|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 332 Records
-
1994 (3) TMI 390
... ...
... ... ..... which were of no relevance. (13) It was contended that if out of numerous documents taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority, one or two turn out to be of no relevance, this in itself should not be allowed to till the balance and make the whole exercise illegal. An attractive proposition, undoubtedly. However, what is material is proper application of mind and once a Detaining Authority not only takes into consideration but even relies upon irrelevant documents it displays a totally casual and mechanical approach and betrays lack of application of mind. It is against this solid rock that the argument gets shattered. (14) Of course, the legality of the Detention Order has been challenged on the ground of delay as well. Since I am granting relief on the basis of the first objection itself, I feel no need to delineate on the second contention. (15) The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner be set at liberty in case his not required to be delaine in any other case.
-
1994 (3) TMI 389
... ...
... ... ..... quipments in the thermal generating industries. It was contended that the water was drawn from River Yamuna for that purpose and after utilising the same for cooling purposes, it was discharged back in the river. On these facts it was argued that the utilisation of the water was not "consumption" under the Act. The appellate authority rejected the contention and came to the conclusion that the supply of water was measured by the meters which were installed at the entry of the factory. On that basis the water which entered the factory was taken to be consumed. We see no ground to interfere with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the appellate authority was upheld by the High Court. Dr Singhvi has tried to raise, before us, various questions which were not raised before the authorities below. There is no factual basis to support the contentions. We are not inclined to permit Dr Singhvi to raise any new point at this stage The appeals are dismissed. No costs
-
1994 (3) TMI 388
... ...
... ... ..... Chief of the Army Staff and that this petition has not been disposed of despite several reminders. If this be so we would ask the Central Government to dispose of this matter as early as possible and in any event, not later than the expiration of three months from today. This order may be communicated to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India." (emphasis added) 10.Yet another submission urged by the petitioner is that where the order impugned is without jurisdiction, the plea of laches ought not to be entertained. He sought to bring certain decisions in support of this contention. The petitioner could not, however, satisfy us as to why the order impugned in the writ petition is without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to deal with the decision cited. 11.In the circumstances, we see no substance in this special leave petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. No orders on civil miscellaneous petition.
-
1994 (3) TMI 387
... ...
... ... ..... out that respondents had never been in receipt of dearness pay and as such the office memorandum in question could not have been applied to them. Similarly, the encashment of leave was a new scheme introduced which could not have been extended retrospectively to respondents, who had retired before the introduction of the said scheme. Same can be said even in respect of family pension scheme which was earlier contributory, but with effect from 22-9- 1977 the scheme was made non-contributory. The respondents not being in service on the said date, were not eligible for the said benefit and no question of refunding the amount, which had already been contributed by them, did arise. According to us, the High Court was in error in applying the principle of D.S. Nakaral in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (3) TMI 386
... ...
... ... ..... a knife-blow to his brother, who was in serious condition. The presence of PW 6 at the time of the occurrence cannot be disputed because he has also suffered a fracture at the same occurrence, which had been proved by. the orthopaedic surgeon (PW 5). The appellant also produced the knife during the investigation before PW 21, by which he had stabbed Sharad Kumar. On 3 (1994)2SCC220 JT(1994)ISC33 behalf of the appellant no motive on the part of PW 6 has been suggested for falsely naming the appellant as the assailant of his brother. The High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was perfectly justified, in setting aside the acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Judge. We find no reason to interfere with the said judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant is dismissed. It appears, the appellant had been enlarged on bail by this Court. Now he should be taken in custody to serve out the remaining period of his sentence.
-
1994 (3) TMI 385
... ...
... ... ..... omething less than the ceiling applicable to him. o p /o p It is contended that what is acquired is a small bit from each landholder and that is not of much significance. We do not know what rule is in contemplation. If it is the de minimis rule, we can only say that it would be a most unsatisfactory mode of avoidance of the constitutional provision. What is a small bit is a very vague and uncertain expression. The safe rule is that the Constitution means what it says, that is, land within the ceiling is not to be touched unless compensation at market rate is given. We would, therefore, reject the plea that we should ignore these small bits of land especially as they will be used for the general good and will confer some benefit also upon those who will lose them. o p /o p We would accordingly allow the appeal with costs. o p /o p ORDER o p /o p In accordance with the Opinion of the majority Civil Appeal No. 1018 of 1966 is dismissed without costs. o p /o p V. P. S. o p /o p
-
1994 (3) TMI 384
... ...
... ... ..... y inasmuch as the impugned provision made by it is in clear contravention of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Vijay Kumar v. State of Bihar (1990) 1 PLJR 277. In the said decision, it is pointed out, it has been held that in view of the Indian Medical Council Act and the Regulations made by the council, the order of the State Government providing for reservations in the postgraduate medical course is impermissible. It is submitted that the said decision had become final and was, therefore, binding upon the State of Bihar. It does not, however, appear that this decision was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that rendered the decision under appeal. Since, we have expressed ourselves on merits of the controversy, which is inconsistent with the ratio of the judgment in Vijay Kumar (1990) 1 PLJR 277 it is not necessary to pursue this argument of learned counsel. 31. For all the above reasons, the appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs.
-
1994 (3) TMI 383
... ...
... ... ..... or executive instruction or custom, thus, cannot justify an imposition as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra . In Rayalaseema Construction v. Dy. Commercial Tax Officer it has been held that the words "levy and collection" are used in this Article in a comprehensive sense and are intended to include the entire process of taxation commencing from taxing statute to the taking away of the money from the pocket of the citizen. In this connection reference may also be made to the case of Subbarao v. State of A.P. . 21. In the result, I hold that the impugned circular is ultra vires the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act & Article 265 of the Constitution of India and hence writ of certiorari must be granted to quash the circular of the second-respondent (Annexure-1). We accordingly quash the show cause notice issued to the petitioners (Annexure-2). 22. This writ application is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Gurusharan Sharma, J.
-
1994 (3) TMI 382
... ...
... ... ..... gle Judge) in the case of the pharmacy college but filed an appeal only in the case of the M.P. Shah Medical College and that it is guilty of discrimination on that account, we must say, we see no substance in it. It is explained by the learned Additional Solicitor General that in the case of pharmacy college, only one seat was involved whereas it was 12 seats here and that too in a medical college. In any event, since both the colleges are different and they had filed two different writ petitions, non-filing of appeal in one case does not disable the Government from filing the appeal in the other case, merely because the judgment is a common one. It must be deemed in such a case that it is a judgment in each case separately. 24. For the above reasons, the civil appeals are allowed and the judgments of the Gujarat High Court, both of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench under appeal, are set aside. No order as to costs. 25. No orders on interlocutory applications.
-
1994 (3) TMI 381
... ...
... ... ..... her persons and submit the report under Section 173 CrPC in the competent court. On that view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act can be invoked in relation to consent given under Section 6 of the Act. 17.The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and it is declared that the notification dated 7-1-1987, withdrawing the consent given by the Government of Sikkim under letters dated October 20, 1976, and 10-7-1979 and orders dated 24-12-1983, 28-6-1984, and 10-12-1984, under Section 6 of the Act, operates only prospectively and the said withdrawal would not apply to cases which were pending investigation on the date of issuance of the said notification. The notification dated 7-1-1987, does not preclude the CBI from submitting the report in the competent court under Section 173 CrPC on the basis of the investigation conducted by it in RC.5/84-CIU(A) and RC.8/84-CIU(A). 18. No order as to costs.
-
1994 (3) TMI 380
... ...
... ... ..... of in terms of the opinion expressed by us on the meaning and purport of Article 74(2) of the Constitution. (12) The Proclamations dated January 15, 1993 in respect of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh concerned in Civil Appeal Nos. 1692,1692-A to 1692-C of 1993, 4627-4630 of 1993, Transferred Case (C) No. 9 of 1993 and Transferred Case No. 8 of 1993 respectively are not unconstitutional. The Civil Appeals are allowed and the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.P. (C) No. 237 of 1993 is set aside. The transferred cases are dismissed. 435. In the light of the reasons given and conclusions recorded hereinabove, we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusions 1, 2 and 4 to 7 in the judgment of our learned Brother Sawant, J. delivered on behalf of himself and Kuldip Singh, J. We are also in broad agreement with conclusion 8 in the said judgment. 436. No orders on interlocutory applications. 437. There shall be no order as to costs in these matters.
-
1994 (3) TMI 379
... ...
... ... ..... Court should stand automatically transferred. I am further of the opinion that in such cases the accused should be provided a counsel of his choice and the payment of fee should be either made by the State or if made by the accused it should be reimbursed. (6) As regards jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an application for bail under Article 226 of the Constitution I am of the opinion that the High Courts being constitutionally obliged to ensure that any authority which exercises judicial and quasi- judicial powers in its jurisdiction functions within the framework of law, are entitled to entertain the petition to determine if the proceedings were not an abuse of process of court. But while exercising discretion the court must not be oblivious of the sensitivity of the legislation and the social objective inherent in it and, therefore, should exercise it for the sake of justice in rare and exceptional cases the details of which cannot be fixed by any rigid formula.
-
1994 (3) TMI 378
... ...
... ... ..... initiation of the administrative procedure which may lead to a decision on the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty or to a decision imposing a pecuniary sanction on the undertaking. That protection must be extended to earlier written communications which have a relationship to the subject-matter of that procedure The protection of written communications between lawyer and client must, in view of its purpose, be regarded as also extending to internal notes which are confined to reporting the text or the content of those communications for the purpose of distributing them within the undertaking and submitting them for consideration by managerial staff 3. A request by a party that the Court make it clear to the interveners that the documents in the case are made available to them purely for the purposes of the proceedings must be rejected, since the rules governing the procedure before the Court do not contain any provision on which such a direction could be based.
-
1994 (3) TMI 377
Whether the respondent-dealer has discharged that burden of proving that he has not collected the tax was, however, placed upon the dealer, by the said Amendment Act?
Held that:- It is faintly urged before us by the learned counsel for the respondent-dealer that he was not given a due opportunity to establish that he did not collect the tax and, therefore, the matter must be remanded to afford him such an opportunity. It is, however, not brought to our notice that any such grievance was made at any stage of the proceedings. In the circumstances, no such opportunity is called for.
The appeal is allowed and the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside(except with respect to the turnover relating to groundnut oilcake) and the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Bangalore dated 20-8-1970 confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment) Bangalore dated 22-1-1970 (against subject to the rider that the turnover relating to ground nut oilcake shall be exempt from tax) is restored. No order as to costs.
-
1994 (3) TMI 376
... ...
... ... ..... ayable by the purchaser. The cases cited by the learned Standing Counsel do not subscribe to the view as taken by the sales tax authorities in the present case nor the cases cited render any assistance to the argument raised in support thereof by the learned Standing Counsel. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the sales tax authorities have committed grave illegality in reaching to the conclusion which is unwarranted by the provisions of the sales tax laws whether of Central or of the State by including the amount of excise duty for determining the taxable turnover of the assessee. 19.. In the result, the revision applications are allowed and the orders under challenge are set aside. The return filed by the assessee showing his taxable turnover exclusive of the component of excise duty paid by him on the goods is, therefore, to be accepted and sales tax has to be assessed thereon. The applicants are also entitled to costs of the case from the respondents. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 375
... ...
... ... ..... a miscellaneous petition. The learned Judges observed in paragraph 7 of the judgment that the said order did not deal with the points raised, nor was it an authority for the proposition canvassed. The Bench went on to state that if the learned single Judge who passed the order intended even remotely to lay down any such proposition as was canvassed, they were not in agreement with the said view. I may mention that O.P. No. 19 of 1994 was also one for grant of time for payment of kist amount in instalments, as is evident from paragraph 1 of the judgment. The Division Bench declined that prayer. I am therefore supported in my view by the opinion of the Division Bench as well. I therefore decline the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of instalment facility. So far as the challenge to the amendment is concerned, I record the statement made on behalf of the petitioners that the said challenge is not pressed. The original petition is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 374
... ...
... ... ..... ation accordingly. 2.. Accordingly I quash exhibits P10 and P11 and direct the second respondent, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, to dispose of the petitioner s appeals S.T.A. Nos. 120, 121 and 122 of 1994 with all expedition and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending disposal of S.T.A. Nos. 120 and 121 of 1994 recovery of the balance amounts demanded as per the orders of assessments exhibits PI and P2 made under the KGST Act, 1963, will be kept in abeyance provided the petitioner pays an amount of Rs. 40,000 towards the demand under those assessments within a period of one month from today. The recovery of the balance amount of tax demanded as per the CST Act assessment, exhibit P3, will be kept in abeyance pending the appeal S.T.A. No. 122 of 1994. The original petition is disposed of as above. Communicate a copy of this judgment to the second respondent for information and compliance. Ordered accordingly.
-
1994 (3) TMI 373
... ...
... ... ..... adjudicate the assessment. On the mere fact that transactions pertaining to the succeeding month are also found in the form pertaining to the relevant month, it is not possible to hold that the entire form is vitiated or invalidated. For the fault committed by the assessee in including the transactions for more than one month in one form, he cannot be punished by invalidating the entire form which can very well be treated as the one relating to the transactions of one month included in the form. By doing so, the State is not put to any loss of tax. The rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. They cannot be interpreted so as to defeat the substantive rights of the parties. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal that the form should be considered as valid for the transactions pertaining to the relevant month is just and fair and it does not in any way cause loss to the Revenue. Hence, we see no ground to admit the tax case accordingly, it is rejected. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 372
... ...
... ... ..... he Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1989 74 STC 176. Their Lordships reversed the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court and held that the purpose of galvanising a pipe is merely to make it weather-proof and it remains a steel tube. The limited purpose of galvanisation does not bring a new commodity into existence. Therefore the galvanised tubes are not exigible to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In view of the said decision, we quash exhibits PI to P4 orders of assessment. We direct the third respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in 1989 74 STC 176 (Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Kerala). This must be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Original petition is allowed in the above terms. Issue photo copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (3) TMI 371
... ...
... ... ..... nce on a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1994 93 STC 380 1993 4 MTCR 549. No doubt, in the aforesaid decision, rule 18(2) has been referred to and it has been stated that the return is required to be filed on the 20th of the succeeding month and that the tax becomes payable on the 20th, but the contention of the nature which has been raised in the instant case had not been raised therein. 9.. Accordingly, the point raised for determination is answered in the negative and it is held that under any circumstance, in the case of provisional assessment, the last date for filing the return and payment of tax due is the 20th of the succeeding month. 10.. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. However, the appellant is granted, as requested, two weeks time for payment of the sum demanded as penalty. Writ appeal dismissed.
........
|
