Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Sorted by: recent Year: 1999 Page 48 of about 477 results (0.011 seconds)

Jan 12 1999 (SC)

American Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-12-1999

Reported in : AIR1999SC572; JT1999(1)SC29; 1999(1)SCALE30; (1999)2SCC117; [1999]1SCR63; [1999]113STC400(SC)

orderm. srinivasan and r.p. sethi jj.1. following its earlier judgment in writ petition no. 2425 of 1997, which had been dismissed on 14.2.1997, a division bench of the high court of andhra pradesh dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, through which challenge had been made to the demand of difference of sales tax, which had occasioned as a result of an amendment of entry 37 of the first schedule to the andhra pradesh general sales tax act, 1957, by act no. 27 of 1996. by virtue of section 1(f) of the amendment act of 1996, the provisions of the act, other than those mentioned in sub-clause (1), were to come into force with effect from 1.8.1996 and those provisions include amended entry 37 (supra).2. that the state legislature had the power to amend the andhra pradesh general sales tax act is not in dispute. it also is not disputed that the amendment made by the 1996 act was in exercise of its legislative powers by the state legislature. the validity of the amendment had not been questioned either in the writ petition or even before us. that being the fact situation, the grievance made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the demand of differential tax based on the amendment of entry 37 could not have been made, is wholly misconceived. it is settled position that an assessee is liable to pay sales tax and the question whether he has collected it from consumer or not is of no consequence. his liability is by virtue of being an assessee .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1999 (SC)

S.S.M. Brothers (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Cent ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-12-1999

Reported in : (2000)161CTR(SC)177; [2000]243ITR418(SC); (1999)3SCC229

order1. these appeals by special leave impugn the correctness of the view taken by a division bench of the high court at madras in tax case no. 146 of 1979 (see : [1985]155itr794(mad) and followed in tax case no. 140 of 1980. the questions before the high court were (page 796) :(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held by the tribunal that the assessee was entitled to the higher rate of development rebate at 35 per cent, under section 33(1)(b)(b)(i) in respect of the machinery used by it in its business ?(2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company was engaged in the construction, manufacture or production of the textiles (otherwise processed) so as to be entitled for the higher rate of development rebate ?2. the tribunal in its order had stated that the assessee-appellant purchased cloth and on that cloth embroidery work was done with the aid of imported machines. in some cases the cloth was thereafter dyed again to obtain an uniform colour. it said that, 'after the embroidery finished product is something which in the realm of textile would be considered to be cloth entirely different from the basic cloth on which such embroidery work was done'. upon this basis it came to the conclusion that the asses-see was entitled to the benefit of development rebate at an enhanced rate under the provisions of section 33(1)(b)(b)(i) of the income-tax act, 1961. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 1999 (HC)

Harpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-07-1999

Reported in : (1999)121PLR774

swatanter kumar, j.1. for the development and utilisation for residential area in the urban estate of ambala, the state government of haryana issued a notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') dated 26.5.1981 intending to acquire a large chunk of land. in furtherance thereto a notification under section 6 of the act was issued on 10.1.1989. the total land sought to be acquired was nearly 250.51 acres in villages patti mehar sonda and jandli of district ambala. this acquisition of land led to passing of 3 different awards i.e. award nos. 4, 11, and 12 respectively. different amount of compensation was awarded by the land acquisition collector in different awards. vide award no. 11 and 12 both dated 13.9.1986, following compensation was awarded by the land acquisition collector for different kinds of land:a) chahi land : rs. 34,500/- per acreb) barani land : rs. 27,520/- per acrec) banjar and gair mumkin : rs. 13,760/- per acrevide award no. 4 dated 26.5,1981 he awarded flat amount of compensation of rs. 52,000/- per acre. in addition thereto separate amounts were awarded to the individuals on account of tube well, super structure and trees. the claimants being dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, filed objections, and references were made by the land acquisition collector to the district judge, under section 18 of the act. all these 165 references led to pronouncement of 3 judgments by the learned district .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 01 1999 (TRI)

Doordarshan Cameramen'S Welfare Vs. Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Decided on : Jan-01-1999

..... have challenged the vires of the rules on the basis of a variety of reasons. we, however, bring out for sharp focus only those important ones. thus, there is no rationale to leave out the cmg-ii from their inclusion in the category of feeder post for promotion to programme officers in junior time scale (jts for short) particularly when 10 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1999 (HC)

Sri Ramaseva Mandali Trust (R) and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-12-1999

Reported in : [2003]133STC574(Kar)

orderv.k. singhal, j.1. validity of karnataka tax on luxuries act, 1979 along with the explanation to the definition of 'charges for marriage halls' in section 2(1-a) have been assailed in these writ petitions.section 3c reads as under :'levy and collection of tax on charges for marriage hall.--subject to the provisions of this act, where charges for luxury provided in a marriage hall are not less than five thousand rupees per day there shall be levied and collected a tax on such charges at the following rates namely :--(a) where charges for marriage hall per dayare not less than five thousand rupees but 5 per cent of suchless than ten thousand rupees charges.(b) where charges for marriage hall per dayare not less than ten thousand rupees but 10 per cent of suchless than twenty thousand rupees charges.(c) where charges for marriage hall per day 15 per cent of suchare twenty thousand rupees and above. charges.provided that where charges for marriage hall are payable otherwise than on daily basis, then for the purposes of determining the tax liability under this section, the charges shall be computed as for a day, based on the period of occupancy for which the charges are payable.'the definition of 'charges for marriage hall' under section 2(1-a) are as under :' 'charges for marriage hall' include charges for air-conditioning, chairs, utensils and vessels, shamiana, electricity, water, fuel, interior or exterior decoration and the like but do not include any charges for food .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1999 (HC)

Mst. Fakhrun and Others Vs. Hafizullah Alias Kalloo and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-12-1999

Reported in : 1999(3)AWC2083

r.h. zaidi, j.1. by means of this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.3.1982, whereby trial court allowed the application filed by the contesting respondents for substitution after setting aside the abatement and the order dated 5.8.1982, whereby revision filed by the petitioners against the order of trial court was dismissed by the revisional court.2. the relevant facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent nos. 1 to 6 filed a suit forpossession against late sajjad ali, father of the petitioners. during pendency of the said suit sajjad died on 14.5.1974. an application to substitute his heirs (petitioners) was filed on 19.7.1974, i.e., within the time prescribed for the same. the said application was, however dismissed for default and the suit was dismissed as to have abated on 17.10.1975. thereafter, the contesting respondents have filed an application under order ix. rule 9, c.p.c. for recalling of the order dated 17.10.1975. against the said application, an objection was filed by the petitioners pleading that the said application was legally not maintainable. it was on 21.10.1975 an application for amendment of application filed under order ix, rule 9, c.p.c. was filed praying that said application be treated as an application for setting aside abatement. this application was also objected to and opposed by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1999 (FN)

Davis Vs. Monroe County Bd. of Ed.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-12-1999

davis v. monroe county bd. of ed. - 526 u.s. 629 (1999) october term, 1998 syllabus davis, as next friend of lashonda d. v. monroe county board of education et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit no. 97-843. argued january 12, 1999-decided may 24,1999 petitioner filed suit against respondents, a county school board (board) and school officials, seeking damages for the sexual harassment of her daughter lashonda by g. f., a fifth-grade classmate at a public elementary school. among other things, petitioner alleged that respondents' deliberate indifference to g. f.'s persistent sexual advances toward lashonda created an intimidating, hostile, offensive, and abusive school environment that violated title ix of the education amendments of 1972, which, in relevant part, prohibits a student from being "excluded from participation in, be[ing] denied the benefits of, or be[ing] subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance," 20 u. s. c. 1681(a). in granting respondents' motion to dismiss, the federal district court found that "studenton-student," or peer, harassment provides no ground for a title ix private cause of action for damages. the en banc eleventh circuit affirmed. held: 1. a private title ix damages action may lie against a school board in cases of student-on-student harassment, but only where the funding recipient is deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment, of which .....

Tag this Judgment!


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