Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1956 Page 7 of about 332 results (0.023 seconds)

Jul 30 1956 (HC)

The Sales Tax Officer and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Sarraf

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-30-1956

Reported in : [1956]7STC658(All)

sarraf mootham, c.j.1. this is an application for leave to appeal to the supreme court from a judgment of this court dated the 1st december, 1955, dismissing an appeal from an order of mr. justice chaturvedi dated the 30th november, 1954. the applicants are the state of uttar pradesh, the commissioner of sales tax, uttar pradesh, and the sales tax officer, banaras. the respondent firm is a dealer in bullion and in gold and silver ornaments, and as part, of its business it entered into forward contracts in silver. in respect of such contracts it was assessed to sales tax for the years 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51 in a sum of rs. 1,365-12-0 and these amounts it duly paid. subsequently this court held, and its decision was affirmed by the supreme court in sales tax officer, pilibhit v. budh prakash jai prakash [1955] s.c.r. 243, that the provisions of the u.p. sales tax act purporting to impose a sales tax on forward contracts were ultra vires ; and thereafter the respondent firm applied to the commissioner of sales tax, u.p., for a refund of the aforesaid sum of rs. 1,365-12-0. the refund being refused, the respondent firm filed a petition in this court under article 226 of the constitution for a writ of mandamus requiring the applicants to refund the amount of tax paid by it. that petition was allowed by an order of chaturvedi, j., and it is from the judgment of this court dismissing the appeal from that order that this application has been made.2. the question raised by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 1956 (HC)

The Kanpur Journals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-26-1956

Reported in : [1956]7STC661(All)

1. this is a reference made by the revising authority under section 11 of the u.p. sales tax act.2. the assessees are publishers and printers, and in the course of their business as printers they accept orders from customers for job work such as receipt books, registers, letter heads and handbills which are printed in accordance with the requirements of their customers on paper supplied by the assessees. in the bills submitted by the assessees to their customers the price of the paper and the charges for printing are shown separately. in respect of the assessment year 1948-49 and the first nine months of the year 1949-50 the assessees were assessed to sales tax on the proceeds of sale of such job work. they challenged the validity of such assessments and the question which has been referred by the revising authority to this court is-whether the turnover of receipt books, registers, forms, letter heads, visiting cards and handbills printed to order when all materials -paper, ink, etc.-are supplied by the presses is assessable to sales tax ?3. section 3 of the u.p. sales tax act, 1948, provides (subject to the provisions of the act) for the payment by a dealer of sales tax on his turnover, and section 4 provides that no tax shall be payable on, inter alia, books, magazines and newspapers and such other goods as the state government may by notification in the official gazette exempt from time to time. now by a notification under this section, no. st. 199-x/928, which came into .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 1956 (HC)

Sarju Prasad Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-09-1956

Reported in : [1956]7STC665(All)

mootham, c.j.1. eighteen applications on revision were made to the judge (rivisions), sales tax, under section 10 of the u.p. sales tax act, 1948. instead of finally disposing of these applications the judge (revisions) has made a consolidated reference to this court and has asked for the decision by it of two questions of law. the question is whether such a reference is competent.2. section 11 of the act, as in force at the material time, made provision for the reference to this court by the revising authority of a question of law arising out of an order made by the judge (appeals) under sub-section (3) of section 9 or by the judge (rivisions) under sub-section (1) of section 10; and it is common ground that the application now before us is not an application under section 11.3. the learned standing counsel contends however that the application can be entertained by this court under section 113 of the code of civil procedure read with section 141 of the code which provides that 'the procedure provided in this code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction.4. there are two objections to this argument. in the first place the power conferred on a court by section 113 of the code to state a case and refer it to the high court is expressly made subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed. these are to be found stated in order 46, rule 1, which makes it clear that a reference .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 1956 (HC)

Firm Shri Krishna Chaudhry Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-20-1956

Reported in : [1956]7STC742(All)

mootham, c.j.1. these are four references made by the revising authority under section 11 of the u. p. sales tax act. the question common to each reference is 'whether betel leaves fall under the category of green vegetables 2. the assessees are dealers in betel leaves, and section 3 of the u. p. sales tax act, 1948, provides that, subject to the provisions of that act, every dealer shall in each assessment year pay sales tax on his turnover of the previous year. section 4 provides however that no tax shall be payable, inter alia, on such goods which the state government may by a notification in the official gazette exempt from time to time ; and on the 7th june, 1948, the state government issued a notification exempting from the provisions of the act various classes of goods including as item no. 4 'green vegetables and fresh fruits'. the assessees contend that betel leaves are fresh vegetables within the meaning of this exemption, 3. now the word vegetable is capable of being used in two senses; generally, as meaning a living organism belonging to the vegetable kingdom, and more particularly as a plant cultivated for food. we can entertain no doubt that it is in this latter sense that the word is used in the notification, for in addition to exempting fresh fruits the notification exempts cereals and pulses (item no. 1), atta, maida, suji and bran (item no. 2), certain kinds, of edible oils (item no. 5) and groundnuts (item no. 12) to which no reference would have been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 1956 (HC)

F. and C. Osler (India), Ltd. Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India a ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-03-1956

Reported in : (1956)IILLJ226All

o.h. mootham, c.j. and c.b. agarwala, j. 1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution which has been directed by mr. justice mehrotra to be laid before a bench.2. on 26 may 1952, sri ram krishnan, the second respondent (herein referred to as the employee), entered into the service of f & c. osier (india) ltd. the petitioner (herein referred to as the company), as an accounts clerk upon terms and subject to the conditions of an agreement executed by both parties on that date. under the terms of this agreement the employee's services could be terminated at any time on one month's notice and were also terminable forthwith if. in the opinion of the company, he was incompetent or negligent in the performance of his duties. on 2 december 1952, the company purporting to act under the agreement terminated the employee's services forthwith but paid him salary up to the end of that month. the employee's case was taken up by the manpur mechanical and technical workers union who (?) moved the conciliation officer to constitute a board to settle the dispute which the union contended had arisen with regard to the contemplated non-employment of the employee. a conciliation board was in due course constituted, but as neither of the parties nominated a member, the board in fact consisted of the conciliation officer sitting alone. what exactly happened when the dispute came before the conciliation board is a matter of dispute. the company's case is that as it had not served .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1956 (HC)

Om Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, P ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-24-1956

Reported in : [1956]30ITR12(P& H)

bishan narain, j. - om prakash is one of the proprietors of the firm hans raj and company. this firm was during 1943-44 carrying on its business at phagwara (kapurthala state). an income-tax amounting to rs. 33,750 was imposed on the firm for the assessment year 1943-44 by order dated the 30th of april, 1945. a demand notice was served on the assessee firm on the 12th of november, 1945, but admittedly no tax was realized by the kapurthala state income-tax authorities. on the 15th of may, 1951, the income-tax department of the kapurthala state was abolished. in july, 1951, the tahsildar, phagwara, called upon om prakash to pay rs. 33,750, and this notice was sent to him at the instance of the income-tax officer, jullundur. the tahsildar, having proceeded to take proceedings under section 46 of the indian income-tax act, om prakash has filed the present petition under article 226 of the constitution to get these proceedings quashed. a single judge of this court has referred the case for decision by a division tek chand on behalf of the petitioner has raised three points before us. he has urged (1) that the indian income-tax authorities have no power to collect tax levied by the kapurthala authorities, (2) that in the present case certificate of non-payment as contemplated in section 46 (2) was sent to the tahsildar, phagwara, and (3) that in any case the proceedings for the recovery of this amount have been commenced after the expiry of one year from the date of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1956 (HC)

V.N. Rama Iyer Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-06-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Ker1

varadaraja iyengar, j.1. this appeal is by the plaintiff a discharged railway servant whose suit for damages for wrongful 'removal from the service', has been dismissed by the court below, and the only question is whether the plaintiff was removed from service by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.2. the plaintiff v. n. rama iyer entered service on 28-6-1921 as a temporary relieving clerk in the south indian railway company. after probation for 3 months he was confirmed as a relieving clerk. he got his first appointment as a station master on 13-3-1934 drawing rs. 60 and was still in that cadre when the government of india acquired the railway as a going concern. that was on 1-4-1944. the plaintiff was subsequently promoted to rs. 52 in the scale of rs. 50-60 from 1-6-1946. on 4-6-1946 the plaintiff was transferred temporarily to the ernakulam south station, the post of the station master of which had been graded as rs 60-70 and he joined duty there on 18-4-1946.but soon thereafter he was asked to leave it and go to lovedale, a hill station. the plaintiff was unwilling to leave ernakulam and would not obey in spite of the insistent orders of the district operating superintendent (d. o. s.). he refused even to hand over charge to the relieving officer. so charges were framed against the plaintiff accusing him of 'grave misconduct' and he was removed from service by ext. ap order of the district operating superintendent dated 30-4-1947 with effect from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1956 (HC)

K.J. Mathew Vs. First Member, Board of Revenue and anr.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-30-1956

Reported in : [1957]8STC854(Ker)

1. the petitioner is a tobacco licensee (a class) whose turnover has been estimated at rs. 1,20,000 in respect of the accounting period, 1st january, 1952,10 31st march, 1952, and at rs.6,24,000 in respect of the accounting period, 1st april, 1952, to 31st march, 1953. the correctness of the estimate is not disputed and the petitioner admits liability to sales tax 'at the rate of three pies for every indian rupee in such turnover' as directed by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the travancore-cochin' general sales tax act, 1125.2. sub-section (2) of section 3 of the travancore-cochin general sales tax act, 1125, provides :-subject as aforesaid, the sale of any of the goods mentioned below shall be subject to a tax at the rate specified in respect thereof, at such single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as may be prescribed ; and the tax shall be paid by the dealer concerned on his turnover in each year relating to such goods and shall be in addition to the tax to which he is liable under sub-section (1) on his total turnover for the year:description' of the goods rate of tax for every indianrupee in the turnoverrelating to such goods,1 2(ix) tobacco four annas'and rule 6 of the travancore-cochin general sales tax rules, 1950 :the sale of any of the goods mentioned in items (1) to (ix) in section 3, saub-section (2), shall be subject to the tax specified in that subsection at the stage of sale by the person who in the state is the first dealer in such goods, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1956 (HC)

Swaminatha Udayar Vs. Mottaya Padayachi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-03-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Mad209

rajagopala ayyangar, j.1. the relevant facts in this miscellaneous appeal against an order of remand lie within a narrow compass. one subramania was the original owner of the property in dispute for the recovery of which the suit out of which this appeal arises has been filed. he had usufructuarily mortgaged the property to one marudamuthu padayachi on 4-12-1893 for rs. 40. the plaintiff claims title from the heirs of subramania, he having purchased the suit property from them by a registered sale deed dated 25-2-1948.these heirs claimed that the usufructuary mortgage had become extinguished by reason of the provisions of madras act iv of 1938 and that consequently they were entitled to recover possession of the property, and they transferred their title in the property to the plaintiff. on the other hand the case of the contesting defendants who claim under the usufructuary mortgagee marudamuthu was two-fold.first they pleaded that the property sold to the plaintiff under the deed of sale dated 25-2-1948 was not the property mortgaged to them and of which they were in possession secondly they contended that subramania had by an unregistered deed dated 18-8-1900 sold the property to marudamuthu, the consideration being discharge of the usufructuary mortgage, viz. rs. 40 and an extra sum of rs. 10 paid at the time of the sale. on this ground they pleaded that the title of subramania got extinguished both by reason of the sale as well as by marudamuthu and those claiming under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1956 (HC)

Asgar Ally and Co. and ors. Vs. Vuppala Satyanarayana and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-19-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal317

p.b. mukharji, j.1. this is an appeal from the judgment of the learned trial judge dismissing the suit on a preliminary point of jurisdiction.2. the two reasons given by the learned judge for dismissing the suit are: (1) that no part of the fraud alleged in the plaint arose within the jurisdiction of this court and (2) that the fact that execution of the decree obtained in suit no. 48 of 1949 of the subordinate judge's court at vizagapatam by this court after the same had been transferred to this court for execution was not sufficient to attract jurisdiction of the court.3. the material facts of this case may be briefly stated. the defendants instituted a suit against the plaintiffs being suit no. 48 of 1949 in the court of the subordinate judge at vizagapatam for the recovery of rs. 98,864-1-4 with interest. in fact defendant vuppala satyanarayana being the defendant no. 2 in this case sued alleging himself as the head and manager of the joint family property purporting to consist of himself, his sons and grandsons. he obtained an ex parte decree from the subordinate judge's court of vizagapattam in that suit on the 21st of december, 1949. thereafter, the decree 'was transferred to this court for execution and in fact applications in execution were made in this court. two applications were made. one was for attachment of the sum of rs. 2,500 payable by mohammad osman bros. to the judgment-debtor firm in suit no. 3544 of 1950 (asgar ally and co. v. mohammad usman bros.) now .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //