|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 208 Records
-
1984 (9) TMI 306 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sed from the date of the interim order, the matter would have become infructuous. 22. The petitioner submits that in the course of his duty he may have to pass through several States and it is likely he may be arrester in respect of Crime No. C.R.P. Case No. 4(3)77 Tata Nagar Police Station. As he is now within this state. he has moved this application. In the view I have taken, and in the circumstances disclosed, the petitioner will, if arrested in this State, in Crime No. C.R.P.Case No. 4(3)77 Tata Nagar Police Station, be released on bail forthwith on his executing a bond for Rs. 2000/- with two solvent sureties for like amounts to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat. He should be available for interrogation by the Police, in this State. He shall not leave India without the express permission of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat. These orders will not prevent the petitioners from claiming appropriate relief from the West Bengal and Bihar Courts.
-
1984 (9) TMI 305 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... absence from service he was gainfully employed. This cannot be said to be gainful employment so as to reject the claim for back-wages. There is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant was gainfully employed during the period of his absence from service. therefore, the appellant would be entitled to full back-wages and all consequential benefits. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the award of the arbitrator Sh. Kakkar is set aside and the appellant is re-instated in service with full back-wages and consequential benefits to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully thrown out from service, and the costs of this appeal quantified at ₹ 3,000/-. The back-wages payable to the appellant and the costs awarded herein shall be paid to him within 2 months from today. The appellant shall be physically re-instated in service within a week from today. The appellant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits of his continuous service.
-
1984 (9) TMI 304 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and the Court cannot overlook such over-zealousness on the part of certain officers to act without caring for consequences at the behest of superior officers. 38. In that view of the matter this application succeeds. The respondents are directed to forthwith assess the said five bills of entry and to allow clearance of the said goods covered under the import licence dated 31st May, 1983, subject to the petitioner's paying the assessed customs duties. All formalities shall be completed and the goods shall be released within 48 hours from the date of communication of this order. The respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to issue full wharfage and/or demurrage rent exemption certificates formalities in respect of said consignments from the respective dates of filing of the bills of entry till the date of clearance. 39. Let a plain copy of this order, counter-signed by Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties concerned.
-
1984 (9) TMI 303 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e have, accordingly, been invited to answer the question in accordance with the said decision, without further discussion, factual or legal. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us as under 3. The depreciation to be allowed to an assessee for any assessment year after the coming into force of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') even in respect of assets acquired by the assessee before 1-4-1961 has to be determined by reference to the written down value of the assessee's assets and the actual cost thereof, as determined in accordance with the provisions of section 43(1) and 43(6) of the Act, and not the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 4. Parties to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1984 (9) TMI 302 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in so far as the appellants' storage tanks are concerned. 10. In the light of the circumstances of this case and the Act as it stands, it is futile for Mr. Andhyarujina to draw on the decisions of the English Courts, based as they are on the facts of those cases and the legal provisions applicable in England. 11. But then says Mr. Andhyarujina the 3 tanks are an integral part of the petrol pump complex which is "building" and are not of a dispensable character permitted by section 299 to wit, "platform, verandah, step or some other structure external to a building". Mr. Andhyarujina says that the entire petrol pump complex is one "building" with only one part of the complex being underground, namely the 3 petrol tanks. We have no difficulty in resisting these blandishments. Looked at any way, the appellants' tanks are not "building" and that is the end of the matter. 12. The appeal is dismissed with costs. 13. Appeal dismissed.
-
1984 (9) TMI 301 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the Collector of Customs imposing a penalty of ₹ 50,000 is set aside. The order dated 9th May, 1984 on the bill of entry dated 29th April, 1984 is also set aside. The respondents are directed to release the two hydraulic pumps covered under licence No. P/W/0487989 dated 27th December, 1983 and the bill of entry dated 20th April, 1984 upon payment of the assessed duty. The consignment shall be released by the Customs authorities within 48 hours from the date of payment of the assessed duties. The respondents are directed to make necessary assessment and issue challans to the petitioner within 48 hours from the date of communication of this order. The respondents are also directed to issue wharfage rent exemption certificate in respect of the aforesaid goods from the date of noting of the bill of entry till the date of release. 13. Let a plain copy of this order, counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned Advocates for the parties.
-
1984 (9) TMI 300 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ould not be held responsible. The actual contravention was by Kamdar and Villabhadas Thacker and any contravention by them would not fasten responsibility on the respondents." The sentences underscored by us clearly show that what sought to be emphasised was that there should be a finding that the contravention was by the Company before the accused could be convicted and not that the Company itself should have been prosecuted along with the accused. We are therefore clearly of the view that the prosecutions are maintainable and that there is nothing in section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act which bars such prosecutions. The learned counsel also invited our attention to the decisions in Durgamata Oil Mill v. Calcutta Municipality, D.K. Jain v. State and Chander Bhan v. The State. None of these cases has any application. They arose under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and it is unnecessary for us to consider them. The appeals are rejected. Appeals dismissed.
-
1984 (9) TMI 299 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was made by the assessee with regard to ₹ 1,300/- that the same was kept at residence. In my opinion, the books cannot be rejected merely for the reason that on first survey dated 22.7.1977, the Rokar and Khata could not be made available. The case of the assessee was that the part time Munim had taken the Khata and cash book to post the latter in the ledger. Mere fact that the Khata and Rokar were not available at the shop at the time of first survey, is no ground to reject the books, though the revenue, if any other defect is found in the books, can certainly draw adverse inference against the assesses from non-production of Khata and Rokar. No other serious defect has been shown for drawing an adverse inference. The assessee has given plausible explanation regarding shortage of ₹ 1,300/-, that the same were left at home. The books cannot be rejected on account of this ground too. 3. The revision is, therefore allowed and the parties will bear their own costs.
-
1984 (9) TMI 298 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... time the goods had been exported. Simply because the goods had been consigned to another person does not mean that there was change of ownership. We, therefore, find that the Council has wrongly refused to refund the amount of octroi in this behalf which comes to ₹ 239.59. 19. The Council, therefore, is liable to pay to the petitioner the sum of ₹ 809.59. Civil Application No. 3067 of 1983 for amendment of the petition is allowed since it is only of a formal nature. It is not possible to grant relief in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii) as they are too general and vague. Relief can be granted in terms of prayer clause (ii)(b) as introduced by the amendment. Petitioner shall carry out the amendment within a week. 20. In the result, the petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to refund to the petitioner the sum of ₹ 809.59 within three months from today. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 21. Petition allowed.
-
1984 (9) TMI 297 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oposal for disbandment of the Punjab Armed Police Battalion and instead creation of additional posts for the district police was turned down by the State Government, the appellants were duly informed of the situation and there was no question of any promissory estoppel against the State. It was further contended by Mr. Anthony that the recommendation made by the Board would remain effective even after the body had become defunct. It is not necessary to go into detail in this contention in as much as the fate of the case depends upon whether the appellants had a right to get appointed on the basis of the selection and recommendation made by the Board. The appellants came to Court to vindicate their right but if they had no right there was no question of enforcing that right. For the foregoing discussion the appeal has no force and therefore, it must fail. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case the parties should bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed
-
1984 (9) TMI 296 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... able under the Bonus Act. This liability arose for the period after the management of the undertaking had been taken over by the Central Government by appointing an authorised controller under Sec. 18-A. Therefore, the liability to pay the bonus if awarded would be of the National Textile Corporation. The contention of the National Textile Corporation that it is not liable to pay bonus must be rejected. o p /o p Accordingly, these appeals succeed and are allowed and the four awards of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Nagpur Bench dated 27th November, 1970 in all the four references are quashed and set aside and all the four matters are remitted to the Industrial Court for disposal according to law on merits. As the cases are very old, the Industrial Court is directed to dispose of the same within the period of four months from the receipt of this order. The respondent shall pay the costs of the appellant quantified at ₹ 2,000. o p /o p N.V.K. Appeal allowed. o p /o p
-
1984 (9) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hra Pradesh High Court and set aside the orders appealed against. We direct the State of Andhra Pradesh to fix within one month from today the pension payable to the Appellant in each of these two Appeals from the date on which he became eligible for payment of pension, that is, from the date on which he retired from Government service on the basis that the maximum pension admissible under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 299 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules in Rs. 1,000 per month in Government of India Currency. We further direct the State of Andhra Pradesh to pay to the Appellant in each of these two Appeals the balance of the amount of pension payable to him for the past period according to such refixation within one month from the date of refixation of his pension. The Respondent will pay to the Appellant in each of these two Appeals the costs of the Appeal in this Court and of the writ petition and the writ appeal in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Appeals allowed
-
1984 (9) TMI 294 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... been passed by the Court at the time of imposing sentence originally. But in fact in passing the order under Section 10A expression used by the State Government is that the person concerned should be detained in 'Borstal School' to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence till he attains the age of 23 years. So the sentence actually passed by the enabling section by the State Government directs the detenu 'to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence'. Therefore we have to deem as if the sentence was passed by the court at the time of the passing of the original sentence by the court. In a matter of this nature, the statute should be more specific and in that view of the matter, the Government should consider the question of either altering the language of Section 10A of the Act or be more specific while passing any orders under Section 10A of the Act. With these observations I respectfully agree with the decision of my learned brother. Appeal dismissed.
-
1984 (9) TMI 293 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Court issued Rule Nisi. A Division Bench of this Court had laid down the exceptions to the ordinary rule of procedure of not entertaining the writ petitions when alternative remedy is available. Alternative remedy is no bar to the jurisdiction of this Court but is self-imposed restriction. When there is an infringement of a fundamental right and that is alleged in the writ petition, the view has been taken that alternative remedy is no bar (see I.T.C. Ltd. and another v. Union of India and Others, 1983 E.L.T.). 9. For the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. I issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to issue import licence to the petitioner as recommended by the Director of Industries, Delhi for import of sub-assemblies for the value of ₹ 26,400/-and for import of loud-speakers (cone type) of the value of ₹ 6,600/- within two months from today. On the facts and circumstances, I make no order as to costs.
-
1984 (9) TMI 292 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... s found were either smuggled by the Master or that he connived in the smuggling of the gold bars. As has been stated earlier, any of the above persons, viz.. Chief Officer, Chief Stewards or second steward or the Master could have kept the gold bars inside that locker. The Additional Collector had not imposed any personal penalty on the other members except the Master. It is significant to note that in spite of his finding that the Master himself had smuggled the gold bars valued at ₹ 1,52,782.14 cif and ₹ 2,11,029.50 local market rate, did not chose to order confiscation of the vessel even though in respect of the vessels which carried contraband goods of lesser value were ordered to be confiscated. The circumstances of the case and various factors referred to by us require giving of a benefit of doubt to the Master. We, therefore, hold that the Additional Collector was not justified in imposing a personal penalty of ₹ 20,000/- on the Master of the vessel.
-
1984 (9) TMI 291 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... tain a provision for condonation of delays. This is quite apart from the fact that no explanation is forthcoming in justification of the delay.” 5. Shri Subramaniam, representative urged that in another part of Rule 56A - Rule 56A(2) - there is a specific provision for non-allowance of concession of relief of duty paid on goods or component parts but there is no such provision in respect of non-observance of Rule 56A(3). Whatever be the position in respect of a case under Rule 56A, the Tribunal has considered that in a case of a grant of a concession under a notification issued under Rule 8(1) subject to certain conditions, a condition has not been fulfilled. Ordinarily the question as to whether the provision or non-provision of the nature referred to in the question raised will hardly be of relevance. In this view of the matter, we find that the question does not survive for reference. 6. Accordingly, the application for reference to High Court is rejected.
-
1984 (9) TMI 290 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sion of the Supreme Court in the case of Diwan Brothers v. Central Bank of India reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C 1503 where the Supreme Court has held that in the case of a fiscal statute the provisions must be strictly interpreted giving every benefit of doubt to the assessee. Where two interpretations are possible, the one more favourable to the assessee should be adopted. Hence if an item can be classified under more than one entry, the entry more favourable to the assessee may be considered as the appropriate entry. This argument deals with the manner of interpretation in cases where two reasonable interpretations are possible. Such is not the present case. The question of approach in the present case is academic because in my view the item in question cannot be classified under Tariff entry 28. Since it is covered by tariff entry 82(3), it also cannot be relegated to the residuary entry 87. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition fails and the rule is discharged with costs.
-
1984 (9) TMI 289 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... y of the product, comes from two polyurethane layers. The top layer is intended for taking the glue and spreading it on the paper at the other end. In other words the transmission of the glue to the paper is possible, because of the polyurethane external layer does not absorb the glue applied to it. The smooth surface of the belt enables the spraying of the glue uniformly on the paper. So it is rightly contended that there is a predominance of the plastic material and it should be assessed only as such. An earlier assessment under Chapter 59 in 1976 will not prevent the Government from reviewing the matter specially as there is no estoppel in taxing statute. 9. We, therefore, agree with the view that the proper classification of the belts in question would be as articles of plastic under Heading 39.07 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under Heading 59.16/17 as stated by the Appellate Collector. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1984 (9) TMI 288 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... finding regarding component parts of standardised frames and doors and windows and the like and tailor-made items. In respect of tailor-made items there can be no question of component parts but only of replacements. Again, even a tailor-made item, if produced in large quantities, may become a standard item and the concept of component parts may then emerge. All these considerations may be kept in mind for deciding the excisability of such parts. 20. In Appeal No. 350/78, a penalty of ₹ 250 has been imposed against the appellants. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the imposition of penalty was called for. Penalty imposed against the appellants in order appealed against relating to this appeal is set aside. 21. The lower authorities will rework out the Central Excise duty to which the appellants are chargeable in the light of this decision and observations made therein. The appeals are disposed of accordingly and partly allowed.
-
1984 (9) TMI 287 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ts have merely pleaded and argued that the Tribunal “should have approached the case in an entirely different manner”. The learned counsel was not able to substantiate it any better than what he had pleaded in the reference applications. We, therefore, reject this submission of the applicants also as devoid of substance. 11. The last submission of the learned Counsel was with reference to the appreciation of evidence of the lorry drivers vis-a-vis appellant Haji Abdul-khader (Poinachi). It is fundamental that appreciation of evidence is purely a question of fact unless the same is found or proved to be perverse or arbitrary. The mere fact that a different view also is possible on consideration of a piece of evidence or circumstance is certainly not a question of law meriting reference to the High Court. We, therefore, reject this submission of the learned Counsel as legally untenable. 12. For the above reasons, we reject both the reference applications.
........
|
