|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 159 Records
-
1971 (8) TMI 232 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the impugned act in the Bhopal region would be consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court observed It would be impossible to lay down any definite time-limit within which the State had to make necessary adjustments so as to effectuate the equality clause of the Constitution. 21. The learned Counsel contended before us that the State could have easily waited for a few years before levying the additional surcharge while the enquiries were pending. This is a matter not for the Courts but for the State Legislature to determine. If the State needs funds urgently it is for it to levy additional revenue provided it does not infringe Article 14. In view of the facts of this case, the temporary nature of the Acts and the pendency of the re-settlement and survey proceeding we cannot say that the Legislature has acted contrary to the provisions of Article 14. 22. In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed but there will be no order as to costs in these appeals.
-
1971 (8) TMI 231 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of government some initiative and authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on State litigation evolved at a Conference of Law Ministers of India way back in 1957. This second appeal strikes me as an instance of disregard of that policy. 6. I allow the second appeal and direct the trial court to proceed with the suit on the real controversy in the case. The court-fee paid in this appeal will be refunded in view of the resultant remand. I hope the Railway, through its legal advisers, will have a second look at the merits of the matter and, if justified, put an end to this already old litigation by a fair settlement. In that hope I direct the parties to bear their costs. 7. A copy of this judgment will be sent to the Central Government and to the General Manager, Southern Railway (through the advocate for the party).
-
1971 (8) TMI 230 - ANDHRA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... whether it is sale deed or adoption deed and a break up of that document into several parts for the purpose of using any part or bit of it in evidence even if that part relates to signatures, for a collateral purpose, however foreign and independent the purpose may be, for which it is sought to be used is not ;remissible. Thus whatever is contained in a document chargeable with duty cannot be received in evidence under Section 35 for any purpose whatsoever, unless such an instrument is duty stamped or there is compliance with the requirements of the provisos to Section 35. 11. I therefore find no merits in the revision petition and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. 12. I must express my thanks to Mr. M. S. Subrahmanyam, amicus curiae, for the assistance rendered to the Court. 13. A month's time is granted to the petitioner from the date of receipt of this order by the lower Court for payment of stamp duty and penalty. 14. Revision dismissed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 229 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cannot be regarded as a member of that family for such purpose. There would be in such a case two alternatives only. Either that land is held to be the separate property of Madhav, in which case he cannot be regarded as a member of the family for the purpose of sec. 6. or it is treated as a family property although it might have been purchased for some reason or the other in Madhav's name. In the latter event, though it would be added to the total holding of the family, Madhav would be regarded as a member of the family and the family being one having more than five members, it would be entitled to an additional 1/6th of the ceiling area so far as Madhav is concerned. The Tribunal rightly took this view and included the additional 1/6th area, as there was no evidence that Madhav or the family had treated the said land as a separate property of Madhav. For the reasons here in above contained the appeal fails. It is, therefore, dismissed with costs. K.B.N Appeal dismissed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 228 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... & P.W.10 seeing the accused persons in Court could not be entirely eliminated. This circumstance, in our view, further weakens the value of the appellant's identification held on February 14, 1963. 8. There is, however, also another aspect which requires to be noticed. Now, if P.W. 10 had recognised the appellant at the time and place of the occurrence as one of the two dacoits hailing from village Banaudha then clearly the identification test of the appellant by this witness can be of little value because the accused was already known to the witness. In that event there is no question of the identification parade dated February 14, 1963 being used as corroborative evidence supporting his identification in Court. As a result of the foregoing discussion we find that there is no legal evidence connecting the appellant with the alleged offence in question and we have, therefore, no hesitation in acquitting him. 9. We accordingly allow the appeal and acquit the appellant.
-
1971 (8) TMI 227 - HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA
... ...
... ... ..... restoration of advantage because there is no provision which declares the sales of surplus area by the land-owner as illegal. As has been pointed out by their Lordships in Pritam Singh Chahils's case AIR 1967 SC 930 the transfer is good as between the transferor and the transferee but qua the State Government it has to be ignored. It is for this reason the proviso gave the right to the transferee to claim restoration of advantage and put the transferor under the statutory obligation to restore that advantage. It is also open to the transferee to show that the sale in his favour needs protection according to the provisions of the Act and should not be ignored. I am, therefore, firmly of the opinion that notice of the proceedings for declaring surplus area of a big land-owner is necessary to be given to the transferees before final orders are passed in that matter. Prem Chand Jain, J. 28. I agree with my learned brother R.S. Narula, J. 29. Question answered in affirmative.
-
1971 (8) TMI 226 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e them of accrued benefits. The notices clearly mention that the workmen would be free to join duty by a certain date and only after that date the management was prepared to entertain them as new entrants if they were to apply by the date specified in the notices. It appears to us therefore that management has proved misconduct and the stand taken by it was reasonable. There was nothing that it could do further in view of the unjustified attitude taken by the workers by staying away from work particularly after they were given over a month's time within which to commence work. In the view we take the order terminating their services was not improper. The Tribunal was not justified in directing their reinstatement and payment of wages merely on the ground that no domestic enquiry was held. The appeal is accordingly allowed except for the Award in respect of Surat Singh, which is maintained. Having regard to the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1971 (8) TMI 225 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ld not be granted any relief by this Court as that would prejudice the case of the Department, and it would not be in public interest to interfere with the proceedings against the petitioner which are being taken for contravention of the Act. I have already held that the petitioner admittedly contravened provisions of Section 55 as he failed to maintain the accounts as required by the Act and the rules. The Department is free to take any other action or proceedings against the petitioner for the said contravention. The seizure of the petitioner's ornaments has been held illegal and without jurisdiction, but that does not debar the opposite parties from taking any such action or proceedings for the said contravention of the Act against the petitioner to which they may be entitled under the law. 23. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to return back the ornaments to the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.
-
1971 (8) TMI 224 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pendency of the transfer petition before us and for the earlier petition for the transfer of cases filed by the petitioner Under Section 526, Cr.P.C. these cases would have proceeded from day to day, We feel that it is just and fair to direct the trial Court to proceed with these cases which are of 1957 from day to day and we hereby so direct. We expect and have no reason to doubt that the prosecution and the petitioner both would also assist the Court in this connection and would produce their evidence without seeking unnecessary and avoidable adjournment. If the disposal of the cases is unduly delayed without just cause, it would be open to the petitioner to apply for bail in accordance with law and we have no doubt that the matter would be duly considered with the usual judicial objectivity expected of our Courts. 10. In the final result both the petitions fail and are dismissed. We must before closing thank Shri N.S. Das Behl for his valuable assistance as amicus curiae.
-
1971 (8) TMI 223 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rt’s Order - For the following words "that the respondents 1 and 2 do remove within one year from today all unauthorised huts, sheds, stables and other temporary structures standing and lying on the petitioners’ said forty-one final plots" the following should be substituted - "that the respondents 1 and 2 do remove within one year from today all such huts, sheds, stables and other temporary structures standing or lying on the petitioners’ said forty-one final plots as contravene the Scheme or in the erection or carrying out of which any provision of the Scheme has not been complied with." Subject to this modification in the Order, the appeal is dismissed with costs.. Since a stay had been granted by this Court, it would be necessary to allow reasonable time for compliance by the appellants. The periods already given by the trial Court, as modified by the Appellate Court, shall be counted from the date of this judgment. Appeal dismissed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 222 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the provision found in the proviso does not in any way alter the operative effect of this clause. The preamble of the impugned Act no doubt does speak of the necessity to make provisions with respect to "transfer, allotment, occupation or use of land for any purpose likely to promote the interests of the inhabitants thereof" but the subject of transfer is clearly beyond the scope of the lawmaking power conferred on the District Council by the Constitution and to that extent, therefore, the impugned Act which means S. 3 thereof is void being. beyond the jurisdiction of the District Council. On the view we have taken of the plain meaning of para 3 (1) (a) of the Sixth Schedule it is unnecessary to consider the other points relating to the violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. This Court normally does not decide points which are not strictly necessary for disposing of the appeal before it. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed
-
1971 (8) TMI 221 - SUPREME COURT
Should the employers be required to pay bonus to their workmen for the year 1960-61 ? If so, at what rate and with what details?
Held that:- The amount found by the Tribunal in this regard is Rs. 1,29,248/- and if Rs. 55,233/- is to be provided there will be an available surplus of Rs. 74,015/-. The Tribunal as we / said awarded three months bonus amounting to Rs. 73,000/- which works out to Rs. 24,333/per month. We think having regard to the financial capacity of this Undertaking one month’s bonus which will leave a surplus for the working of the Undertaking, will meet the ends of justice. We accordingly order the payment of one month’s wages as bonus. Each party will bear their own costs in this Appeal.
-
1971 (8) TMI 220 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e restricted to the record maintained by the officer subordinate to him, and can never make enquiry outside that record. In our opinion, the revising authority had power to admit and consider additional material, if it found it necessary so to do for effectively exercising its revisional jurisdiction and the Commissioner was not right in refusing to accept or consider the certificates in form A, which had been produced earlier before the assessing authority and rejected by it on account of delay, on the view that it was not possible or appropriate to permit production of additional evidence at the stage of revision. 7.. In the result, we answer the first question in the negative, first part of the second question in the negative and the second part of that question in the affirmative. We would answer the third question also in the affirmative. 8.. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1971 (8) TMI 219 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... called upon to answer a charge of non-payment of sales tax as a dealer. Even otherwise, I am of the view that in a case like this the essential elements of sale, namely, a contract of sale, a price which the vendor should stipulate for himself without external directives and a consideration in the sense that such sale is normally for purposes of making a profit, are all absent. Even in this view also, the petitioner should succeed. Though the petitioner is venturesome as to come to this court well in advance, probably because of the apprehensions entertained in his mind, yet the relief sought ought not to be negatived because he is justified in his apprehensions. The petitioner not being a dealer and the transactions not being sales, the notice challenged in this writ petition ought not to have been issued and no further proceedings pursuant to the same are warranted in the eye of law. Hence, the rule nisi is made absolute. Writ petition allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 218 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... such goods in his residence. It, therefore, follows that when the petitioner admitted that the goods were his stock-in-trade and if they were found at an unauthorised place then there is a contravention on the part of the dealer of some provisions of the Act with which he is strictly bound. In this sense he has committed an offence within the meaning of section 45(2)(d) of the Act. An option was given to the petitioner to compound instead of the petitioner being prosecuted before a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class. It was this option on the part of the revenue that has been challenged. The Board of Revenue while disposing of the revision petition correctly observed that the levy of compounding fee of Rs. 1,000 is right and proper in the circumstances of the case. There is no error of law apparent on the record or error of jurisdiction. The rule nisi is discharged. The writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 217 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... act entered into between the Chief Controller of Stores, Calcutta, and the petitioners as sellers. I am therefore satisfied that the jurisdiction assumed by the respondent under section 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is not warranted in the instant case. I am not considering in the instant case, whether there was any reason for reopening the closed assessment or not, as I have already said that it is not necessary to do so. But, I am, however, satisfied that the sales in question undoubtedly are sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and cannot be dealt with as intra-State sales. In fact, the original authority, when it assessed the assessees for the years in question on 18th November, 1963, and 31st December, 1964, respectively, rightly assessed the transactions under the Central Sales Tax Act. For the reasons stated above, the rules nisi are made absolute and the writ petitions are allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 216 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erefore, hold that section 14(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is applicable to the facts of this case and also rule 14-A(8) of the Central Sales Tax Rules. In either case the assessments made are within the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The assessments are, therefore, valid. Both the contentions raised by the learned counsel fail and are therefore rejected. At the end, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have paid by way of Andhra Pradesh general sales tax on groundnuts for the year 1963-64 and they are, therefore, entitled to a refund of that amount even without filing an application to that effect. If any Andhra Pradesh general sales tax is refundable to the petitioners, the petitioners may approach the proper authorities. We cannot in these writ petitions order refund of that amount. All the three writs fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100 in each case. Petitions dismissed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 215 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat in the ultimate analysis, the assessing authority revises an order when he acts under section 16, but the primary purpose is to bring to tax escaped assessable turnover which for any reason has escaped the clutches of the taxing law. The other contention that the notice is vague is unsustainable. All material particulars, which ought to be normally given in a case where the assessing authority acts under section 16 are found in the challenged notices. The petitioner was called upon to file his objections and, therefore, an effective opportunity which is contemplated under section 16 has also been given. I am unable to sustain the argument that the challenged notice cannot be pursued because it is vague or indefinite. The writ petitions therefore fail and they are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The assessing authority would fix another date for enquiry, hear the objections of the petitioner and pass necessary orders finally thereafter. Petitions dismissed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 214 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... court, to which I was a party, observed The manner in which the seller has to satisfy the third requisite is as provided in the proviso to the sub-section, namely, production of the declaration in the prescribed form. Two other requisites referred to in the decision are (1) The goods, which are the subject-matter of sale, should be those mentioned in the First Schedule, (2) the sale must be to another dealer. Once that is done, there is no further obligation on the part of the selling dealer and he will be automatically entitled to the concessional rate. In view of this, the petitioner s complaint that the impugned order is erroneous and suffers from an illegality is justified. The rule nisi is made absolute and the writ petition is allowed. The subject-matter is remitted to the file of the respondent for him to verify form XVII declarations and grant the concession to the petitioner in accordance with the law and in the light of the observations as above. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 213 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s been effected in the instant case by an overt act on the part of the petitioner who, by paying some consideration to the trustees, secured the business, its assets and everything connected with it. He is therefore a transferee within the meaning of section 27 of the Act. If he is a transferee under the above section and if he is notionally a dealer under the statute, then the respondent has the necessary jurisdiction to call upon him to explain as to the circumstances under which he got the exemption, in prior years. It is within this compass that the respondent was acting when he issued the challenged notice. He has the necessary jurisdiction to do so and it is the petitioner s duty to explain all objections in law on the merits which are still available to the petitioner. He cannot, however, seek to intercept the proceedings undertaken by the respondent in exercise of the power vested in him by law. This writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
........
|
