|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 92 Records
-
1980 (6) TMI 122 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... before charge who are required by the accused for cross-examination after charge, but that in order to perform the duty cast upon him by that section, he must take steps to secure their presence and exhaust all processes for securing their attendance. Any way, in view of the order which I propose to make, as indicated hereinbefore, this question need not be pursued any further. 22. In the result, the revision succeeds and the impugned order, so far it relates to the refusal by the learned Judge to summon and examine the three witnesses as prayed for by the prosecution in its application, is set aside and the learned Judge is directed to summon and examine those three witnesses mentioned in the application as aforesaid with this further direction that their evidence shall be confined only to the question as to whether the witness concerned was no longer traceable and could not be found to be recalled for cross-examination after charge. Manmohan Singh Gujral, C.J. 23. I agree.
-
1980 (6) TMI 121 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ciples laid down by the Supreme Court while exercising his discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and has omitted material facts and circumstances from consideration while deciding the said application, it is quite obvious to us that the discretion exercised by the trial Court was wholly illegal and could be termed as manifestly unjust. 11. In the result, therefore the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bombay in Municipal Application No. M/259 of 1968 on 22nd Apr., 1971 is set aside. The application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation is allowed and the delay caused in filing the application by the appellant under Section 504 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act is condoned. The Court of Small Causes is directed to deal with and decide the said application on merits, in accordance with law. 12. However, in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. 13. Appeal allowed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 120 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... he period from 15-4-1970 to 30-11-1974 and amounts recovered in excess during the period 11-12-1974 to 4-1-1975 by including marketing and distribution expenses as a part of the price chargeable to Excise Duty. The petitioners have no doubt made a claim for a total amount of ₹ 8,90,320.31. It will however be for them to satisfy the appropriate authorities about the exact quantum of the amount under the heads referred to above. ( 18. ) This petition is therefore allowed, Rule is made absolute but no order as to costs. This petition has been pending for the last four years and therefore the department will dispose of the claim within a period of four months. ( 19. ) Mr . Lokur applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that similar matters are already pending in the Supreme Court. We have merely applied decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court and we do not think therefore that it would be proper to grant leave in this case. Application rejected.
-
1980 (6) TMI 119 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n Act provided that words and expression used but not defined in the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939) shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in that Act. On the date when the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act was enacted, Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was amended by Act 10() of 1956 and the amended definition on the date when the Taxation Act came into force exempted only motor vehicles which are of a special type adopted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. The amended definition will have to be read into the Taxation Act which was enacted subsequent to the date of the ,. amendment of the definition of ’Motor Vehicle’ by Act 100 of 1956 In this view we feel that the decision in Bolani’s case (supra) will not be of any assistance to the learned counsel for the appellants. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. But in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed in part.
-
1980 (6) TMI 118 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ave explained the contents of the grounds to the detenu. The Under Secretary farther suggested that as the detenu had signed number of documents in English, it must be presumed that he was fully conversant with English. This is an argument which is based on pure speculation when the detenu has expressly stated that he did not know English, Merely because he may have signed some documents it cannot be presumed, in absence of cogent material, that he had a working knowledge of English It is also not in dispute that a translated script of the grounds were served on him. This is undoubtedly an essential requirement, as held by this Court in Hadibandhu Das v. District Magisrtate, Cuttack and Anr. . In these circumstances, therefore, there has been a clear violation of the Constitution provisions of Article 22(5) so as to vitiate the order of detention. The petition is, therefore, allowed the continued detention of the detenu being invalid, he is directed to be released forthwith.
-
1980 (6) TMI 116 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... No. 67/71 dated 29-5-71. Their unit containers are bottles and they are not claiming the benefit of exemption notification in respect of sales made in bottles capacities ranging from 50 ml. to 500 ml. They are claiming exemption only in respect of deliveries effected through drums/barrels which are not in the nature of unit containers and which are used only for movement of oil in bulk quantities for the convenience of transport. 6. Government observe that there is no evidence on record to prove that the barrels/drums were sold by the manufacturers at any stage. On the other hand there is evidence to show that these drums/barrels are used again and again for the same purpose and the property continues to be with the petitioners. 7. In view of the factual position as set out above, Government of India hold that the sales of the petitioners in drums, which are used merely for transport should not be treated as sale in unit containers and drop the review proceedings.
-
1980 (6) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the grounds of detention were couched in English, a language which the detenu did not understand at all and these grounds were not explained to him?
Held that:- The service of the ground of detention on the detenu is a very precious constitutional right and where the grounds are couched in a language which is not known to the detenu, unless the contents of the grounds are fully explained and translated to the detenu, it will tantamount to not serving the grounds of detention to the detenu and would thus vitiate the detention ex-facie.
Section ll of the Act confers a constitutional right on the detenu to have his representation considered by the Central Government. It is true that the Central Government has a discretion to revoke or confirm the detention but the detenu has undoubtedly a right that his representation should be considered by the Central Government for whatever worth it is. The mere fact that the detenu had sent a copy to the Central Government does not absolve the detaining authority from the statutory duty of forwarding the representation of the detenu to the Central Government - appeal allowed - the continued detention of the detenu in this case is legally invalid
-
1980 (6) TMI 113 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ayments and allowances in respect thereof payable under the said Act and all court s costs, pleader s fees, etc., incurred by the Government in defending the reference, if any made to the court as aforesaid and on appeal or appeals filed in connection therewith and all costs, pleader s fees, interest, etc., payable or paid by the Government to the claimants in the said reference and appeal........ Consequently, the agreement which the Supreme Court was considering was a statutory agreement contemplated in the Land Acquisition Act itself and, therefore, it can have no relevancy to a case like the present one where we are considering a single agreement between the two parties totally unconnected with the rights and liabilities under the Act. Hence, this decision also is not of any assistance to support the contention of the learned counsel. No other point was urged before us. Hence, the writ appeals fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 112 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed. The clarification made in the above observation is that if in a given case, there is only sale of food unaccompanied by any service or rendering of service is merely incidental, the transaction would be exigible to sales tax. In all other respects the view taken in the main judgment remains unaffected. These observations were made obviously for the reason that it was urged for the State that the ratio of the main judgment would be invoked by restaurant owners in those cases also, where there was only a sale of food and title passed to the customers. As the finding in this case is that the assessee was serving food and drinks to visitors for consumption in the premises of the assessee, the transactions of the assessee are similar to those in the Northern India Caterers case 1978 42 S.T.C. 386 (S.C.) and the Tribunal was right in applying the said decision. 6.. In these circumstances, the revision petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 111 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s been established before us, we hold that in the absence of a notice of demand, the application was not maintainable and, consequently, all further actions taken by the learned Magistrate were also contrary to law. 8.. The learned counsel appearing for the auction purchaser submitted that a huge sum of Rs. 40,000 towards auction sale has been deposited with the revenue authorities and, therefore, a direction may be issued for the immediate refund of that amount. This is a matter in respect of which the auction purchasers should make appropriate application before the learned Magistrate. If such an application is made, the Magistrate is directed to dispose of the application expeditiously. 9.. For the reasons stated above, we make the following order The orders of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bagalkot, overruling the objections of the petitioner are set aside and he is directed to proceed to pass appropriate orders in the light of this judgment. Ordered accordingly.
-
1980 (6) TMI 110 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 8A of the Act exempting the purchase turnover of old gold and silver articles from the levy of tax under section 6 of the Act was not in any way affected by the amending Act 5 of 1972 and continued to be in force. 9.. As the assessee was clearly entitled to the benefit of exemption granted under the notification dated 10th September, 1970, his turnover could not be brought to tax under section 6 of the Act. Therefore the orders of assessment levying tax on the purchase turnover of the assessee under section 6 of the Act cannot be sustained. Consequently the orders of the first and second appellate authorities confirming the said orders also cannot be sustained. 10.. For the reasons aforesaid we make the following The orders of the Appellate Tribunal, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Mangalore, and of the assessing authority, in so far as these orders subjected the assessee to tax under section 6 of the Act are set aside. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 109 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n Nambiyar v. State of Kerala 1979 44 S.T.C. 191 1979 K.L.T. 480., with which decision we are in respectful agreement. This contention will also stand rejected. 4.. We accordingly dismiss these tax revision cases, but, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. Immediately after the pronouncement of judgment the counsel for the revision petitioners orally prayed for the grant of certificates under article 133(1) of the Constitution to enable his clients to carry the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court. We do not however consider these to be fit cases for the grant of such certificates, since the questions of law involved are fully covered by decisions already rendered by the Supreme Court and hence it cannot now be said that the questions are of general importance on which a pronouncement by the Supreme Court is now called for. The prayer for the grant of certificates under article 133(1) of the Constitution will therefore stand rejected. Petitions dismissed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding Up – Liability for fraudulent conduct of business ... ... ... ... ..... ny notice to the company about the alleged breaking open of the room there. Our manager went there and the directors promised to pay, though not in writing. P.W. 1 did not say who broke open the premises or when. He could not also say what quantity of paper was unauthorisedly taken away. Assuming that his evidence is sufficient to hold that such an incident had taken place, that again cannot amount to a carrying on of business with the intent to defraud. The applicant s case in the affidavit was that the company was not doing any business after 1970 and that without disclosing this, it continued to obtain supplies of paper. In the course of their evidence, however, both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 gave up this case and attempted to set up a different one. And the short answer to this, if it requires answering, is that the incident complained of is not a trading, fraudulent or otherwise. There is thus no merit in this application and it is dismissed. Parties will suffer their own costs.
-
1980 (6) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up – Fraudulent preference, Avoidance of voluntary transfer ... ... ... ... ..... an intention to prefer (vi) the absence of anything in the company s records to evidence the creation of the mortgages or even the borrowing of the amounts, taken along with the admitted close relationship between the lenders and the borrower and the many other circumstances noticed, bring out a dominant motive to prefer the respondents and (vii)the requisite particulars for registering the charge so as to make the mortgages binding on the liquidator under section 125 were furnished only after the company had stopped its business and with knowledge that it had become insolvent. Fraudulent preference is thus made out and it is also not possible to believe that the transaction was one made bona fide and in the ordinary course of business. Issue No. 1 has, therefore, to be answered in the affirmative. In the circumstances, the relief prayed for has to be granted, and it is hereby ordered that the two mortgages in question are invalid and are void against the official liquidator.
-
1980 (6) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order and Avoidance of certain attachments, executions, etc.
-
1980 (6) TMI 84 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ee did present certain printed material on metal and therefore it cannot be said that the business of the assessee was not yet started. The Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Industrial solvents and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd(1). has categorically stated that the erection of the plant was completed only by the middle of March 1961, but that thereafter trials were started which continued right upto September, 1961 (In the case of Industrial Solvents and Chemicals Pvt Ltd.) The Bombay High Court held that the assessee produced, some products which were of sub standard. However, the High Court was pleased to hold that the assessee did start its business on 19th June, 1961 and not in the month of February, 1961. Therefore this case is distinguishable on facts and we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to depreciation, on the point also assessee succeeds. Since one of the grounds, as stated earlier, was not pressed by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1980 (6) TMI 81 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... ary on the basis of tax on tax would have been supported. In this case only a specified amount was given as Income-tax allowance. Just because, this amount was called IT allowance, it does not make the salary a tax free one. Only the actual amount received and receivable can be taxed and nothing more. If any amount is paid or payable by the employer towards income-tax of the employee or is reimbursed or reimbursable to the employee by the employer such amount may well be taxable. If the payment of such amount is done with a view to secure an agreed net income, such net income is to be grossed up on the basis of tax on tax. In this case, no such net income is secured. We have no doubt that any other view is impossible even in the light of all the case laws cited by both the parties. 5. In the result, the appeals will have to be allowed and are allowed. The perquisites for reimbursement of income-tax will be limited in the actual amount of Rs. 9,574 and Rs. 12,082 respectively.
-
1980 (6) TMI 79 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... accordingly adopted the status as HUF in the asst. yr. 1968-69. The assessee was, however, the same old assessee except the change in status was made in the asst. yr. 1968-69. Once it is admitted that the assessee is an old assessee, the notice issued by the ITO for payment of advance tax was justified. The assessee made the payment as required by the Department. There was, therefore, no default under s. 212(3) of the Act and as such no penalty could be imposed under s. 273(b) of the Act. 7. It was mentioned by the ld. Deptl. Rep. that the assessee committed a default under s. 212(3A) of the Act and as such the assessee should have paid the excess demand. But no such charge was made against the assessee. Under these circumstances, this should be taken as setting up a new case. Therefore, no penalty can be levied for default committed under s. 212(3A) as well. Thus no penalty can be levied for any of the defaults committed by the assessee. 8. We accordingly cancel the penalty.
-
1980 (6) TMI 76 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ply even if either the building is sold or the machinery is sold separately or if the undertaking is sold as a whole. But, in the present case we are concerned with an item which forms part of the machinery. The assessee did not purchase it separately. The purchase was for the entire machinery including this item. The ITO thus had on his record the original cost and also the written down value of the entire machinery. What the assessee sold was only the motor which had burnt. Neither its cost nor its written down value was on the record. The written down value, therefore, was not accurately determinable. The ITO merely estimated it. In these circumstances and on the authority of the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision which applies squarely, we hold that the provisions of s. 41(2) could not be applied to the sale of the burnt motor and hence the addition of Rs. 5,000 was not proper in law. We direct that the same be deleted. 7. In the result both the appeals succeed partially.
-
1980 (6) TMI 75 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... er all is said and done, may be, and indeed appears to be, a transaction which is entirely for the benefit of the other members of the family . 7. In the instant case, it is very strange to find that the ITO on one hand subjected the gift, to GT under the GT Act and on the other hand calls it invalid and terms it protective . 8. The Rajasthan High Court in the case Motilal Ramaswaroop (2) followed decision in the case of Braham Dutt Bhargva (1) which also support the contention of the authorised Representative for the assessee. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Dalijit Singh (3) had occasion to deal with a case where Karta of the HUF made gift out of HUF property to wife and children of his brother and when the question came before their Lordships whether Karta could make valid gift out of his HUF properties, their Lordships reply was in affirmative and the said case is reported in May 1980 3 Tax Man 424 (3). 9. In the result, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
|
