the order of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 370 of of 1987 dismissing it by saying :In view of the rival versions and contentions, we consider it not appropriate to give any finding of facts. The petitioner, if so advised, can take appropriate steps but in the present petition, no relief can be granted.2. The petitioner alleged that the respondents entered into her house in the afternoon of 15th of July, 1987, and physically assaulted her, subjected her to torture in various ways and even outraged her modesty and paraded her in the street after rubbing black shoe polish on her face. The allegations made in the writ petition were seriously disputed and the High Court found it difficult in the face of such challenge to come to any conclusion and, therefore, relegated the petitioner to any other proceeding. This order of the High Court has been assailed in th...
Tag this Judgment!