Reported in : ILR1987KAR979
.....this act, it will have to be borne in mind that the debt was incurred by the judgment debtors outside the territorial limits of karnataka state. in order to attract the provisions of the karnataka debt relief act, 1980, the debt mentioned in section 3 of the act must be one incurred within the limits of the karnataka state. if the debt is incurred beyond the limits of the karnataka state, the judgment debtors are not entitled to claim the benefit of the karnataka debt relief act.6. the supreme court in kochuni v. state of madras and kerala, : [1960]3scr887 held in para 11 on page 1085 as :--'before we pass on to the merits of the case, it would be convenient at the outset to clear the ground. it cannot be disputed that the impugned act passed by the madras legislature could not have had any extra-territorial operation so as to affect the properties in the quondam cochin state. it is not disputed that, after the states reorganization, the provisions of the act were not extended by any legal process to the properties situate in that area of the kerala state which originally formed part of cochin state. in the premises, we are not called upon to decide the fundamental right of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (1987)60CTR(All)71; [1987]168ITR389(All); [1987]31TAXMAN206(All)
k.c. agrawal, j. 1. at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the provisions of section 61 of the estate duty act, 1953, the appellate tribunal was justified in holding that an appeal lay against the order of the assistant controller of estate duty to the appellate controller of estate duty and in that view directing the appellate controller of estate duty to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits ?'2. we are of the opinion that under section 62(1)(b) of the estate duty act, 1953, the appeal is competent. this provision confers a right of appeal on any person (including the accountable person) denying his liability to the amount of estate duty payable in respect of any property.3. in the instant case, the accountable person denied his liability. consequently, the appeal was maintainable and, as such, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. the accountable person will be entitled to receive the costs of the reference which we fix at rs. 300.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (1987)64CTR(All)276; [1987]168ITR278(All); [1987]31TAXMAN71(All)
.....was legally justified in holding that the second gift of rs. 15,000 made on april 2, 1971, to sri sumit kedia was a genuine gift in view of the fact that after making the first gift of rs. 15,000, the donor did not have sufficient cash in her books ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cash not existing in reality can be made a subject-matter of gift ?3. whether modes of gift can artificially be created so as to be treated as a valid gift under the gift-tax act '2. the assessee is an individual. during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee made entries in her books showing gifts made to her minor grandchildren as follows :name of the grandchilddate of giftamount gifted rs.1.sri amitabh kediaapril 2, 197115,0002. sri sumit kediaapril 2, 197115,0003. sri amitabh kediajuly 22, 19712,5004. sri sumit kediaaugust 13, 19712,5003. the assessee filed a gift tax return declaring the aforesaid four gifts aggregating to rs. 35,000 and taxable gifts at rs. 30,000. the gift-tax officer, however, after scrutiny of rokar about cash balance, held that the gifts were not genuine and not intended to transfer title to the donees......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (1987)62CTR(All)234; [1987]168ITR275(All); [1987]31TAXMAN76(All)
.....relating to the assessment or any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him.' the commissioner of income-tax considered the relevant facts while dealing with the application under section 273a(4) and on the satisfaction that the petitioner co-operated with the income-tax authorities in the course of assessment and payment of tax, reduced the penalty by 50 per cent. it could not be and was not disputed before us that section 273a(4) is discretionary in nature. we could have interfered if the discretion had not been exercised in accordance with law. we could not be convinced that the total reduction or waiver was wrongly rejected on extraneous considerations and we are unable to quash the same.3. sri s.n. verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged with particular reference to section 273a(4) that the criminal complaint filed against petitioners nos. 2 and 3 be quashed. we are unable to find any ground for doing so in the present proceedings. counsel for the petitioners further submitted on the basis of section 279(1a) of the income-tax act that no offence had been committed by petitioners nos. 2 and 3. for examining the applicability of this provision and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR1987Ori217; 63(1987)CLT54
.....death of the enforcement inspector and the two office assistants.3. before the claims tribunal, the state of orissa, while admitting the fact of the accident, took a plea that the accident had taken place due to the bursting of the rear tyre of the jeep and, in any case, it was not liable for any damages as the accident took place while the jeep was engaged in discharging a sovereign function.4. the tribunal accepted the defence pleas and dismissed the claim petitions. the claimants filed appeals in this court and on reference to the evidence on record, the learned judge recorded the following findings :(1) the enforcement inspector wasdriving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner; (2) the accident occurred not as a result of the brusting of the tyre, but it took place on account of the impact of the jeep with the tree and the wheel going out the jeep; and (3) it could not be said that the accident took place while the jeep was engaged in discharging the sovereign function. the tortious act in question had been committed by the public servant in the discharge of duties assigned to him not by virtue of delegation of any sovereign power. he further found that after.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [1987]65STC82(Orissa)
.....of section 19 of the act.2. the tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for opinion of this court:whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the member, additional sales tax tribunal is correct in law in not treating the assessee as an entire transferee of business within the ambit of section 19(1) of the orissa sales tax act and the explanation given thereunder ?3. m/s. orissa modern emporium, keonjhar, a registered dealer under the act, carried on business in electrical goods, sports goods, radio and its component parts. undisputedly, the dealer sold his stock-in-trade to the opposite party who carried on business in the same line in the name and style of 'm/s. raja stores'. the sales tax officer, cuttack iii circle, jaipur road, served a notice on the opposite party under section 12(5) of the act and held him liable for payment of sales tax from 21st august, 1973, i. e., the date of starting of the business, by invoking the provisions of section 19(1) of the act treating the opposite party-firm as a transferee of the business of m/s. orissa modern emporium and raised demands for rs. 943.76 and rs. 810.72 respectively for two.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC20
m.p. thakkar and; b.c. ray, jj.1. there is considerable force in the submission of the learned for the petitioners that the amount of costs awarded is out of proportion having regard in the amount of compensation involved. the compensation amount of rs 2250 alongwith interest etc. came to rs 7137.10 and under the circumstances the high court should not have awarded as much as rs 10,000 as costs. the high court possibly felt annoyed or was upset because of the delay in paying the amount of compensation and awarded excessive costs to this extent. however, we do not think that we would be justified in interfering with the order passed by the high court since both the parties will hive to incur cost in excess of rs 10,000 if we grant leave in order to modify the amount of costs awarded by the high court. we, therefore, do not propose to interfere with the order. with these observations, the special leave petition is dismissed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC34
order the only question which has been decided is as to who are entitled to act as the trustees of the property which has been admittedly dedicated to the deity and belongs to the temple. there is no dispute that the property belongs to the deity and that the only effect of the subsequent document dated march 13, 1970 is that the wife and the daughters of the settlor have been constituted as sevaits-trustees subsequent to the death of the settlor. we wish to make it clear that the trust created in favour of the deity and the temple by registered document dated june 10, 1964 cannot and has not been revoked and that the title to the property vesting in the deity and the temple remains unaffected. the wife and daughters will be working as sevaits-trustees appointed under subsequent document dated march 13, 1970 in place of the petitioners. the only change that has taken place is in regard to the persons who will administer the trust and not in regard to the vesting of the property in the deity. with these clarificatory observations, the special leave petition will stand disposed of. court master from the judgment and order dated july 9, 1986 of the high court of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1987(12)DRJ229; 1987RLR147
.....section 53b of the delhi development act, 1957. (6) the suit has been contested by the delhi development authority. in the written statement, the facts including the dates regarding the holding of the auction, deposit of the earnest amount, rejection of the bid and the refund of the earnest money have not been disputed. it is pleaded that the plaint has not been signed and verified by a duly authorised person and that the suit is barred by virtue of section 53b of the delhi development act. it is further pleaded that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the auction and the said terms and conditions do not provide for awarding any interest on the earnest amount. (7) on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1.has the suit been validly instituted and the plaint duly signed and verified opp. 2.was the bid of the plaintiff duly accepted by the defendant opp. 3.is the suit barred by time (by virtue of section 53b of the delhi development authority act, 1957) o.p.p. 4.was any legal and valid notice served on the defendant opp. 5.has the conduct of the defendant been such as to cause loss to the plamtiff, and whether in respect of that.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 1987(1)Crimes228; 31(1987)DLT64; 1987RLR71
.....the evidence so far collected and the material on record, even if goes unrebutted, would not warrant the involvement of the present petitioner. in fact, there is no evidence to prove the existence of a conspiracy amongst the co-accused. in the absence of any documentary evidence, the present petitioner has not been proved to be concerned with the offences for which the charge has been framed. the learned counsel for the state, on the other hand, contended that the learned lower court has applied his mind to the circumstances of the present case and it is not a fit case for quashing the charge. the prosecution, according to the learned counsel, has not only collected material documents but also relied upon the statement of the witnesses who were responsible for hatching the conspiracy in taking out all the cheques from the letter boxes and then getting them encased in the name of the person in whose favor the cheques have been issued. (6) i have carefully perused the report under section 173 cr.p.c.and have also minutely perused the documents attached with it. the complicity of the accused mukesh and charanjit walia is prima fade established on the material already collected by.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT