Legal Reference Library

Putting to rest controversy hovering around the entitlement of both husband and wife to allotment of separate residential sites, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that expression “applicant” included “spouse”. The judgment is significant as it means term applicant would cover wife, even if the application for allotment is submitted by the husband alone and vice-versa. Either the husband, or the wife, can be allotted a dwelling unit and not both in terms of specific eligibility condition. The ruling came in a case where the allotment to wife was cancelled as her husband too was an allottee. The court was told only husband, wife or dependent family members could be allotted a plot in a particular urban estate as per eligibility clause 11 of the brochure-cum-application form. The Bench ruled: “We were only required to interpret clause 11… and as we have concluded, on its true and purposive construction, the expression `applicant’ would include and represent; his/her spouse, n...

The Bombay High Court last week ruled that expenses incurred by a professional going abroad for treatment of eye is not eligible for income tax deduction. The assessee in this case, Dhimant Thakar vs CIT, was a lawyer and he argued that good vision was important for pursuing his profession. His claim for the assessment year 1986-87 was rejected by the revenue authorities. His appeal was also rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who observed that if the logic of the lawyer was stretched, it would mean that even expenditure incurred on food to preserve oneself should be treated as allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as being incurred for business or profession. On appeal, the high court upheld the view of the authorities observing that "eyes are essential not only for the purpose of business or profession but for purposes other than these which are so many. It is therefore clear that the said expenditure as claimed by the professional is not in th...

Cited: 1) Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 422 2) Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (Twenty-fourth Edition 2002, edited by Justice G.P. Singh) 3) Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence (Tenth Edition, 2001) 4) R. v. Lawrence, [1981] 1 All ER 974 (HL) 5) Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1937] A.C. 576 6) Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30 7) Reg v. Idu Beg (1881) 3 All. 776 8) Bhalchandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra 1968 Mh.L.J. 423 9) Michael Hyde and Associates v. J.D. Williams & Co. Ltd., [2001] P.N.L.R. 233, CA, Sedley L.J. 10) Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582, 586' 11) Eckersley v. Binnie, [1988] 18 Con. L.R. 1, 79  12) Halsbury’s Laws of England (Fourth Edition, Vol.30, Para 35) 13) Hucks v. Cole, [1968] 118 New U 469 14) Maynard v. West Midlands Regional Health Authority, [1985] 1 All ER 635 (HL) 15) Hunter v. Hanley 1955 SLT 213 at 217...