|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 101 Records
-
1971 (7) TMI 166 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s they had no legal injury. Mere damnum without injuria was held to be not sufficient and that of course is the position here too. 9. On a much simpler ground the case could have been disposed of. But I considered the question only because this matter has now come up to this court and elaborate arguments have been advanced on other questions. I considered that in fairness to counsel I should deal with those questions briefly. The locus standi of the plaintiff to bring the suit is challenged. Strangely enough the plaintiff is not suing as a power of attorney holder of the exhibitor as whose manager the suit is brought. Stranger too is the reference to Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the court below in this context. Plaintiff who says that he is suing on behalf of his sister-in-law apparently without any authority from her must be non-suited on that simple ground. 10. In the result, the second appeal is allowed. The suit stands dismissed with costs throughout.
-
1971 (7) TMI 165 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat it is wholly unnecessary for us to go into the question whether the deed of gift was an alienation for consideration for the reasons which we have already indicated. 7. Before us an alternative sub mission was sought to be raised on behalf of the defendants that even if the gift by Parvathiammal was invalid on other grounds it should be given effect to as valid on the ground that it constituted a family arrangement. We do not propose to express any opinion on this matter and it will be for the High Court to decide it if the point is still open for decision and if any necessity arises for going into it. 8. In the above view of the matter the judgment of the Division Bench is set aside. Since no decision was given on the real question of law which had been decided by the learn ed single Judge and which is of certain importance the case shall go back to the High Court for a fresh decision of the appeal in accordance with law. There will be no Order as to costs in this Court.
-
1971 (7) TMI 164 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cumstance that the consideration proceeded from Makku Rawther is almost a telling factor in favour of the defendants, subject to other probative material that may be brought up. 28. The trial court has held that the defendants were in possession of the various items of property covered by the suit. Documentary evidence adduced by the defendants supports this view. If at all, the lower appellate court has indicated its inclination to agree with this conclusion, although not clearly. I am, therefore, of the view that the defendants except the 2nd defendant must be held to have been in possession since 1960 in the manner claimed by them, not that this will create rights in their favour, but I direct that, as a matter of equity the court when passing the final decree, will have due regard to the possession of the respective parties in making allotments and will reserve improvements made by each in his favour. 29. Subject to these minor directions. I dismiss the appeal with costs.
-
1971 (7) TMI 163 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing to enforce the liability of such entries, to produce evidence in support thereof to show that the money was advanced as indicated therein and thereafter the entries would be of use as corroborative evidence. On the plain reading of Section 34, entries in the books of accounts may be relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. In other words, there should be additional independent evidence by which the factum of payment is to be proved, and in that case the entries would be corroborative evidence. It is no doubt true that what should be the nature of additional evidence is always a question of fact depending on the circumstances of each case. It may, as has been held by the Courts, consist of vouchers, receipts, bills or any other oral evidence of witness having personal knowledge of the affairs of the transaction. 11. Appeal partially allowed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 162 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iya uncontested was subject to the fact that the order of the Sub divisional Officer was valid one, but if the very basis of the order of the Sub divisional Officer goes away, the declaration ipso facto falls. Secondly, once this Court admitted this application, it cannot be said that this Court is helpless in granting relief to the petitioner, because he has an alternative remedy. In my opinion, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 on this score, 9. For the reason stated above, the application is allowed, the order of the Sub divisional Officer, dated the 16th April, 1971 (Annexure '3'), rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner is quashed and consequently the order of the Election Officer declaring respondent No. 4 as Mukhiya is also quashed. The Election Officer will now proceed in the matter of election of the Mukhiya in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1971 (7) TMI 161 - HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA
... ...
... ... ..... ss of which was being managed by the defendant-appellants. According to the learned Judge, the evidence disclosed that the defendants stood in fiduciary relationship to the plaintiff and this finding has not been assailed before us. The observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sita Ram's case AIR 1968 SC 534 (supra) were relied upon by the learned Judge in holding that the suit for rendition of accounts of the dissolved partnership was still maintainable no matter that the partnership agreement be assumed to be void when it is found that the parties are not in pari delicto. We are, thus of the view that the ultimate decision of the learned Judges who allowed the appeal of the plaintiff, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and remanded the case to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law, must be upheld. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the appeal which stands dismissed with costs. 7. Appeal dismissed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 160 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ancy in it. Admittedly they have been paying rents to the respondents after they had purchased the building. Under the Transfer of Provision ( . . . . . ) estopped from denying the title of the landlord. How far such a denial is bona fide in this case will have to be considered by the Rent Controller I do not therefore express any opinion on that point. 17. Lastly the balance of convenience is absolutely against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. The Rent Control proceedings are summary proceedings, which are intended to b disposed of expeditiously. It is well known that partition suits take a long time for their disposal. and it would be unjust for their disposal and it would be unjust to stay the rent control proceedings till the disposal of the partition suits. The Rent Control hopelessly erred in the matter in ordering stay of the proceedings before him. There is no merit in these revision petitions. They are, therefore, dismissed. 18. Petitions dismissed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 159 - HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
... ...
... ... ..... ould be filed under Section 20 even though it was signed by the parties while the suit was pending. The essential condition upon which the arbitration agreement became operative was the withdrawal of the suit. The agreement had been entered into while no suit with respect to the subject-matter was pending before reference to arbitration was valid. It is obvious that that is not the case before us. Here no suit was withdrawn by the parties in order to refer the dispute to the arbitrator. In fact the suit was pending and was contested by the parties at the time when the application under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act was made by the appellant. The suit was dismissed. Such an application could hardly lie. 6. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the learned District Judge dismissing the application of the appellant does not suffer from any legal flaw and the same is upheld. The appeal is dismissed but leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 158 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he said two orders. If ultimately respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are found eligible for promotion and the appellant is not found eligible, the rank given to those respondents will remain the same as is now due to them as per the orders dated January 4, 1967 and January 21, 1970. Otherwise, suitable alterations will have to be made. Pending the review and reconsideration, ordered as above, and which must be done as expeditiously as possible, and depending upon the result of the same, the promotion already given to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to the senior scale will continue to be in force. In the result the order and judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court upholding the validity of the circular dated August 27, 1966 and declining to interfere with the order dated January 4, 1967 so far as the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned are hereby set aside and the appeal allowed to that extent. Parties will bear their own costs throughout. G. C. Appeal allowed in part.
-
1971 (7) TMI 157 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or the educational authorities. Nor was he able to satisfy us that the reasons given by the District Committee for the grant of permission to. the third respondent on the ground that it had a long experience in running schools and that its financial position is also good, are erroneous. If so, it follows that there is no merit in this appeal. In the result the judgment and order of the High Court allowing Special Civil Applications Nos. 420 and 421 of 1966 are set aside and Civil Appeals Nos. 160 and 161 of 1968 are allowed. The writ petitioners in Special Civil Applications Nos. 420 and 421 of 1966 will pay the costs of the appellants in both the appeals. There will be only one hearing fee to be paid by the two writ petitioners in equal proportion. The judgment and order of the High Court dismissing Special Civil Application No. 694 of 1965 are confirmed and Civil Appeal No. 878 of 1968 will stand dismissed. The appellants will pay the costs of the first respondent therein.
-
1971 (7) TMI 156 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g the respondents to hand over possession and custody of the seized goods to the petitioner; the goods being those referred to in the Panchanama, dated May 7, 1969, Ann. A to the petition. Though the notices were not given within the time contemplated by Section 110, it does not mean that the notices were bad and, therefore, if it not open to us to strike does the notices and hence the prayers in paragraphs 15 (A) and 15 (B) of the petition are not granted to the petitioner. 10. Under these circumstances, this Special Civil application is allowed and the writ as indicated above will issue. The rule is made absolute accordingly. The respondents will pay the costs of this petition to the petitioner. We wish to make it clear that we have taken into consideration only the provisions of the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act. If under the provisions of any other law these goods are required by the authorities concerned, our direction will not operate. 11. Application allowed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 155 - HOUSE OF LORDS COURT
... ...
... ... ..... B. 466, 471), where the special fact enhancing the price of the property was assumed to be a matter of local knowledge. Secondly, it is said that the directors of the company might have been willing to impart the information confidentially to a chartered accountant or other expert acting as agent for a purchaser, though the information would be imparted on the terms that it would not be passed on to the purchaser himself. But in such a case the transaction would be in the nature of a private placing and not a sale in the open market such as has to be envisaged under section 7(5). In my opinion, the reasonable supposition is that the information would not be available in the hypothetical open market, and so the assessment should be £ 3 10s. and not £ 4 10s. ; and, therefore, the appeal should be allowed and the judgment of Plowman J. should be restored. Appeal allowed. Solicitors Waltons Bright and Co. for Pinsent and Co., Birmingham ; Solicitor of Inland Revenue.
-
1971 (7) TMI 154 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere is any material which could be characterised as a reason for the exercise of the power under section 16 of the Act. Whatever may be the wide range of such power, yet it must be exercised only if there is any reason to invoke such a power. In the absence of it the petitioner is justified in his complaint, even at the threshold that an exercise of such power and the further proceeding of it has to be interdicted by the issue of a writ of prohibition. Learned Government Pleader however would state that the mention of the fact that there is a deemed sale is factually sufficient to project the position that what was accounted for by the commission agent was different from what he realised by his activity as such commission agent of the writ petitioner. This is a far-fetched conclusion which cannot be reasonably drawn from the text of the notice. In this view, the rule nisi is made absolute and the writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 153 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ales will be exempt from tax only if the conditions laid down in the proviso are satisfied. If those conditions are not satisfied, the subsequent sales will be liable to tax. It is not possible to treat an unregistered dealer at par with a registered dealer for the purposes of the proviso, as it specifically mentions registered dealer . The case of the petitioner-firm, as I have pointed out above, is not covered by the proviso and, therefore, the order of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner dated 4th December, 1970, which has been impugned in this petition, is in accordance with law and is not liable to be quashed. For the reasons given above, I find no merit in this petition, which is dismissed but without any order as to costs in view of the fact tilt the petition involved the interpretation of section 5(1-A) of the Act for the first time by this court. No previous judgment of any High Court or the Supreme Court has been cited by any counsel. Petition dismissed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 152 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... refor would necessarily imply that they were to be treated as packing and delivery charges. In this view of the matter also, the assessing authority cannot include the reckoned amount relatable to packing charges as assessable turnover under the provisions of the Act. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is far-fetched. There cannot be an industry without a product being manufactured therein. If for purposes of the industry, which includes the purchase of packing material for packing the ultimately manufactured product, the dealer purchases such packing material from outside the State, it does not necessarily follow that the intention is to resell such goods purchased outside the State. In the result, W.P. Nos. 2161, 2162 and 2163 of 1967 are allowed. In W.P. No. 862 of 1968, the order in so far as it has included the amount of packing charges as assessable turnover is concerned, it would be quashed. No order as to costs in all these petitions. Petitions allowed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 151 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fence, which he may or may not agree to be compounded in accordance with section 32 of the Act. Until an enquiry, pursuant to the Notice G. I. No. 2717/69-70/1 is completed, in my opinion, the Commercial Tax Officer cannot entertain a reasonable suspicion that the petitioner has committed an offence. Hence the question of asking him to choose either to face a prosecution or agree to the composition of an offence, does not arise. The impugned notice is, therefore, premature. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. This will not however preclude the Commercial Tax Officer, Guntur, from making an enquiry in pursuance of the Notice G.I. No. 2717/69-70/2 dated 23rd October, 1969, and take further proceedings on the basis of the result of that enquiry. As the matter now stands, the impugned notice being premature, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, I make no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 150 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of his shops or godowns to another for the purpose of storage or sale, a delivery note should accompany the goods. The learned counsel relied on clause 4(c) of form No. 39. The instant case is not one where the owner is transporting his goods for the purpose of storage or for sale. He despatched the gunnies for the purpose of bringing manure from Gangolli. Therefore, there was no material for the first respondent to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had contravened section 28-A of the Act read with rule 23(d) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules. In the result, for the reasons stated above, we allow this writ petition and quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 7th January, 1971, under section 28-A(4) of the Act. Since the first respondent has sold the three bundles of gunnies belonging to the petitioner, the sale proceeds of the same should be paid over to him. The petitioner is entitled to the costs of this petition. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 149 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Any provision deeming such vesting of authority in a statutory functionary cannot be recognised and enforced by courts as such a power is completely alien to the legislative intent and object of the Act and as it is not expressly provided as well. In this view of the matter, a demand for advance tax in the instant case which certainly means a demand for sales tax, in a situation where no sale or purchase is involved, is certainly a demand which cannot be sustained as it is not authorised or provided for. In so far as the demand for advance tax was made and collected by the Check Post Officer pursuant to his second memo dated 2nd January, 1967, the rule nisi is made absolute and the petitioner automatically would be entitled to obtain refund of the tax paid, if it has been not otherwise adjusted so far. There will, therefore, be a direction to the above effect. In other respects, the writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 148 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of his properties. Respectfully following the ratio, in this case I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. It is not in dispute that some of the movable properties of the petitioner were distrained by the taxing authorities in the purported exercise of their power and for purpose of realising the arrears of tax. But without selling the said properties and without finding out as a fact that the realisation is not sufficient to offset the arrears, further proceedings under section 48 of the Revenue Recovery Act have been undertaken by the revenue. This is what is prohibited in law and is laid down by the learned Judges in Haji Gulam Mohideen Sahib v. Commercial Tax Officer 1966 18 S.T.C. 346. On the last consideration which has to be accepted, the rule nisi is made absolute. The revenue is at liberty to take further proceedings in accordance with law after selling the distrained properties and after reckoning the sale proceeds. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 147 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessee, as here, may not pay the Central sales tax and yet claim refund on the ground that in the same assessment year the goods were sold under an inter-State sale. If the interrelationship of the Central sales tax with the State sales tax regarding declared goods is borne in mind, then the understanding of rule 27-A would not provide any difficulty. Moreover, we are not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner who deliberately seems to have waited till he found himself free from being assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act and it is only then that he started claiming the refund of the State sales tax which he had paid. His conduct is such that we do not think that we should exercise our discretion in his favour, the result of which would be to encourage the evasion of payment of legitimate taxes. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
........
|
