Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)1UPLBEC469
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedRespondent assaulted his opponent Advocate with a knife. Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council empowered to pass Order imposing punishment on advocate found guilty of professional or other misconduct. Punishment of removal of name from roll of Advocates called for where misconduct is such as to show that Advocate is unworthy of remaining in profession. A person who is involved in offence involving moral turpitude disqualified for being admitted as advocate on State roll of advocates. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]247ITR800(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal, by certificate granted by the Madras High Court under section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arises out of a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in which the following question was answered by the High Court in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue (see : [1979]119ITR458(Mad) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held by the Appellate Tribunal that the provisions of section 79 would not apply to unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate ?'2. We have heard Shri Ranbir Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, in support of the appeal. One of the conditions for the applicability of Section 79 is that there should be a change in the shareholding of the company. Shri Ranbir Chandra has not been able to show that a finding has been recorded by any authority regarding the change of shareholding of the company for the applicability of Section 79. We, therefore, do not find any merit in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(97)ELT404(SC); (1997)11SCC179
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Writ Petition (Civil) 1583 of 1986 -The writ petitioners imported stainless steel strips. The stainless steel strips arrived at Bombay on 6th September, 1976. They were cleared for home consumption on 16th and 30th September, 1976. They were cleared giving them the benefit of exemption from customs duty as provided by exemption Notification No. 256-Cus./76 issued under the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. On 10th and 11th January, 1977, the writ petitioners received notices to show cause why they should not be charged duty at the unexampled rate on the ground that the width of the said strips was in excess of that permitted by the said exemption Notification. 2. On 24th February, 1977, exemption Notification No. 27/77 was is sued giving an exemption from customs duty to stainless steel strips of a width exceeding 127 mm and of a thickness of 3.175 mm and above.3. On 25th March, 1977, the petitioners wrote to the Central Board of Excise and Custo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(2)SC106; 1997(1)SCALE517; (1997)3SCC161; [1997]1SCR603; [1997]106STC1(SC)
Bharucha, J. C.A.No. 3381/931. The impugned judgment (reported in 87 S.T.C. 534) was delivered by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan. It rejected a writ petition filed by the present appellant against an order of the Board of Revenue.2. The Assessment Years in question are 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. The assessee (respondent) manufactures tyre cord fabric. That tyre cord fabric was, at the relevant time, covered by term 'textile' is not in dispute.3. Three notifications were issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. They are dated 14th December, 1957, 12th August, 1980, and 2nd January, 1981, and they read thus: 1.'F.5(48) E&T;/57-II, dated December 14, 1957:In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 74 of 1956), the State Government being satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, directs that no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(101)ELT560(SC); (1997)11SCC150
ORDER1. In this case, the respondent-assessee filed a refund claim which application was returned to be re-submitted in the prescribed form. Instead of resubmitting the refund application in the prescribed form, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court which has been allowed. It appears that the writ petition was preferred beyond the period of six months prescribed by the Central Excises and Salt [Act], 1944 for filing the refund claim. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The Revenue shall be entitled to enforce the bank guarantee and shall be entitled to recover the duty due in accordance with law.2. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]249ITR791(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal, by certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court under Section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arises out of a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') wherein the following question was referred for the opinion of the High Court (page 919) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1 lakh was income derived from money lent at interest and brought into Pakistan in cash or in kind within the meaning of item No. 5(f) to the Schedule to the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Pakistan ?'2. The High Court has answered the said question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. It relates to the assessment year 1949-50.3. The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee was the managing agent of two sugar mills situated in East Pakistan. The assessee had lent moneys to the managed companies in East ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC864; JT1997(2)SC182; (1997)2MLJ84(SC); 1997(1)SCALE557; (1997)3SCC131; [1997]1SCR632
ORDERS.C. Agrawal1. Ishwar Prasad Arya, respondent No. 1, was registered as an advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and was practising at Badaun. An incident took place on May 18, 1971 during lunch interval at about 1.55 p.m., in which respondent No. 1 assaulted his opponent Radhey Shyam in the Court room of Munsif/Magistrate, Bisauli at Badaun with a knife. A pistol shot is also said to have been fired by him at the time of incident. After investigation he was prosecuted for offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The 1st Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated July 3, 1972, convicted him of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. and for a period of nine months for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. were maintained by the High Court by its judgment date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(90)ELT260(SC); JT1997(2)SC335; 1997(1)SCALE716; (1997)5SCC744; [1997]1SCR648
ORDER1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. So far as the question of levy of surcharge of ten percent which is in issue herein is concerned, we affirm the judgment and order of the Madras High Court. So far as the question of refund is concerned, it is obvious that it shall be governed by the law declared in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India : 1997(89)ELT247(SC) , read with Clause (6) of the format order, a copy of which is enclosed herewith, which is as follows: 'Where a refund application or an appeal is preferred under and in accordance with the directions (1), (2), (3) and (4) above, the same shall be entertained only if the applicant for refund/appellant files affidavit stating that he has not passed on the burden of the duty, which is claimed by way of refund, to another person. In case the applicant for refund is a company or a society, the affidavit shall be sworn by the Managing Director or the Principal Officer of the Company or the Society, as the case may be. Such an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1666; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)591; 1997CriLJ1162; JT1997(2)SC39; (1997)4SCC486
ORDER1. Smt. Pratibha (since deceased) was the daughter of Kamal Goyal (PW 2) a resident of Sangrur. She was married to Ravi Kumar (A-3) on February 19, 1981. It was an arranged marriage. Kamal Goyal comes from a middle class family and is in service with limited source of income. At the proposal stage Kamal Goyal alleged to have made it clear that having regard to his means the marriage would be a simple one. He claimed to have spent on marriage of Pratibha an amount of Rs. 70,000/-. Ravi Kumar (A-3) and Narinder Kumar (A-4) who has been acquitted are the sons of Baldev Krishan (A-1). Sarda Devi (A-2) is the wife of A-1. They are the residents of Jullundur city, owning a ground floor and one storey house. On the ground floor they run business in electric goods under the name of B.K. Electrical Industry; whereas the first floor is used for their residence. It is a joint Hindu family. Baldev Krishan being a businessman was then having comparatively a better financial position.2. Smt. Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1750; JT1997(2)SC400; RLW1997(2)SC292; 1997(1)SCALE746; (1997)3SCC627; [1997]1SCR652
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in October, 1977 for construction of Amerja Project. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award under Section 11 awarded compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per acre. On reference, the District Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,300/- per acre for dry lands and Rs. 9,820/- per acre for Bgayat Lands (cultivable lands). On appeal, the High Court dismissed the same and confirmed the award of the reference Court. Thus, this special leave petition.3. It is contended for the petitioners that in similar circumstances, the Additional Civil Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 12,000/-per acre for the irrigated land and Rs. 8,000/- per acre for the dry lands and confirmed by the judgment of the High Court in RFA Nos. 1160 and 1825/92 and, therefore, the petitioners also are entitled to the same compensation. We find no force in the contention. It is now well settled legal position that in...
Tag this Judgment!