|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 35 Records
-
1958 (8) TMI 63 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed with the family. I am, therefore, of opinion that there was sufficient ground of the nature envisaged under Order XXIII, Rule 1 (2) and the Court should have granted permission to the applicant to withdraw the suit against these three defendants with permission to bring a fresh suit. Of course, as the application was made at a late stage, these defendants required to be compensated by payment of their costs incurred in the suit. 6. I, therefore, allow the application and permit the plaintiff applicant to withdraw the suit against defendants Nos. 6, 7 and 8 who are opposite parties Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in this Court, provided the plaintiff pays the entire costs of these three defendants incurred up to 21-5-1954 by them in the suit before he files a fresh suit against them with respect to the claim which he is being permitted to withdraw. I order parties to bear their own costs of this Court because the application of the defendants was not as well drafted as it should have been.
-
1958 (8) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ransport voters to the Bholanwali polling booths. One of them was in charge of his father, Hariram and another, his worker Bahadur Singh. It is difficult to imagine that after getting knowledge of this on March 1, 1957, as he must have got, the appellant would not have prohibited the commission of such acts in future, if he did not intend to approve of them. But, as a fact, we find that such acts were repeated regularly on the polling on the 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th March, and to some of them his own agents were parties. From the above facts, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that all the above acts were committed not haphazard but by design, and that the appellant must have consented to them. That is an inference which the learned Judges were entitled to draw, and being one of fact, this Court will not disturb it. In our opinion, that inference was a perfectly reasonable one to come to, and we accept it. 7. In the result, the appeal fails, and is dismissed with costs.
-
1958 (8) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
... ...
... ... ..... 1196 of 1955 and directs and re-delivery of the properties mentioned in the schedules to those petitions to the respective petitioners is set aside. C. M. A. Nos. 69, 71, 72 and 73 of 1956 (M) are accordingly allowed as above, with costs here and below. In C. M. A. No. 70 of 1956 (M) we remand I. A. No. 1162 of 1955 for fresh finding from the lower court as to who were the persons in possession of the properties mentioned in that petition at the time of the delivery, whether the petitioners have been dispossessed of all or some of those properties by the said delivery, and also as to whether the persons competent to represent thavazhi No. 1 after the death of defendant 1, as per the provisions of Ext. B1, have been impleaded or not. The lower court will submit the findings within eight weeks of the receipt of the records in that court, after giving both sides another opportunity to adduce evidence. Time for filing objections here to the findings of the lower court, ten days.
-
1958 (8) TMI 60 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... interested. In this case the party primarily interested is the deity and therefore the requisition proceeding should not be allowed to continue without serving notice upon the deity. 50. The result is that this application in so far as it challenges the validity of the order made under Section 3 of the Act and in so far as it challenges Section 3, of the Act itself, fails, and to that extent the Rule must be discharged. But it must be made absolute in part and a writ in the nature of mandamus issued and the respondents must be restrained from proceeding further with the requisition proceeding without serving the order and/or notice upon the petitioner No. 1, the deity, Sri Sri Lakshmi Janardan Jew. A properly signed notice should be served upon petitioner No. 2 as well. The notices or orders should be served in accordance with law and then the requisition proceeding will proceed in accordance with the Act and the rules made thereunder. 51. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1958 (8) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he 10th consignment were passed on the appellants paying the full amount of assessment under protest and without prejudice to their rights. 32. The result is that the decision of the learned Judge dismissing the petition with costs will be set aside and the directions mentioned in the judgment will be given on this petition to the respondents. 33. On the question of costs, the Advocate General submits that in view of the fact that the Collector of Customs has agreed through his counsel to give effect to the directions contained in this judgment and the appellants have also agreed to abide by the decision of the Collector subject to the right of appeal and revision or any other remedy in law, the proper order would be that there should be no order as to costs throughout. We accept that submission and direct that there will be no order as to costs throughout. 34. Liberty to the appellants' attorneys to withdraw the sum of ₹ 500 deposited in Court. 35. Appeal allowed.
-
1958 (8) TMI 58 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... entitled to decline to accept that computation for purposes of assessment in the periods not covered by the scheme. The Tribunal observed in paragraph 4 of its order "Perhaps in this case if the market value of the property in question as at the date of the reoccupation is available, such a value could have been adopted for purposes of arriving at the profit on resale thereof subsequently." That, in our opinion, was a wholly erroneous approach to the determination of the question, whether any profits were realised by the sale of the properties in the accounting period in question. he Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in confirming the computation of the cost price of the properties at 20,036 dollars of Malayan currency. If that basis is accepted, the computation of the profits in the year of account at 4,464 dollars was correct. We answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. As the assessee had failed, he will pay the costs of this reference.
-
1958 (8) TMI 57 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es not preclude the Department from approaching the Court for realisation of the tax under Section 151 C. P. C. if moneys belonging to the assessee are available. 6. Lastly, Mr. Suryanarayana Murthy sought to raise a point of limitation. His argument is that since Section 46 of the Indian Income Tax Act prescribes a period of one year the application ought to have been dismissed as these applications have been filed beyond one year. It is not necessary to consider the validity of this argument as this is raised for the first time here. This is not a pure question of law. We have no material as to whether the orders of assessment were subjected to appeals and reference under Section 66 of the Income Tax Act and when they became final. This requires investigation and there is no material upon which this could be disposed of. 7. In the result, the appeals are dismissed with costs. 8. The alternative C. R. Ps. are also dismissed without costs as the points involved are the same.
-
1958 (8) TMI 56 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bring to the notice of the Court the relevant material is covered by the terms of Order 47, rule, 1 Civil Procedure Code. The mistake of the counsel would be a sufficient ground for granting review as "any other sufficient cause." Ram Das v. Ganga Das AIR1956Pat20, Ram Murti v. Bank of Patiala A.I.R. 1951 Pepsu 54, Harit Krishna v. Anil Krishna AIR1951Cal469 , and Devji Vasta v. Dhanji Nanji A.I.R. 1952 Kut. 45. 11. But where as in this case, the judgment is based on two or more grounds, each of which is sufficient to sustain it independently of the other, it is not liable to be reviewed even though one of the said grounds on which the judgment is based is erroneous and the error may even be apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the review application cannot be brought in under the clause" any other sufficient reason." 12. The conclusion of the learned District Munsif declining to review is irreproachable and this Revision Petition is dismissed.
-
1958 (8) TMI 55 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 9;s clients in their application dated the 22nd April, relate only to the constitution of the Board of Directors and management. Though they have supported the scheme, they have indicated their apprehension by suggesting that a Special Officer should be appointed to manage the affairs of the Bank, and that he should be under the control of this court. They have said that full payment to the depositors should be made in five years instead 6 seven years; but they have not indicated how the Bank can find money to do so. 34. I am clearly of the opinion that the proposed scheme is quite unworkable. No useful purpose will be served by sending it for consideration to the creditors and share-holders because it will not at all be possible for me to sanction it even if they approve of it by the requisite majority. 35. In the circumstances mentioned above, I reject the scheme proposed by the Bank, and I hereby direct that the Bank be wound up. 36. The parties will bear their own costs.
-
1958 (8) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a of wrongful dismissal. If he had only brought the suit within the period prescribed by s. 326 of the (I) (1919) I.L.R. 43 Mad. 185, 213. Act, he might possibly have got some relief from the Court. He however chose to wait till the decision of the State Government on his appeal and overstepped the limit of time to his own detriment. We are unable to come to any other conclusion than the one reached above and the appeal must, therefore, stand dismissed; but in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we make no order " to costs. The appellant was given leave to proceed as a pauper and he prosecuted this appeal in form a pauperis . s. lie has failed in the appeal and we do order that he shall pay the court-fee which would have been paid by him if he had not been permitted to appeal as a pauper. The Registrar shall send to the AttorneyGeneral for India a memorandum of the court-fees payable by him as required by Or. XIV, r. 12, of the Supreme Court Rules. Appeal dismissed.
-
1958 (8) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the impugned notification. It has, however, been held by this court in The State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy 1953 S.C.R. 334 that in making a reference under s. 10(1) tile appropriate government is doing an administrative Act and the fact that it has to form an opinion as to the factual existence of an industrial dispute as a preliminary step to the discharge of its function does not make it any the less administrative in character. That being so, we think it would be more appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus against the appellant in respect of the impugned notification. We would also like to add that since the first two industrial disputes referred by the appellant under the first two notifications have remained pending before the tribunal for a fairly long time, it is desirable that the tribunal should take up these references on its file and dispose of them as expeditiously as possible. In the result, the appeals fail and must be dismissed with costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1958 (8) TMI 52 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... question, the petitioner's case is that black-marketing in Government stores had been taken into consideration when assessment was originally made and that the present action under section 34 and the subsequent assessment amount to review of the previous order on the same material which was available at the time of the original assessment, and, therefore, it does not amount to taxing the escaped profits. It is also urged that there is no material on the record to justify the addition of ₹ 50,000 over and above ₹ 1,00,000 already added under this head. This, in our opinion, also raises a question of law on which the Tribunal should state the case and refer the same to this court for decision. Accordingly, this petition is accepted with costs and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to state the case and refer the two questions of law mentioned above for decision by this court. Counsel's fee ₹ 150. BHANDARI, C.J.-- I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1958 (8) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... either a toll or a tax or a nuptial present given as the price of a bride. A son should be relieved of the obligation to pay a toll which his father has become liable to pay. Probably this is because a toll is payable on the spot and as the obligation arises as the result of an evasion for which he may be convicted and fined, it was an obligation ex delicto. It may be the conduct of a father in evading payment of a toll was not good conduct. The appellant's learned counsel did not develop the point; nor did he cite any authority for the position that the word sulka occurring in the smriti texts would apply to arrears of income-tax. We have no doubt that the plaintiffs cannot escape their liability to discharge the debt incurred by the second defendant, that is, the arrears of income-tax, on the ground that the obligation to pay the tax is an avyavaharika debt. The appeal fails and is dismissed with the costs of the first respondent, the Union of India. Appeal dismissed.
-
1958 (8) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ." It was on the application of the explanation that the Tribunal rejected the claim. We have already pointed out that the explanation would apply only if the municipal rates had constituted an annual charge within the meaning of section 9(1)(iv). We have held that they did not constitute such an annual charge. There is, therefore, no necessity for us to examine in these proceedings the scope of the explanation, to verify if it would refer to taxes or rates imposed by authorities outside India. As the municipal rates payable by the assessee under the laws in Ceylon did not constitute an annual charge within the meaning of section 9(1)(iv) of the Act, the assessee was not entitled to claim the payments towards those rates as lawful deductions permitted by section 9(1) of the Act. We answer the fourth question in the negative and against the assessee. As neither side has wholly succeeded in this reference there will be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1958 (8) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n it is based; on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In the present case, even if we had held that the Income-tax Officer had not exercised jurisdiction not vested in him, it is clear that he had ignored the provisions of Section 3 of the Income-tax Act and has totally disregarded the effect of that provision of law which takes away his right to charge tax on the income of the association so that he has committed a manifest error apparent on the face of the record. It is, therefore, a fit case where a writ of certiorari should be issued by this Court. 6. We accordingly allow this petition and quash the assessment orders dated 23-4-1955. The subsequent proceedings for recovery need not be quashed as the original orders of assessment, under which those proceedings have been taken, having been quashed, the subsequent proceedings automatically become null and void. The petitioners will be entitled to their costs of this petition which we fix at ₹ 200/-.
-
1958 (8) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 60, 64 and 65 of 1955 and R.C. Nos. 97, 98, 102, 112, 113 and 115 of 1956. B Where an assessee has made payments, he will be entitled to deduct from his income and claim exemption from tax for only such amounts as he has paid on account of interest. He will not be entitled to deduct any payments on account of principal. In this category of cases too, statements have been filed in certain cases. The Tribunal will have to check and verify them and revise the assessments in the light of our directions. In all these cases, the assessees will pay the costs of the Department. Counsel's fee ₹ 250 in each case. The cases in this category are R.C. Nos. 59 of 1954, 42, 43, 75 and 82 of 1955 and 64 of 1957. In all these cases, as a further investigation of the factual position is necessary, the Tribunal should give both the assessees and the Department a further opportunity of placing before the Tribunal such material as is available to them. References answered accordingly.
-
1958 (8) TMI 47 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oint of view that I have enumerated above, and to exercise his discretion in a judicial manner. All I am concerned with is to see that he does so, and I am not concerned with the merits of the case. The order, therefore, will be that the Rule is made absolute in part and the order of the Wealth Tax Officer contained in letter dated 24th of March 1958, which is annexure 'H' to the petition, rejecting the application of the petitioner not to treat him as a defaulter, is quashed and/or set aside and a Writ of Certiorari issued therefor. The matter will now go back, to be dealt with by the Wealth Tax Officer dealing with the matter, to consider the application of the petitioner under Section 31(3) of the Act, and deal with it in accordance with law. 4. There will be no order as to costs. 5. By agreement of the parties, a notice of the hearing will be given within a week and the order will be made within 3 weeks and there will be a stay of further proceedings for 3 weeks.
-
1958 (8) TMI 46 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e 17(3-A) under which the Commercial Tax Officer had acted and made the assessment in question is itself invalid and that the assessment is, therefore, unsustainable for that reason also. As we have found the assessment to be unsustainable even otherwise, it is not necessary to consider this alternative contention in the present case. 14.. In the result, the order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated 30th March, 1955, in so far as it assesses the petitioners to sales tax on the sum of Rs. 6,34,033-12-6 mentioned in that order as escaped turnover, and the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated 30th November, 1955, in so far as it relates to the said amount of Rs. 6,34,033-12-6, are set aside and it is hereby ordered that the petitioners are not liable to be taxed on that amount and if any tax has been realised in respect of the same it shall be refunded to them. The Tax Revision Petition is allowed as above with costs, counsel s fee Rs. 200. Petition allowed.
-
1958 (8) TMI 45 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to buildings erected for or by banks but such regulations could not properly be described as laws with respect to banks or to banking. In the present case I am satisfied that Bihar Act XIII of 1958 is a legislation which falls within item 54 of the State List, that the tax imposed by the impugned statute is a tax on sale of goods and that the identity or character of the tax is not changed. I, therefore, reject the argument of the petitioner and hold that Bihar Act XIII of 1958 is constitutionally valid and the Bihar Legislature is competent to enact this legislation. For these reasons I hold that in the circumstances of this case the sales tax may be legally included in the taxable turnover of the assessee and the question referred to the High Court by the Board of Revenue is accordingly answered in favour of the State of Bihar and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs of the hearing of the reference. CHOUDHARY, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1958 (8) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erior authority should be improper, irregular or illegal on the face of the record to justify the exercise of revisional jurisdiction conferred on the superior taxing authorities. This will be straining the plain language of the section to an uncalled for extent. The decisions referred to by my learned brother are sufficient authority for the position that the powers given to the superior authority can be exercised suo molu and such exercise need not depend upon the fact that there should be actual discovery of corruption or that the existence of other extreme causes alone could justify the exercise of such revisional jurisdiction. It appears to me that the section and the rules have been framed with the object of safeguarding the interests of the proper administration of the fiscal law and the prevention of loss of taxes payable to the Government. 1, therefore, agree that this appeal has to be allowed and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge set aside. Appeal allowed.
|
