Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC247; 1991(2)SCALE825; 1991Supp(2)SCC340
ORDERK.K. Singh, T.K. Thommen and Kuldip Singh, JJJ.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing the appellant's Writ Petition on the ground that it involved disputed questions of facts which could be determined by the Civil Court in a suit. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record we find that the case does not involve any disputed questions of facts instead on admitted facts the appellant is entitled to relief.3. The appellant is the Sub-Distributors of M/s. Unimech Appliances, it has a Current Account No. 525 with the Indian Bank, Barkatpura Branch, Hyderabad. The appellant had been depositing money through cheques in its Current Account from time to time. During the period 15-1-87 to 13-5-87 the appellant had deposited cheques in the Indian Bank; the amounts under those were realised by the Bank and credited to the appellant's account but later on a sum of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC355; 1991Supp(2)SCC262
1. Civil Appeal No. 333/81 was filed against the order of the Division Bench passed on 10th April, 1980 dismissing LPA No. 125/1980 affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 1873/77 Reported in 1980 Land LR 13 (Punj & Har). The subject matter of dispute is whether bringing horlicks powder in bulk container from outside State i.e. from Nabha in Punjab to Faridabad in Haryana for the purpose of repacking the same in small containers and then exporting the same outside the State for the purpose of sale etc. amounts to consumption, use or sale within the octroi limits of Faridabad. It has been held by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4160/89 'we see no ground as to why amount should not be refunded. Realisation of tax or money without the authority of law is bad under Article 265 of the Constitution. Octroi cannot be levied or collected in respect of goods which are not used or consumed of sold within, the municipal limits. So these amount...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC101; (1991)1CompLJ1(SC); JT1990(3)SC725; 1991LabIC91; (1991)ILLJ395SC; 1991Supp(1)SCC600; [1990]Supp1SCR142; 1991(1)SLJ56(SC)
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, CJ.1. These civil appeals, special leave petitions and civil miscellaneous petitions deal with the question of constitutional validity of the right of the employer to terminate the services of permanent employees without holding any inquiry in certain circumstances by reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice. The facts involved in these matters are diverse but the central question involved in all these is one, i.e. whether the clauses permitting the employers or the authorities concerned to terminate the employment of the employees by giving reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice but without holding any inquiry, are constitutionally valid and, if not, what would be the consequences of termination by virtue of such clauses or powers, and further whether such powers and clauses could be so read with such conditions which would make such powers constitutionally and legally valid? In order to appreciate the question the factual matrix of these cases so far a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC477; 1991Supp(2)SCC506
B.C. Ray, J.1. The only question that falls for decision in this case is whether the Government of U.P. is competent to insist that the Brick Manufacturers should take out licence for using coal for the purpose of manufacturing bricks. The licence is insisted upon under U.P. Coal Control Order, 1977. When the manufacturers of the bricks did not take licences, they were sought to be prosecuted by the State authorities. They, therefore, moved the High Court challenging the action of the Government. The High Court held that the Coal Control Order 'in so far as it relates to regulating the manufacture, distribution and fixation of price etc. in respect of bricks, cannot be upheld and deserves to be struck down to that extent.' The High Court further held that the prosecution of the petitioners of the said Writ Petition who are respondents in these appeals proposed to be launched for contravention of the provisions of the Coal Control Order cannot be sustained and the first information repo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC70; (1990)3CompLJ200(SC); (1990)88CTR(SC)61; [1990]186ITR278(SC); JT1990(4)SC353; 1990Supp(1)SCC675; [1990]Supp1SCR332; 1990(2)LC633(SC)
Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 15-4-1975 answering the Income-tax Reference made to it by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant-Saraswati Industrial Syndicate is a limited Company carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of sugar and machinery for sugar mills and other industries. Another Company, namely, the Indian Sugar and General Engineering Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Indian Sugar Company') was also manufacturing machinery parts for sugar mills. On 28th September 1962 under the orders of the High Court the Indian Sugar Company was amalgamated with the appellant Company. After the amalgamation, the Indian Sugar Company lost its identity, as it did not carry on any business. Prior to the amalgamation the Indian Sugar Company had been allowed expenditure to the extent of Rs. 58,735/- on accrual basis in its ea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC241; (1990)88CTR(SC)66; 1991(31)ECC360; 1991(51)ELT176(SC); [1991]187ITR688(SC); JT1990(4)SC346; 1991Supp(2)SCC744; [1990]Supp1SCR340
ORDERK.N. Singh, J.1. The appellant is a Government Corporation engaged in jute industry. It was assessed to income tax for the 7 assessment year 1974-75 by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee preferred appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. During the hearing of the appeal, the assessee raised an additional ground claiming deduction of Rs. 11,54,995/- on the ground of liability of Purchase-tax. The assessee claimed that in view of the decision of this Court in Kedarnath Jute Company Ltd. v. Commt. of Income-tax : [1971]82ITR363(SC) 5 the aforesaid amount being tax liability should be deducted from its income for purposes of charging tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner permitted the assessee to raise the additional ground and after hearing the Income-tax Officer, he accepted the assessee's claim and allowed deduction of Rs. 11,54,995/- in computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75. The Revenue preferred appeal before the Income-tax Ap...
Tag this Judgment!