|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 408 Records
-
1996 (4) TMI 498 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 497 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of necessity. We think that in the special circumstanees of this case this course of action would he the most dppropriate one to follow beause if the two Election Commissioners do not agree, we have no doubt that the doctrine of necessity would compel the Chief Election Commissioner to express his views so that the majority opinion could be communicated to the Governor to enable him to take a decision in accordance therewith as required by Article 192(1) of the Constitution. In the result, while we largely agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench, we modify the order of the Division Bench of the High Court to the aforementioned limited extent regarding the procedure to be followed by the Election Commission in reaching a decision and communicating its opinion to the Governor to enable the latter to decide the issue in accordanee with the opinion. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 496 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... evance of the counsel for the appellant that granting of an unconditional stay may very often tend to cause prejudice to the other side. It is always advisable that while making interim orders, the Court should provide for necessary safeguards for Revenue in the eventuality of failure of the petitioner or appellant. At the interim stage, it may not be possible to say with any definiteness that writ petition or appeal is hound to succeed. The possibility of the writ petition or appeal being dismissed cannot be ruled out at that stage. Therefore, it is always advisable that sufficient safeguards are provided in favour of a Revenue while making such interim orders. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since this order practically disposes of the Writ Petition No.2112 of 1994, the writ petition is withdrawn to this Court from the High Court, with the consent of the counsel for both the parties and allowed in the above terms i.e., Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 495 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ll be complied within one week. Having regard to the facts on record, the civil appeals are dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 494 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ffect of an exemption granted under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 20, including the incidence of transfer, have to be understood in the manner indicated by us herein. For the reasons given by us, we regret our inability to concur with the contrary conclusion reached by the two learned Judges in S. Vasudeva. The impugned order to the extent it is contrary to the view taken by us in this decision, cannot be upheld. We may, however, add that in a case where a dispute arises the validity of an exemption granted under Section 20 of the Act would depend on the existence of justifiable reasons recorded in writing for granting the exemption with the conditions attached to it. This decision is not to be construed as pronouncing on the validity of exemption and the permission to transfer, if any, even in this case, which, if disputed, would have to be examined and adjudicated separately. Consequently, the writ petition is decided in the above manner. No costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 493 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... RDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 492 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... rnan, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 491 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Whether based on the stated facts of the case, the amounts received by the applicant outside India are taxable in India ?
Whether based on the stated facts of the case, the nature of activities performed by the applicant in India, constitute a permanent establishment (PE) in India as per the provisions of article 7 of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Malaysia ?"
-
1996 (4) TMI 490 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... en, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 489 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... G.B. Pattanaik, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n there was a legislation prohibition on the second marriage, be treated as legitimate, and would, therefore, inherit the properties of their father, Raman Nair, under Section 16(3) of the Act. 81. In the result, all the three appeals are allowed. Respondents' suit No. 38 of 1976 for exclusive possession of certain items of property is dismissed. The other suit, namely, O.S. No 39 of 1976 for partition of half share in the tenancy land, filed by the respondents against appellant No. 1 alone, is also dismissed. It will, however, be open to them to seek such relief as may be available to them under law. O.S. No 99 of 1977 filed by the appellants is decreed with the finding that the appellant no.1 being widow and appellant no. 2 to 6 being sons of Raman nair, are entitled to their share in the properties left by him. It is on this basis that the trial court shall now proceed to complete the proceedings in this suit for partition. Appellants shall be entitled to their costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 487 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o protection of its being impartable. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent could not have been resisted by the defendant-appellant on the basis that it was a family house. Equally the suit could not have been resisted by the defendant-appellant on the ground that being the sole male heir of the intestate, section 23 was inapplicable, because then the suit for partition would otherwise have been maintainable. Had the finding been that the house in question was a dwelling-house the suit could have been resisted by him even as a single male heir on the basis of Section 23 of the Act. As a result of the above discussion, the preliminary decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff-respondent cannot be upset. The judgments and orders of the courts below would have to be maintained. In partitioning the properties the trial court would bear in mind,as it is bound to, the provisions of the Partition Act. The appeal, in these circumstances, fails but without any order as to costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 486 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... espondent No. 2 preferred to claim the maintenance only from the step-son. the appellant herein leaving out all her natural born sons (from whom she could claim maintenance as their mother) and husband who are well to co. Prima facie it appears that respondent No. 2 proceeded against her step-son with a view to punish and cause harassment to the appellant, which is wholly unjustified. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that respondent No. 2 is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the step-son, appellant herein. In the result the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court and the Courts below are set aside and the petition of respondent No.2 for maintenance is dismissed, but without any orders as to costs. We, however, wish to clarify that in the interest of justice and to balance the equities, the amount already received by respondent No. 2 from the appellant shall not be refundable by her to the appellant.
-
1996 (4) TMI 485 - SUPREME COURT
Whether teachers of an educational institution can be held to be employee under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to enable the Government to fix their minimum wages?
Held that:- Applying dictum of Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu and others [1988 (7) TMI 405 - Supreme Court of India] to the definition of employee under Section 2(i) of the Act it may be held that a teacher should not come within the said definition. In the aforesaid premises we are of the considered opinion that the teachers of an educational institution cannot be brought within the purview of the Act and the State Government in exercise of powers under the Act is not entitled to fix the minimum wage of such teachers. The impugned notifications dated 30th of April, 1983 so far as the teachers of the educational institution concerned are accordingly quashed. This appeal is allowed. Writ petition filed succeeds to the extent mentioned above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 484 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... grant stay of recovery of tax, would arise only when the appeal filed before the Tribunal is a competent appeal. As already observed, the appeal itself is not maintainable, therefore, the theory of incidental or ancillary power cannot be invoked. 17.. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash the order in T.M.P. No. 63 of 1996 in T.A. No. 233 of 1996 dated March 22, 1996 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and accordingly we allow the writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself, we make no order as to costs. 18.. Immediately after pronouncing the order, Dr. Murthy requests that leave to appeal may be granted. In our view no question of law of general importance which requires to be decided by the Supreme Court, arises in this case. We, therefore, reject the oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court made by the learned counsel. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 483 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e above cases, this Court in State of A.P. v. Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd. 1995 96 STC 664 held that a consistent view was taken by this Court which has been affirmed by the apex Court that the period of limitation of four years prescribed by section 20(3) of the Act covers the whole proceedings of the revision including passing of the final order. In that case this Court further held that the observations are clear and emphatic in all these cases that the order has to be passed within four year period of limitation . 10.. Taking into consideration the consistent view taken by this Court, we have no hesitation to hold that the order impugned in this appeal, does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and it is just and reasonable, since the final order was passed well within four years from the date of order passed on March 16, 1991. We see no merits in this appeal, warranting interference by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 482 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as failed to comply with the order dated January 6, 1993. Not a word has been said in the impugned order of the Tribunal as to how it has come to the conclusion that the plea raised by the petitioner regarding its inability to pay the amount does not deserve to be accepted. We are firmly of the opinion that the impugned order of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed only on the ground that it is not a speaking order and is, therefore, contrary to the principles of natural justice. 6.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Orders annexures P4 and P5 are quashed. The Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana is directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner under proviso to section 39(5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and pass a fresh order giving reasons for accepting/not accepting the request of the petitioner for entertaining the appeal without deposit of additional demand. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 481 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iod of limitation may be enlarged by legislation. But once there is immunity, unless the Legislature amends the law retrospectively or declares any provision as applicable to the concluded proceedings also by clear and specific words, it is not possible to read into those provisions a power enabling the assessing authorities to undo what has become final. 5.. In the present, admittedly, the period of limitation was enlarged by the Legislature before any immunity could have been validly claimed by the petitionerassessee. It cannot be disputed that it was competent on the part of the Legislature to do so. 6.. In this view of the matter, the plea raised by the petitioner that the proceedings had become barred by limitation in the sense that the respondentassessing authority had lost the jurisdiction to make reassessment for the assessment year 1981-82, cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly rejected. 7.. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 480 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... bruary 16, 1996, two bill books of 3/4 months of the relevant period were produced by the petitioner. They show that Swad tablets were sold freely to general merchants in much more quantity than t6 chemists and druggists. 12.. The assessing authority, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and Tax Board have discussed this matter exhaustively and have given good reasons in support of their findings that Swad tablet is not a medicine. We do not find any good ground to take a different view particularly for the reasons mentioned above by us. As such the applications for revision deserve to be dismissed. 13.. In the result, the applications for revision are dismissed. Original order will be kept in the record of the S.T. Revision No. 2149 of 1995 and a copy of it will be placed in the record of the S.T. Revision No. 2155 of 1995. No order as to costs. J.P. BANSAL (Judicial Member).-I concur in the conclusion. R.K. NAIR (Technical Member).-I concur in the conclusion. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 479 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the parties, we are not satisfied with the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal and in our opinion the following question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that order dated August 7, 1981 passed by the Assessing Authority did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and that the Commissioner was not justified in exercising his powers under section 40 of the Act. We accordingly direct the Tribunal to refer the same to this Court for its decision along with the statement of case. The question as to whether the dealer is entitled to exemption for the exports made by it outside the country has not been decided by the Tribunal on merits and, therefore, questions 3 and 4 as claimed by the petitioner-State do not arise from the order of the Tribunal. In the result, the petition stands allowed in the above terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
........
|
