Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1671; (1989)77CTR(SC)174; 1989(42)ELT350(SC); [1989]177ITR455(SC); JT1989(2)SC446; 1989(2)KLT1(SC); 1989(1)SCALE1275; (1989)3SCC52; [1989]2SCR1000
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. These appeals, by certificate granted by the High Court of Kerala, are directed against the judgment of that High Court answering the following question of law referred to it in an Income-tax Reference in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in cancelling the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1965-66 -and 1966-67 ?2. The assessee is a registered firm trading in hill produce. The assessee did not file its income-tax return under the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1965-66 Within the statutory period, that is to say by 30th June, 1965, and instead applied for time to file the return. Time was granted Up to 31st August, 1966. Yet no return was filed. It was only after notice under Section 139(2) of the Act was served on the assessee on 22nd September, 1967 that it. filed a return on the next day...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1692; [1989]66CompCas519(SC); (1989)2CompLJ159(SC); JT1989(2)SC543; 1989(1)SCALE1406; (1989)3SCC251; [1989]2SCR979; 1989(2)LC358(SC)
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. This appeal under s. of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the decision of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission dated November 13, 1987 in the Unfair Trade Practices Enquiry No. 76 of 198 passed under Section 36-D(1) of the Act forbidding the appellant Company from issuing certain type of advertisements as indicated in the order.2. The Commission issued a show case notice under Section 36-B of the Act to the appellant Company informing it that a proceeding had been instituted for making an inquiry whether the Company was indulging in certain unfair trade practices prejudicial to public interest within the meaning of Section 36-A. A copy of the notice has been attached to the petition of appeal as Annexure 'C', wherein it was alleged that,(i) although the Company was manufacturing 'Novino' batteries in collaboration with M/S Mitsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1890; 1989CriLJ2124; 1989(2)Crimes423(SC); JT1989(3)SC451; 1989(1)SCALE1313; 1989Supp(1)SCC560
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. This appeal under special leave is directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur disposing Criminal Reference No. 1 of 1977 submitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur under Section 366(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for confirmation of the sentence of death awarded by him in Session Trial No. 5 of 1977 and the Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 1977 preferred by the appellant, Ashok Kumar Chatterjee challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment made by the Trial Court convicting him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentencing to death and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years respectively.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows.3. The deceased Ravindra, who was 19 years of age at the time of occurrence in 1976 was the son of Pritosh Kumar Chatterjee who was employed in Bhatapara as Laboratory Assistant in Government Multi-purpose Higher Secondary School. He hailed from West Bengal. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1733; 1989(23)LC1(SC); 1989(43)ELT161(SC); JT1989(2)SC390; 1989(1)SCALE1485; 1989Supp(2)SCC332; [1989]2SCR873
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 16th December, 1976.2. The question in this case was the valuation of goods for the purpose of levy of excise duty under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), The respondent company held submitted its price list in Form IV to the Superintendent, Central Excise containing the price at which five companies to which it sold its entire output (hereinafter referred to as the Customer Companies) sold those products. The customer companies thereafter sold their products. The respondent challenged the direction of the Superintendent and had contended that for the purpose of levy of excise duty the value of us products should be the prices at which it sold those products to the customer companies and not the prices at which these in turn sold those products to wholesale dealers or others. The respondent company was registered under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1949; (1990)3CompLJ275(SC); (1990)1GLR309; [1989]178ITR151(SC); JT1989(3)SC72; 1989(1)SCALE1200; (1989)3SCC677; [1989]2SCR893; [1989]74STC157(SC)
M.N.Venkatachaliah, J.1. In these civil appeals and writ petitions the constitutional validity of legislations of different States viz., State of Gujarat, State of Tamil Nadu, State of Karnataka and Stats of West Bengal, imposing a tax on 'Luxuries' under Entry 62 of List II of VII Schedule to the Constitution of India is challenged.Civil Appeal Nos. 338 and 339 of 1981, writ-petition Nos. 7990, 9119, 8338, 8339 of 1981 relate to the challenge to the legislation by the State of Gujarat viz., the Gujarat Tax on Luxuries (Hotels & Lodging Houses) Act, 1977. Writ Petition No. 162 of 1982 pertains to the corresponding legislation of the State of Tamil Nadu viz., Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries in Hotels & Lodging Houses Act, 1981. Writ-petitions Nos. 1271 and 1272 of 1982 pertain to the challenge to corresponding Karnataka Legislation viz., The Karnataka Tax on Luxuries (Hotels and Lodging Houses) Act, 1979. W.P. No. 5321 of 1985 pertains to the challenge to West Bengal Entertainments and Luxur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1989(Suppl1)SC203; (1989)96PLR1; 1989(1)SCALE1421; (1989)3SCC151; [1989]2SCR1005
K.N. Singh, J.1. In this batch of Civil Appeals, Special Leave Petitions and Writ Petitions, under Article 32 of the Constitution, validity of Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 and the Notification No. 3205-LD-74/3614 dated September 24, 1974 issued thereunder by the Chief Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandigarh, granting exemption from Section 13 of the Act to buildings constructed in the urban are of Chandigarh for a period of five years have been challenged.2. The appellants in the appeals as well as the petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions and Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, are tenants of buildings, situate within the Urban Territory of Chandigarh. The buildings occupied by the appellants/petitioners as tenants were exempted from the operation of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a period of five years under the impugned Notification dated 24.9.1974. The landlords of these ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1602; JT1989(3)SC28; 1989(1)SCALE1270; (1989)3SCC145; [1989]2SCR970; 1989(2)LC398(SC)
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. The dispute in the present appeal by special leave is in regard to certain premises in the town of Ranchi in Bihar which belongs to the appellants and in which a cinema is running. The contesting respondents have been occupying the property under a registered lease for a period of years which expired on 31.7.1971. They served a notice on the appellants on 16.7.1971 claiming the right to continue in possession after 31.7.1971 as tenants from month to month. The appellants did not accept the claim and filed before Munsif, Ranchi a case purporting to be an application under Section 12 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondents contested the application and raised several points in defence which were rejected by the learned Munsif. The appellant's application was allowed and an appeal therefrom filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. The respondents, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989(22)ECC297; 1989(24)LC209(SC); [1989]184ITR308(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated January 12, 1988.2. The respondent company manufactured wireless receiving sets, tape recorders, tape players which were assessable under Tariff items Nos. 33A and 37AA of the Central Excise Tariff and it had filed a classification list and price lists in respect of the said goods. On verification of the said lists, it was found that the goods were unbranded and, on investigation, it was alleged to have come to the notice of the Department that the respondent company was engaged in the manufacture of wireless receiving sets and tape recorders in the brand name of 'Bush'. From the documents filed by the respondent, according to the appellants, it was revealed that the respondent manufactured their entire products in the brand name of 'Bush' from the very beginning and were selling the same exclusively to Bush India Ltd. or its authorised wholesale dealers only. This ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1568; 1989(2)SCALE1153; (1989)3SCC112; [1989]2SCR858; 1989(2)LC208(SC)
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. On 31 July, 1987, we allowed this writ petition and directed the respondents to admit the petitioner, Meenakshi Malik, in one of the three Delhi Medical Colleges in the first year course prescribed for the M.B.B.S. Degree. We said that the reasons would be pronounced later. We proceed to do so now.2. The petitioner was born in Delhi on 8 September, 1967. Her father, Shri O.P. Malik, was employed in the National Council of Educational Research and Training, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi and her mother, Smt. Kanta Devi Malik was employed in the Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Mehrauli, New Delhi. The petitioner attended the Junior Public School, Shakti Nagar, up to Class II and the Cambridge School, Siriniwaspuri, New Delhi, up to Class IX until 19 January, 1982. The petitioner's father was placed on deputation in January, 1982 with the Government of Nigeria to serve in its Ministry of Education through the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1541; JT1989(2)SC251; 1989(1)SCALE1148; 1989Supp(2)SCC91; [1989]2SCR862; 1989(2)LC206(SC)
R.S. Pathak, C.J.I.1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed by Baldev Raj Sharma against an order of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana rejecting his application for enrolment as an advocate. 2. On 4 March, 1972 the petitioner passed the Bachelor of Arts examination from the Punjab University, Patiala. In 1978 he joined the Bachelor of Laws (Academic) course in Kurukshetra University. The course is of two years' duration. The petitioner completed the course and on 1 January, 1981 he was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Laws (Academic) by the Kurukshetra University. During the year 1981 the petitioner joined the LL.B. (Professional) course in the third year in Kanpur University as a regular student. The Kanpur University confers two distinct degrees, LL.B. (General), which is a two year course, and LL.B. (Professional), which is a three year course. A person who has been awarded the LL.B. (General) degree is eligible for admission to the LL.B, (Profe...
Tag this Judgment!