|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 42 Records
-
1968 (5) TMI 66
... ...
... ... ..... e symptoms above-mentioned, all go to indicate that in order to screen the real cause of death, namely, shock resulting from his treatment, he had hit upon the theory of cerebral embolism and tried to bolster it up by stating that it must have set in right from the time the accident occurred. The aforesaid letter furnishes a clear indication that he was not definite even at that stage that death was the result of embolism or that even if it was so, it was due to the reasons which he later put forward. 17. In our view, there is no reason to think that the High Court was wrong in its conclusion that death was due to shock resulting from reduction of the fracture attempted by the appellant without taking the elementary caution of giving anaesthetic to the patient. The trial court and the High Court were, therefore, right in holding that the appellant was guilty of negligence and wrongful acts towards the patient and was liable for damages. 18. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
-
1968 (5) TMI 65
... ...
... ... ..... d reasonable diligence. .... .in the absence therefore of any law, rule, regulation or custom, we hold that a law cannot come into being in this way. Promulgation or publication of some reasonable sort is essential". We may state here that the rationale of the decision in Hada's case, AIR 1951 SC 467 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner is not sought to be punished or penalised under the Advocates Act and it was not necessary under any provision of law for the Bar Council to promulgate or publish its resolution. Moreover the act of recognising a degree in law obtained from any University for the purposes of the Act cannot be said to be a law made by the Bar Council. In this view of the matter we do not see any substance in this contention of the petitioner also. 20. For the reasons mentioned above we do not see any force in this petition and dismiss it. But in the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.
-
1968 (5) TMI 64
... ...
... ... ..... derstanding the implication of the document executed that. The remark by the trial court about the defendant No. 1 being an illiterate pacrdanashin lady was not dependent on discussion of any evidence in that respect. The appellate court found on a very careful consideration of the evidence that the sued agreement was executed by the defendant No. 1 and was a genuine document Neither in the written statement nor In the evidence any of the defendants had raised a plea that the sued agreement (Ext. 5) was not read over and explained to defendant No. 1 and that she had not understood the document when it was executed by her. Their case was a complete denial of the execution and registration of the document. In that view of the matter, the finding of the appellate court cannot be challenged merely on the ground that it did not consider the observation of the trial court that the defendant No. 1 was a pardanashin lady. The cross-objection is therefore, dismissed but without costs.
-
1968 (5) TMI 63
... ...
... ... ..... y, a sum of ₹ 85,000/-(Rs. eightyfive thousand), less amounts, if any, deposited by it with the said Controller on account of rents since Baisakh 135 B.S. (sic), within four months from this date. In default, this Rule will stand discharged. If the above deposit is made, as directed herein, this Rule will be made absolute and the opposite party's present proceeding for eviction will stand dismissed on the ground of defective notice of ejectment and/or defective service of such notice. 16. The above deposit, if made, will be withdrawable by the opposite party without furnishing any security therefor and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties under the law. Such withdrawal, however, will be subject to adjustment according to law as against the legal claims of the opposite party against the petitioner on account of the disputed tenancy, at the instance of either party. 17. There will be no order for costs in this Rule. A.K. Dutt, J. 18. I agree.
-
1968 (5) TMI 62
... ...
... ... ..... ards Education Cess on Tree Tax for the year 1966-67. 140. W. Ps. Nos. 1041 and 1044 of 1968 The respondents are directed to refund the amounts, if any, paid by the petitioners towards Education Cess on Arrack Shop Rent for the months of January and February 1968. 141. W. P. No. 1090 of 1968 The respondents are directed to refund the amounts, if any, paid by the petitioner towards Education Cess on Arrack Shop Rent and Toddy Shop Rent for the period 1-1-1968 to 30-6-1969. 142. W. Ps. Nos. 1105, 1106, 1109 and 1110 of 1968 The respondents are directed to refund the amounts if any paid by the petitioners towards Education Cess on Arrack Shop Rent for the period 1-1-1968 to 30-6-1969. 143. W. Ps. Nos. 1107 and 1108 of 1968 The respondents are directed to refund the amounts if any, paid by the petitioners towards Education Cess on Toddy Shop Rent for the period 1-1-1968 to 30-1969. 144. In all these petitions, parties are directed to bear their own costs. 145. Order accordingly.
-
1968 (5) TMI 61
... ...
... ... ..... e type before us the Commission of Inquiry should be prevented from commencing the inquiry and recording any evidence. The proposition that has been laid down in the two cases is that any parallel inquiry conducted by an officer with regard to a matter which is sub judice is bound to interfere with the even and ordinary course of justice. There can be no quarrel with regard to this proposition. But in the present case the Commission is not conducting any parallel inquiry into a matter which has become or may become sub judice by the trial of the Petitioners. For the foregoing reasons, our conclusion is that there is no ground whatsoever for issuing a direction to the Commission of Inquiry restraining it from holding the inquiry entrusted to it. The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of this petition. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the Petitioners.
-
1968 (5) TMI 60
... ...
... ... ..... ly with a view to rebut this conclusion that an application was made in this Court for admission of additional evidence and to the application are annexed true copies of some correspondence which the Company had carried on with others. All that these new documents disclose is that the Company had arranged for a preview of the documentary feature film "Kanak Kamala" at Capital Talkies on 24-6-1963 for supplying the same to the Education Department and that it was sold to the said Department for ₹ 13, 500/-. If this is all the activity that the Company could carryon during the five years since 1962, it certainly does not reflect any credit either on its capacity of its sincerity. We are therefore satisfied that there are no circumstances to influence us to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Company Judge. 7. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal which we do hereby dismiss, but in the circumstances without costs. 8. I agree.
-
1968 (5) TMI 59
... ...
... ... ..... e held to be discriminatory and consequently violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and have, therefore, to be struck down. o p /o p 46. I would, therefore, allow the two petitions. The order of the Public Authority dated 23rd September, 1961 and of the District judge, Nainital, dated 17th September, 1962 in Writ Petition No. 3755 of 1962 and their orders dated 6th December, 1961 and 17th September, 1962, respectively in Writ Petition No. 3755 of 1962 should be quashed. o p /o p ..... o p /o p 47. BY THE COURT Both these writ petitions (No. 3755 of 1962 and No. 3756 of 1962) are allowed. The order of the Public Authority dated September 23. 1961 and that of the District Judge Nainital dated September 17, 1962 which are impugned in Writ Petition No. 3755 of 1962, quashed. The order of the Public Authority dated December 6, 1961 and that of the District Judge Naini Tal dated September 17. 1962 which are impugned in Writ Petition No. 8756 of 1982 are also quashed. o p /o p
-
1968 (5) TMI 58
... ...
... ... ..... in the, matter of tiding over these difficulties for saving his business. The legislature was apparently being very stringent and strict about the nature of the circumstances which would bring them within the proviso. The laying down of two preconditions therein in the, language in which they are couched is significant and must be given due effect. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case we are not satisfied that the closure of the undertaking was due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Thus compensation would be payable as if the undertaking was closed down "for any reason whatsoever" within S. 25FFF (1) of the Act. In the result the appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is set aside. The appellant shall be liable to pay compensation under the principal part of sub-s. (1) of S. 25FFF of the Act. In view of the entire circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1968 (5) TMI 57
... ...
... ... ..... such community with the help of the employees and if such an activity generally involves co-operation of the employer and the employees. To put it differently, the manner in which the activity in question is organised or arranged, the condition of the co-operation between the employer and the employees being necessary for its success and its object being to render material service to the community can be regarded as some of the features which render the carrying on of a professional activity to fall within the ambit of S. 2(4) of the Act. Tested in the light of these principles, we hold that the case of the appellant does not fall within the purview of the Act and the conviction of the appellant of the offence under S. 52(e) of the Act read with S. 62 of the Act and r. 23(1) of the Rules is illegal. For these reasons we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated February 14, 1966 convicting and sentencing, the appellant. G.C. Appeal allowed.
-
1968 (5) TMI 56
... ...
... ... ..... iphlogistic Plaster and Bindra's Yabrooj Plaster (Belladona Plaster) are medicines which are exclusively used or which have been prepared for use exclusively in accordance with the Ayurvedic or Unani system of medicine. As regards the adverb "exclusively" we concur in the view of the High Court that it must be taken to govern the words " used" as well as "prepared for use"; but in our opinion each individual ingredient or component of the preparation in question will not be the decisive or determining factor and what the court will have to decide after recording such evidence as may be produced will be whether the aforesaid medicines (they can hardly be called substances) were exclusively used or were prepared for use exclusively in accordance with the Ayurvedic or Unani system. If they fulfill that test they would be excluded from the definition of drug as contained in S. 3(b)(i). With these observations, however, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1968 (5) TMI 55
... ...
... ... ..... the conferred on the payer of the tax." The royalty, along with receipts from minor minerals, as observed by Gurdev Singh, J., is credited under the head "XXXIX ---- Industries----Miscellaneous" and is levied only on those who are using brick-earth where its property vests in the Government. The element of compulsion is thus limited and a user of brick-earth whose property does not vest in the Government does not have to pay royalty. I do not think that the levy of royalty in such a situation is a tax and in agreement with my learned brother, I consider that it is appropriately in the nature of a rent. 80. The various cases, to which our attention has been invited by; Mr. Bhagirath Dass , Mr. Tuli, Mr. Sachar and others learned Counsel . do not deal exactly with the situation with which we are confronted in this case, and in agreement with my learned brother, I would dismiss there petitions, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 81. Petitions dismissed.
-
1968 (5) TMI 54
... ...
... ... ..... Act confers power to make a serious invasion upon the liberty of the citizen by the subjective determination of facts by an executive authority, and the Parliament has provided several safeguards against misuse of the power. The very fact that a defective order has been passed, or that it has become invalid because of default in strictly complying with the mandatory provisions of the law bespeaks negligence on the part of the detaining authority, and the principle underlying S. 13(2) is, in our view, the outcome of insistence by the Parliament that the detaining authority shall fully apply its mind to and comply with the requirements of the statute and of insistence upon refusal to countenance slipshod exercise of power. Without, therefore, expressing any opinion on the question whether the order passed by the State Government on January 28, 1968, was justified, we are of the view that it was incompetent by virtue of sub-s. (2) of s. 13 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
-
1968 (5) TMI 53
... ...
... ... ..... s a contract for skill and labour, amounts to a sale. (2) In the case of the transaction embodied in bill No. 95198, only the contract for the supply of prints on paper of the particular size mentioned therein, excluding the work of developing the negative from the film roll of the customer which is a contract for skill and labour, amounts to a sale. (3) In the case of the transaction embodied in bill No. 16531, only the contract for the supply of prints of the particular size mentioned therein, excluding the contract for the taking of the photograph as well as the contract for the developing of the negative, which are contracts for skill and labour, amounts to a sale. As, in the view which I have taken above, the applicants have substantially succeeded in these references, I would order that the department must pay the applicants costs of the references fixed at Rs. 250 in one set for all the three references, since they were heard together. References answered accordingly.
-
1968 (5) TMI 52
... ...
... ... ..... as Rs. 1,11,844.02 in the return as the sales of some goods subject to multi-point tax had been erroneously entered as sales subject to single point tax. It is quite possible that the explanation attempted before the Judge (Revisions) was merely an after-thought resorted to by the petitioner in the belief that if he alleged an innocent error it would influence the Judge (Revisions) to take a favourable view. In the result, was allow the petition and quash the order dated Ist July, 1966, of the Additional Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and the order dated 3rd February, 1968, of the Judge (Revisions). The Additional Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) will now take up the appeal of the petitioner and dispose it of afresh in accordance with law. It will be open to him to decide whether, in the light of the foregoing observations, the appeal is competent. If he holds so, he will then dispose of the appeal on its merits. The petitioner is entitled to its costs. Petition allowed.
-
1968 (5) TMI 51
... ...
... ... ..... the application under section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act be disposed of in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. We have no doubt that the question of permitting proper court-fee to be affixed as also the effect of producing on 3rd August, 1962, the certified copy of the order would also be considered in accordance with law. Before finally closing, we cannot help observing that the petitioner should have moved this Court for amendment in the memorandum of parties so as to have the Lt. Governor substituted in place of the Chief Commissioner when the constitutional change took place. Omission to do so is indicative of want of proper care and attention which is not easy to appreciate. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs. On the view that we have taken, the sales tax reference becomes infructuous and the same is declined as such. The record may be returned without avoidable delay. Ordered accordingly.
-
1968 (5) TMI 50
... ...
... ... ..... ection 5 provides for condoning the delay in filing an appeal or application. Section 9(6), U. P. Sales Tax Act, applies section 5 to appeals. Section 5 is not attracted when the question arises whether the delay in depositing the admitted tax should be condoned. It seems to me that the application made by the petitioner for condonation of the delay in depositing the entire amount of the admitted tax is not maintainable under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with section 9(6) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. In my judgment, the petition should be dismissed with costs. RAJESHWARI PRASAD, J.-For the reasons given by his Lordship the Chief Justice as well as those given by Honourable Pathak, J., I agree with the proposed order. The entire admitted amount of tax must be deposited within the period prescribed for filing appeal against an order of assessment of sales tax made under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. By the Court The petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1968 (5) TMI 49
... ...
... ... ..... efining the expression dealer and in that context held that even in the absence of a profitmotive an activity by a society of supplying goods to its members for a price may be in the nature of trade. Therefore, existence of profit-motive is not essential for creation of a taxable entity. In this view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of a motive for profit or gain, by pursuing a particular activity of sale or supplying goods to its members for a price, the co-operative society will not be a dealer as defined and liable to sales tax. 13.. For the reasons discussed above, we find that the sale or supply of goods by the petitioner-society to its members amounts to sale of goods and the petitioner-society being a dealer as defined in the Act is liable to be assessed to sales tax. The petition is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. BARMAN, C.J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1968 (5) TMI 48
... ...
... ... ..... rakash Brahmchari v. The State of OrissaA.I.R. 1956 S.C. 432. (2) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj 1962 45 I.T.R. 414 A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 946. (3) Rai Ramkrishna and Others v. State of Bihar 1963 50 I.T.R. 171 A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1667. (4) Sohan Lal v. The State of PunjabI.L.R. (1964) 2 Punj. 501. and (5) Thakar Singh v. State of PunjabI.L.R. (1964) 2 Punj. 651.. The rule is well-settled that a Legislature has the power of validation of a law declared invalid by courts and can do away with the effect of any decree or order of any court. This contention is now totally beyond the pale of any controversy and must be repelled. No other contention was advanced. I have already dealt with the contentions that were pressed in this petition. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. PANDIT, J.-I agree with my learned brother that this petition be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1968 (5) TMI 47
... ...
... ... ..... s and exceptions. In Schedule B, against item 31 is electric energy. Thus, the Act itself lists electric energy as a tax-free goods . I am left with no doubt in my mind that electric energy falls within the definition of goods in both the Punjab as well as the Central Acts and the ground on which the application of the petitioner was rejected is erroneous. I would allow the petition and consequently quash the two impugned orders passed by Shri G.K. Bhalla, Excise and Taxation Officer, Sangrur, dated 10th of January, 1964, vide annexure D and by Shri M. L. Sondhi, Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, dated 26th of March, 1964, vide annexure F. The petitioner is entitled to be registered as a dealer under the law. The Excise and Taxation Officer, Sangrur, is directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner for registration as a dealer in the light of what has been observed above. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
|
