|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 242 Records
-
1980 (4) TMI 305 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e, in our view, properly explained Shukla's case and have laid down the correct law. The decision of the Kerala High Court in L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer Southern Railway and Anr. and the other decisions of the other High Courts to similar effect viz. The 'Managing Director, National Garages v. J. Gonsalve, Goodlas Nerolac Paints v. Chief Commissioner, Delhi and Rajasthan State Electricity Board. v. Labour Court, are, therefore, over-ruled. We hold, as a result of our discussion, that the discharge of the workman on the ground-she did not pass the test which would have enabled her to be confirmed was 'retrenchment' within the meaning of s. 2(OO) and, therefore, the requirements of s. 25F had to be complied with. The order of the Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, new Delhi, is set aside and the appellant is directed to be reinstated with full back wages. The appellant is entitled to her cost. Appeal allowed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reason. The provocation was limited. For the controversy in the present cases concerning the legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 can be adequately disposed of on the ground that the legislation falls within Entry 42 of List III and cannot be related to Entry 52 of List I or Entry 24 of List II. When the impugned enactment truly falls within Entry 42 of List III-"acquisition and requisitioning of property"-there is a reluctance to enter upon an examination of the mutually competing claims of Entry 52 of List I and Entry 24 of List II-entries which deal with "industries", an entirely different subject matter. With this reservation, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the ultimate conclusions reached by our learned brother on the remaining points of controversy and in concurring with the order proposed by him disposing of these appeals and special leave petitions. Appeals dismissed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 303 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... amendment of the Supreme Court Rules which govern the procedure to be adopted by it for regulating its work, can only be effected by the whole Court sitting and deciding. The result is that so far as the recommendation of the Municipal Committee to the Government to levy octroi duty, is concerned though it is contrary to the representation it made to the buyers of the sites in the Mundi, the Municipality is not estopped as the representation made by it was beyond the scope of its authority. The levy of tax being for a public purpose i.e. for augmenting the revenues of the Municipality as laid down in Ram Kumar's case, the plea of estoppel is not available. The order of the Government directing the levy of octroi in pursuance of the resolution of the Municipality cannot also be challenged as it is in the exercise of its statutory duty. The result is both the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs of one set to be borne equally by the two appellants. Appeals dismissed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 302 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Bank. The Receiver appointed by us in C.M.P. No. 183 of 1980 will continue to act as Receiver under the decree. Out of the sum realised after deducting the expenses involved, a sum of ₹ 96833-10-0 together with interest at 9 percent per annum from January 23, 1953 upto the date of payment, will be paid in the first instance to the defendant and the balance will be divided equally between the plaintiff and the defendant. If the amount realised by the Receiver after deducting the expenses fall short of sum of ₹ 96833-10-0 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from January 23, 1953, the plaintiff shall make good the amount to the defendant. The appeal is dismissed but the decree is modified as indicated above. Special Leave Petition No. 4023 of 1980 filed by the defendant is allowed, leave granted and the appeal disposed of in the same terms as Civil Appeal No. 1147 of 1978. Delay condoned. There will be no order regarding costs in both the Appeals. Appeal dismissed
-
1980 (4) TMI 301 - SUPREME COURT
Recruitment procedure - scheme of reorganisation of the Services - quota system - Held that:- It is necessary to recall that for nearly a decade after 1950, appointments of promotes were made far in excess of the quota available to them. So long as the quota rule operated, it was possible to regularize their appointments when posts within their quota became available in later years. But a somewhat unprecedented ed situation arose by the upgrading of Class II posts to Class I, Grade II,- 100 of the month January 16, 1959 and 114 on December 9, 1960. This massive upgrading of posts brought about a collapse of the quota rule. Subsequent absorption in posts which become available for being filled up later really means regularization of appointments, which is possible provided there is no excessive deviation from the quota rule. We quite appreciate that no blame can be laid at the doors of the promotes on the score that they were appointed in excess of the quota available to them. Perhaps, their appointments must even have enabled the administration to tide over administrative stalemate.
But the tough problem which the administration has to face is that whereas it is necessary to recognize and protect the claims of promotes who are appointed in excess of their quota, it is equally necessary to ensure that the direct recruits do not suffer an undue set back in service on account of the excessive appointments of promotes. The conflicting claims of the two components of Service, both having an importance of their own, have therefore to be reconciled. It was with that object that the rules have been modified from time to time. The judgments rendered by this Court in matters which the petitioners want to be reopened show, without a shadow of doubt, how every effort was made to ensure that no hardship or injustice is caused to the promotes merely because their appointments exceeded their quota.
The Court adopted what it considered in the circumstances to be a satisfactory and scientific method of ascertaining the number of vacancies available for being filled up. It came to the conclusions that the number; of actual appointments should determine the number of vacancies available which, with great respect, was a perfectly legitimate conclusion to draw. In the grey area where service rules operate, more than one view is always possible to take without sacrificing either reason or commonsense but the ultimate choice has to be necessarily conditioned by several considerations ensuring justice to as many as possible and injustice to as few. We also find it impossible to hold that there was any error in the conclusions in Jaisinghani (1967 (2) TMI 30 - SUPREME Court) that rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules was a statutory rule. Subsequent decisions would show that there was hardly any dispute between the parties, at later stages at any rate, that rule 4 was a statutory rule. Appeal dismissed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 300 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the licence fee charged to the respondents, for failure to pay which their licence was cancelled, was not fee properly so called but was ’stillhead’ duty or excise duty; and the rule requiring the payment of such duty, even when no quota of liquor was actually lifted by the licensee, was unconstitutional for the reason that there can be no liability to pay still-head duty or excise duty unless the licensee takes or lifts the liquor?
.
Held that:- High Court was in error in entertaining the writ petitions for the purpose of examining whether the respondents could avoid their contractual liability by challenging the Rules under which the bids offered by them were accepted and under which they became entitled to conduct their business. It cannot ever be that a licensee can work out the licence if he finds it profitable to do so; and he can challenge the conditions under which he agreed to take the licence, if he finds it commercially inexpedient to conduct his business.
Remand the matter to the High Court in order to enable it to record its findings on two outstanding questions: (1) whether it was necessary according to the Rules which were in force at the relevant time to give adequate publicity to the reauction and, (2) if so, whether such publicity was in fact given to the reauction.
-
1980 (4) TMI 299 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... mises, the three steps covering handling and transport should not be included in assessable value. 3. As the packing material of the excisable goods in question is outside the scope of packing as defined in Section 4(4)(d)(i) of C.E., and Salt Act, 1944, the cost of such packing materials is not required to be included in the value of the excisable goods of the appellants in terms of Section 4 ibid. 4. As there is no sale at the factory gate and as such normal price of the excisable goods in question is not ascertainable at the place of removal and the value thereof is determined with reference to the price for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, the cost of transportation, which includes loading charges from the place of delivery shall have to be excluded from the value of the excisable goods for the purpose of assessment in terms of Section 4 of the C.E and Salt Act, 1944. 5. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1980 (4) TMI 298 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nformed the petitioner that the approval already granted had to be modified in view of the trade notice No. 54 of 1977, dated 9-3-1977 read with the trade notice No. 261 of 1977, dated 28-10-1977. These trade notices are the very ones which insisted that the exemption should be passed on to the consumer before they could be availed of by the manufacturer. 7. For reasons given in the Judgments referred to above, we have to hold that the impugned order is not valid and has to be struck down. We accordingly grant the writ quashing the order dated 4-1-1979 which directed the petitioner to prepare a fresh price list or classification list on the basis of the said trade notices. 8. It would, therefore, follow that the approved classification list effective from 14-7-1978 which was approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kottayam, would continue to be effective. 9. In the circumstances of the case, however, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1980 (4) TMI 297 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... onsequently, Rule 6(a) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 would come into play and the normal price has to be determined under this Rule. Further, the appellants, in respect of a similar issue relating to their unit at Kerala have taken up the matter with the Kerala High Court and in accordance with the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, the assessable value of their similar products from the unit at Kerala has been fixed after allowing the post manufacturing expenses. In view of this position, and in view of the Judgment of the Madras High Court (in whose jurisdiction the appellants’ factory is situated) in the case of Nagpaul Petrochem Limited, allowing the post manufacturing expenses to be deducted, the lower authority should allow the post manufacturing expenses in this case after necessary verification and fix the assessable value as per Rule 6(a) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
-
1980 (4) TMI 296 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... ation of 18 pieces of spot welding cables seized from the company on 3-12-1975 under Rules 173-Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The confiscated goods are ordered to be released on payment of a fine of ₹ 4,500/- (Rupees four thousand and five hundred only) Duty is ordered to be charged on the cables when the same are cleared from the factory in terms of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. I also levy on the company a penalty of ₹ 63,000/- (Rupees sixty three thousand only) under Rule 173Q and a penalty of ₹ 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of the cables manufactured in contravention of the rules and cleared similarly. I further direct that the Central Excise duty at the appropriate rate be levied on spot welding cables valued at ₹ 6,35,845/-, which have been cleared by the company in contravention of the Central Excise Rules as alleged in the Show Cause Notice.
-
1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT
Whether courts had the inherent power to pass an order of bail in anticipation of arrest?
Held that:- no hard and fast rules can be laid down in discretionary matters like the grant or refusal of bail, whether anticipatory or otherwise. No such rules can be laid down for the simple reason that a circumstance which, in a given case, turns out to be conclusive, may have no more than ordinary signification in another case.
We would, therefore, prefer to leave the High Court and the Court of Session to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 by a wise and careful use of their discretion which, by their long training and experience, they are ideally suited to do. The ends of justice will be better served by trusting these courts to act objectively and in consonance with principles governing the grant of bail which are recognised over the years, than by divesting them of their discretion which the legislature has conferred upon them, by laying down inflexible rules of general application. It is customary, almost chronic, to take a statute as one finds it on the grounds that, after all "the legislature in its wisdom" has thought it fit to use a particular expression. A convention may usefully grow whereby the High Court and the Court of Session may be trusted to exercise their discretionary powers in their wisdom, especially when the discretion is entrusted to their care by the legislature in its wisdom. If they err, they are liable to be corrected.
-
1980 (4) TMI 294 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ection 8(2) is made out and the petitioner is liable for penalty. The Sales Tax Officer, however, assessed the penalty at Rs. 50,000 on the basis that the raw materials of the value of Rs. 8,00,000 purchased within the State under section 8(1) were used for manufacture of goods sold outside the State. This basis, in our opinion, is wrong and the penalty should have been assessed on the basis that raw materials of the value of Rs. 4,41,092.35 which were purchased locally in form XII-A were used for manufacture of goods sold outside the State. The penalty will, therefore, have to be reassessed on this basis. 4.. The petition is allowed. The order imposing penalty for the period 1971-72 is quashed. The order imposing penalty for the period 1972-73 is also quashed. The Sales Tax Officer is, however, directed to reassess the penalty for the year 1972-73 in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs of this petition. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1980 (4) TMI 293 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... acturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. 1972 29 STC 639. This was a case relating to sale of cement governed by the Cement Control Order. The decision in this case has to be understood in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan 1979 43 STC 13 (SC) AIR 1978 SC 1496 which was also a case relating to sale of cement under the Control Order. The Supreme Court in that case held that in view of the special provisions contained in the Control Order, the freight formed part of the sale price. The case before us is not governed by any Control Order and hence the case of Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. 1972 29 STC 639 is distinguishable. 7.. For the reasons given above, our answer to the question referred is that freight deducted by the assessee in the bill and actually paid by the purchaser at the destination does not form part of the sale price. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (4) TMI 292 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat the law does not take into account the actions of persons who are negligent or mistaken but only of persons who act correctly, according to law. If the assessee before us had acted diligently, it could have avoided the payment of tax as part of the sale price to the selling dealer from whom it purchased the goods. As earlier pointed out by us, if the assessee paid the tax as part of the price to the selling dealer, it is itself to be blamed. The sales made by it to the consumers are taxable under the scheme of the State Act and are not hit by the bar contained in section 15 of the Central Act. 4.. For the reasons given above, our answer. to the question is that the assessee is liable to pay sales tax in respect of the declared goods which it had purchased from a registered dealer after payment of tax at the full rate and without furnishing to him the declarations in the prescribed form. There will be no order as to costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (4) TMI 291 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fitness of things to allow the petitioners refund of that tax and thus make them doubly rich. This is also the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court where, in Gurram Sreeramulu, Garlapati Anjaneyulu and Co. v. State of A.P. 1972 30 STC 120, it was held that even if the court is satisfied having regard to all the circumstances that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the tax, the petitioner may still not be granted the discretionary relief if it results in retention of the sales tax collected by the petitioner from the public and imposes the burden on the State of refunding the tax which it had collected under a valid assessment order. For this reason also, we do not think that the petitioners have made out a case for refund of sales tax in their favour. 10.. For the reasons aforesaid, the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs of these petitions. The security amount shall be refunded to the petitioners. Petitions dismissed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 290 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ner to produce further evidence to show that the property passed after the goods crossed the customs frontiers. 9.. The petition is allowed. The orders of the Regional Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur, in so far as they relate to the sales of the value of Rs. 4,57,87,911 between the petitioner and the export promoters are quashed. The Regional Assistant Commissioner is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence on the question whether the property in the case of these sales passed after the goods crossed the customs frontiers and to decide afresh the question whether these sales qualify for exemption under the second limb of section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, or were liable to be assessed as sales in course of inter-State trade and commerce, in the light of the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs of this petition. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 289 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng the duties can deduct the collection charges, but there is no such provision made for the mine owner. The mine owner is clearly not a collecting agent. Simply because it is the incidence of despatch which makes the duties payable, it cannot be said that the duties cannot form part of the sale price. In the absence of any statutory provision the only manner in which the mine owner can recover the duties from the purchaser is by making the same part of the valuable consideration for the goods sold there is no other way in which he can recover the duties of excise from the purchaser. 10.. In our opinion, the sales tax authorities were right in treating the duties of excise, i.e., the coal mines welfare cess, stowing duty and rescue cess, recovered by the petitioner from the purchasers as part of the sale price for the goods sold. 11.. The petition fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 288 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fect that even if in respect of the place of delivery and the place of payment of price there could be a consensual arrangement, the transaction will not amount to a sale. But in spite of these observations, so far as the cases of compulsory acquisition under the relevant procurement orders are concerned, the view in the Chittar Mal s case(2) was upheld. That being so, there is no merit in the contention of the learned State counsel that the judgment of this Court in the Food Corporation of India s case 1976 38 S.T.C. 144 I.L.R. 1976 2 P. and H. 587. stands overruled and does not lay down a correct law. In this view of the matter the instructions issued by the State (copy annexure P-1 to the petition), cannot legally be sustained and have to be quashed. Consequently, we allow this petition with costs and quash the instructions of the State of Haryana issued vide letter No. 3922/Reg. 6/SII dated 8th September, 1978 (copy annexure P-1). Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 287 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fic finding that there was absolutely no chance of the tax being reduced in the assessment after remand. The case is, therefore, distinguishable. In the instant case, as already pointed out by us, there is every likelihood that the tax would be reduced in the assessment after remand. It was, therefore, necessary to set aside the order of penalty also. 8.. The petition is partly allowed. The order dated 30th August, 1974, passed by the Commissioner in Sales Tax Revision No. 24/R (Central) of 1972-73 is quashed in so far as it maintains the imposition of penalty of Rs. 9,200. The order dated 12th January, 1972, passed by the Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty is also quashed. It would be open to the Assistant Commissioner to reimpose penalty according to law under section 43 for the second period, i.e., the period from 3rd November, 1967, to 21st October, 1968. There shall be no order as to costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Petition partly allowed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 286 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed on behalf of the assessee on the due date fixed for it, we think it is not because the forms were spurious but because they were unable to rectify the defects within that time. Accordingly, we would interfere in the C.S.T. cases and direct that the revenue should give another chance to the petitioner to claim deduction under valid C forms. Since in the meanwhile more than two years have passed, the learned assessing officer would do well to give one more chance to the assessee to produce valid C forms and then finalise the assessment according to law. Accordingly, O.J.C. Nos. 195, 196, 197, 204, 205 and 206 of 1977 are allowed, the assessments and demands quashed and cases remanded for reassessment on the lines indicated above. O.J.Cs. arising out of O.S.T. assessments are rejected and O.J.Cs. arising out of C.S.T. assessments are allowed as indicated in the order. Parties to bear their own costs in the circumstances of the cases. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Ordered accordingly.
........
|
