Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-28-1970
Reported in : (1971)IILLJ52P& H
s.s. sandhawalia, j.1. the municipal committee of pathankot by way of this writ petition challenges the award of the industrial tribunal upholding the legality of the strike and the entitlement to wages of the respondent-workmen for the strike period from 18th april, 1967, to the 12th of may, 1967.2. it has been averred that there existed certain differences regarding the implementation of the resolution dated 27th of july, 1966, passed by the petitioner-committee and the workmen of the conservancy staff employed by the petitioner. on the 26th march, 1967, the president and the general secretary of the municipal safai karamchari union served a notice of demand on the petitioner-committee failing which the action contemplated by the union was delineated as follows:therefore, for the reason of the pressing circumstances, as stated, a notice of 15 days' duration is being sent to you that if you do not consider and decide the demands mentioned in this notice then the union might be compelled to take serious steps, and the responsibility thereof would be that of the officers concerned. the demands are as follows....it is expressly averred that this notice of demands gave no indication of any specific intention of going on a general strike by the workers and it was only by a notice dated the 10th of april, 1967, and received by the petitioner-committee on the 11th, that it was clearly intimated that a general strike would be resorted to within a week of its service if no settlement .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-28-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Raj247; 1970(3)WLN550
beri, j. 1. this is a special appeal under section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance, 1949, directed against the rejection in limine of a civil writ petition by a learned single judge of this court in a matter relating to the declaration of the petitioner as a tout under section 36 of the legal practitioners act, 1879.2. the petitioner is a citizen of india and claimed to be employed as a clerk to an advocate at jodhpur. mr. o. c. chatterji, advocate and 14 others made an application to the district judge, jodhpur, that some 8 named persons be declared as touts. the petitioner was not included in that list. the learned district judge acting under section 36(2a) of the legal practitioners act, 1879 asked the civil judge, jodhpur, to inquire into the matter and report. during the pendency of this inquiry the allegations against the 8 persons named by mr. chatterji received the consideration of the rajasthan high court advocates association, jodhpur. the association appointed a sub-committee and it not only found that the 8 persons mentioned by mr. chatterji were touts by general repute but two more including the petitioner were also touts. on 18-5-1968 the advocates association passed a resolution including the name of the petitioner as a tout by general repute and sent the same to the district judge, jodhpur, who in turn sent the resolution and asked the civil judge to make inquiry also in regard to the petitioner. the civil judge submitted his report to the district .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-27-1970
Reported in : (1970)IILLJ674Ker
p.t. raman nayar, c.j.1. the dispute in this case is, we should think, concluded by the decision of tins court in o.p. nos. 1715 & 1716 of 1963, two writ petitions raising the same question and disposed of by a common judgment by a division bench-the decision is reported in r. ezhuthachan v. state of kerala (1965) k.l.t. 485. that was a decision inter parties-the petitioners here were, respondents 30 and 23 respectively in each of those petitions, while, of the present contesting respondents, the 1st respondent side of kerala was the 1st respondent in each of those petitions and the present 3rd respondent, the petitioner in o.p. no. 1715 of 1963, and the present 4th respondent, the petitioner in o.p. no. 1716 of 1963. there the division bench held-and, with great respect, we think rightly-that the effect of the government orders, exts. p-4(a), p-4(b), p-4(c) and p-4(d)-the last mentioned is only a memorandum and not an order properly speaking-dated 7.3.1958, 19.3.1958, 9.6.1959 and 24.10.1959 respectively, was that audit clerks like the present petitioners allotted from the madras service to the kerala service on reorganisation of the states in the department of the examiner of local fund accounts were exempt from posing the obligatory departmental tests for promotion to the higher post of inspector 'from 1st november, 1956 till they get two chances beginning from the first examination conducted by the kerala public service commission on the basis of the madras rules.' during .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-26-1970
Reported in : 1971CriLJ1405; 1970(3)WLN556
..... mind in expressing it, the demand made upon him is not a testimonial one. moreover, a practical consideration applies to this class of evidence. when the person's body, its marks and traits are in issue, there is -ordinarily no other or better evidence available for the prosecutor.hence, the public interest in obtaining the evidence is usually suffici-cient to ..... the crime, if possible. his effort to make use of that material is quite genuine for it cannot be doubted that, in the case of a person's body, its marks and traits are the main evidence for purposes of its identification and there is no reason why the investing officer should be prevented from making use of it when it .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-23-1970
Reported in : AIR1971SC170; 1983(13)ELT1538(SC); (1970)3SCC136; 2SCR681
shall, j.1. on march 31, 1959 the ministry of commerce and industry, government of india, granted to the respondents a licence permitting them to import from west germany certain machinery described therein of the maximum c.i.f. value of rs. 45,000/-. condition no. 1 of the licence provided that :the ... application is accepted and import licence is hereby granted having quantity and value as the limiting factors and is not valid for clearance if the actual value of any item exceeds the c.i.f. value indicated in the licence by more than 5%.the respondents submitted a bill of entry dated july 1, 1960, disclosing the c.i.f. value of the consignment as rs. 45,179-92 inclusive of landing charges, and cleared the consignment after paying duty assessed by the customs authorities on the real value of the goods as disclosed in the bill of entry.2. on june 20, 1961 the customs authorities issued a notice requiring the respondents to show cause why penal action should not be taken against them under section 167(8) of the sea customs act, 1878, as being persons concerned in the unauthorised importation of the goods. this notice was amended by notice dated september 21, 1961, whereby the respondents were charged with having committed offences under section 167(8) read with section 3(2) of the imports and exports (control) act, 1947, for illegally importing the machinery. the respondents claimed that no breach of the conditions of the licence was committed. the additional collector of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-23-1970
Reported in : (1971)1MLJ474
k.s. venkataraman, j.1. these two appeals are against a common order dated 14th november, 1966 of the learned subordinate judge of the nilgiris, in proceedings in execution of the decree in o.s. no. 167 of 1955. the respondent-firm, chandmull amarchand, obtained a decree on 7th november, 1956 in o.s. no. 167 of 1955 on a number of promissory notes executed jointly by j.m. thippa gowder, k. petha maistry and b. gujja gowder. the claim was barred against petha maistry and he died before the suit. thippa gowder also died before the suit. the suit was filed against one j.t. joghee, the son of j.m. thippa gowder, in his capacity as manager of the joint family. joghee was impleaded as the first defendant and gujja gowder as the second defendant. the decree was against b. gujja gowder personally and against the assets of j.m. thippa gowder in the hands of j.t. joghee and the joint family. the decree was for rs. 21,000 odd. e.p. no. 113 of 1960 was filed on 12th october, 1959 for impleading the legal representatives of gujja gowder. the petition was dismissed on 14th june, 1960. then e.p. no. 763 of 1961 was filed on 5th october, 1961 and dismissed on 31st august, 1962 in view of e.p. no. 494 of 1962 which was filed on that day. in e.p. no. 494 of 1962 certain properties of the joint family of joghee gowder, his younger brother natarajan and their mother keppiammal, were sold on 29th october, 1962,and were purchased by the decree-holder, for rs. 10,000. no petition was filed to set .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-23-1970
Reported in : 81ITR500(Delhi)
..... thereto, and right to use any word or words indicating that the business is carried on in continuation of or succession to the said firm) and all trade works connected therewith. secondly all the plant, machinery tools, licenses, stores, furniture to which the vendor is entitled in connection with the said business, ..... m. co.. ltd. v. dominion bank, (1937) 3 all e.r. 555 'theybelieve it to be of supreme importance that the distinction should be clearly marked, observed and maintained, between an incorporated company's legal entity and its actions, assets, rights and liabilities on the one hand, and the individual shareholders and their ..... -will' in the following words: 'good-willis property of a highly peculiar kind. it is the right to enjoy all the advantages of an established trade connexior. customers who have been in the habit of dealing with a business will probably continue to do so, even if the business changes hands, and ..... restrained from soliciting his former customers and he may also agree not to carry on a competing business. but no third party can be restrained from trading in such a way as to reduce the value of the good-will. yet as a marketable object, good-will must be considered property.'(17) ..... of money in this creation or acquisition of good-will it would appear that there is really no such cost. good-will is created by the trading activities of the assessed, and probably by the name he has earned and the good-will he has created among his customers. good-will of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-23-1970
Reported in : 83ITR58(AP)
kuppuswami, j.1. an assessment order was passed on 29th august, 1949, by the income-tax officer, masulipatam, for the assessment year 1949-50 whereby the assessee, a hindu undivided family, consisting of tatavarthi narayanamurthy and his sons, was assessed on a total income of rs. 48,413 and directed to pay a tax of rs. 12,537.07. this order was confirmed on appeal by the appellate assistant commissioner of income-tax, vijayawada, by his order dated march 5, 1951 and the income-tax appellate tribunal also dismissed the appeal preferred from the order of the appellate assistant commissioner.2. before completing the assessment, proceedings under section 28(1)(c) of the income-tax act were started against the assessee and as the income-tax officer found that the assessee had deliberately suppressed true particulars of the income, he levied a penalty of rs. 6,000 on the assessee with the previous approval of the inspecting assistant commissioner of income-tax. this order was passed on the 4th november, 1957.3. tatavarthi narayanamurthi preferred an appeal against this order to the appellate assistant commissioner of income-tax, vijayawada. during the pendency of the appeal, an application was made under section 25a of the act on december 18, 1957, claiming that a partition had taken place on october 13, 1957, between the members of the family. the income-tax officer passed an order under that section on november 6, 1958, holding that the assets of the family had been divided by .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-21-1970
Reported in : AIR1971All157
..... 1944 and 1945) but on the date of the passing of the decree respondent no. 1 alone was the proprietor of the two trade marks. as for the trade mark being publici juris, the learned single judge held that gadadhar prasad had the exclusive right to use the word 'himkalyan tail' which was ..... application the name of chakradhar saran was substituted and all the formalities were completed for the publication of the trade marks in the trade mark journal. the registrar has further stated that these two trade marks were thus registered, which registration is effective from the date of the application and has further been renewed ..... the expression 'contrary to any law for the time being in force' in section 8 (c) means any law other than the trade marks act. section 6 of the trade marks act is not covered by the wordings of section 8 (c) of the act. (see ram rakhpal's case supra). 25. ..... the affidavit of kashi nath that sri gadadhar prasad made a deliberate false statement that he was the sole proprietor of the trade marks whereas in fact the said trade marks were the property of the joint hindu family consisting of gadadhar prasad, his sons and grandsons. it has further been alleged ..... hindu family in the joint hindu family business'. admittedly these applications and amendments thereof were filed by gadadhar prasad under section 14 of the trade marks act. the registrar was acquainted with the two statements of facts contained therein. it cannot accordingly be held that the registrar was defrauded .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-20-1970
Reported in : AIR1971SC234; (1970)3SCC129; 2SCR672
mitter, j.1. these two appeals are from two judgments and decrees of the high court of allahabad granting maintenance to the wife and daughter of the common appellant in both the appeals.2. counsel for the appellant did not contest the right of the respondents to claim maintenance. his argument was directed only against the quantum fixed in both the cases on the ground that the principles laid down in section 23(2) of the hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1956 had not been followed by the high court. the act had come into force before the date of the trial court's judgment on the 1st june 1957 and it is the common case of the parties that the act governs the rights of the parties herein. the relevant portion of section 23 runs as follows :-(1) it shall be in the discretion of the court to determine whether any, and if so, what, maintenance shall be awarded under the provisions of this act, and in doing so the court shall have due regard to the considerations set out in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), as the case may be, as far as they are applicable.(2) in determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a wife, children or aged or infirm parents under this act, regard shall be had to-(a) the position and status of the parties;(b) the reasonable wants of the claimant;(c) if the claimant is living separately; whether the claimant 'is justified in doing so;(d) the value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, or from the .....Tag this Judgment!