Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]1SCR778; [1963]Supp2SCR778
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. The petitioner is a partner in a firm called Messrs. Mohan Lal Hargovind Das, which carries on business in the manufacture and sale of biris in number of States, and is dealer registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act 15 of 1948 with its head office at Allahabad. In the present petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner impugns the validity of a levy of sales tax made by the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad, by his order dated December 20, 1958. 2. On December 14, 1957, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under section 4(1)(b) of the Act exempting from tax, sales of certain goods including biris, provided that the additional Central Excise duties leviable thereon had been paid. In partial modification of this notification, the Government issued another notification on November 25, 1958, exempting from tax unconditionally sales of biris, both machinemade and handmade, with effect from July 1, 1958. The effect of the two notif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1052; [1962]Supp3SCR235
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These three Writ Petitions are filed by the three respective petitioners under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e). They were heard separately but it would be convenient to deal with them by one common judgment because they raise for our decision the same constitutional questions. In all the petitions, the constitutional validity of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, (Act LVII of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act) and of Rule 3 in Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, is challenged. It would also be convenient to set out briefly at the outset material facts on which the three petitions are based.2. Izhar Ahmad Khan, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 101 of 1959, claims to be a citizen of India and was a resident of Bhopal. He was enrolled as a voter in the Parliamentary as well as State Legislative Assembly Electoral Roll. On the 20th August, 1952, he was taken into custody by the police...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1371; [1962]32CompCas514(SC); [1962]Supp3SCR632
Hidayatullah, J.1. On August 8, 1960, the Reserve Bank of India made an application in the High Court of Kerala under s. 38 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) read with the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), for the winding up of the Palai Central Bank, Ltd. (having its registered office at Palai in the State of Kerala), for the appointment of the Official Liquidator of the High Court as the Liquidator with all the powers under the said Acts and for the appointment of the Official Liquidator as the Provisional Liquidator during the pendency of the application. This application was allowed on December 5, 1960, and the present appeal with special leave, has been filed against the order. 2. The Palai Central Bank, Ltd. (herein referred to as the Palai Bank or the Bank) was incorporated in January, 1927 under the Travancore Companies Regulations. Till 1936, it was known as 'The Central Bank, Ltd.', when the name was changed. In March 1937, the Palai Bank was included in the Seco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1821; [1962]32CompCas699(SC); [1963]1SCR253
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. These three appeals are by special leave. Appeal No. 7 of 1961 is by R.K. Dalmia. Appeal No. 8 of 1961 is by R. P. Gurha. Appeal No. 9 of 1961 is byG. L. Chokhani and Vishnu Prasad. All the appellants were convicted of theoffence under section 120B read with section 409 I.P.C., and all of them,except Vishnu Prasad, were also convicted of certain offences arising out ofthe overt acts committed by them. Dalmia and Chokhani were convicted undersection 409 I.P.C. Chokhani were convicted under section 477A read with section110, I.P.C. Gurha was convicted under section 477A I.P.C. 2. To appreciate the case against the appellants, we may first stategenerally the facts leading to the case. Bharat Insurance Company wasincorporated in 1896. In 1936 Dalmia purchased certain shares of the companyand became a Director and Chairman of the company. He resigned from theseoffices in 1942 and was succeeded by his brother J. Dalmia. The head office ofthe Bharat Insurance Company was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1406; [1963]1SCR491
S.K. Das, J.1. These are three consolidated appeals which arise from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court dated August, 9, 1957. They have been preferred to this Court on the strength of a certificate granted by the said High Court under Art. 132 of the Constitution certifying that the cases involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Art. 301 and other connected articles relating to trade, commerce and intercourse within the territory of India, contained in Part XIII of the Constitution. These appeals were originally heard by a Bench of five Judges and on April 4, 1961, that Bench recorded an order to the effect that having regard to the importance of the constitutional issues involved and the views expressed in the decision of this Court in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. The State of Assam : [1961]1SCR809 , the appeals should be heard by a larger Bench. The appeals were then placed before the learned Chief Justice for necessary orders, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1; [1963]3SCR22
J.C. Shah, J.1. Ramalingam Mudaliar-a resident of Bangalore (in the former Indian State of Mysore)-started life as a building contractor. He prospered in the business and acquired an extensive estate which included many houses in the Civil and Military station at Bangalore, in Bangalore city and also in the towns of Madras, Hyderabad and Bellary. He dealt in timber, established cinematograph theatres, obtained a motor-car selling Agency and made investments in plantations and coffee estates. He set up a factory for manufacturing tiles, and later floated a sugar company. The Indian Sugars & Refineries Ltd., of which he became the Managing Agent and purchased a large block of shares. For some years before his death Ramalingam had taken to excessive drinking, and was subject to frequent coronary attacks. He became peevish and easily excitable and his relations with his wife and children were strained. Ramalingam felt great disappointment in his eldest son Vishwanatha who borrowed loans fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1356; [1963]49ITR1(SC); [1964]1SCR29
S.K. Das, J. 1. This appeal has been brought to this court on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Bombay. The appellants are the Union of India and the Income-tax Officer, Market Ward, Bombay. By this appeal the appellants challenge the correctness of the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated October 5, 1955, by which the High Court affirmed the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the same court dated December 7, 1954, on a petition filed by the respondents under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. The relevant facts are these. The firm of Purshottam Laxmidas was started on October 28, 1935. This firm had two partners, Dwarkadas Vussonji and Parmanand Odhavji. Dwarkadas died of April 1, 1946, leaving a son, Vasantsen. Another firm by the name of Vasantsen Dwarkadas was started on January 28, 1941, and in that firm there were three partners, Vasantsen, Narandas Shivji and Nanalal Odhavji. This firm was dissolved on October 24, 1946. The firm of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1667; [1963]50ITR171(SC); [1964]1SCR897
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short question which these two appeals raise for our decisions is in regard to validity of the retrospective operation of the Bihar Taxation on Passengers and Goods (Carried by Public Service Motor Vehicles) Act, 1961 (No. 17 of 1961) (hereinafter called 'The Act'). It is true that the two writ petitions Nos. 916/1961 and 918/1961 filed by the appellants Rai Ramkrishna and Ors. and M/s. Road Transport Co., Dhanbad & Ors. respectively in High Court at Patna along with 18 others under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution had challenged the validity of the whole of the Act. The High Court has held that the Act is valid both in its prospective as well as its retrospective operation. In their appeals brought to this Court by special leave against the said judgment, the appellants do not challenge the conclusion of the High Court that the Act is valid in so far as its prospective operation is concerned; they have confined their appeals to its retrospective operat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1964]3SCR787
Sinha, C.J.1. The main question, on this reference by the President of India under Art.143(1) of the Constitution depends upon the true scope and interpretation ofArt. 289. of the Constitution relating to the immunity of States from Union taxation.On receipt of the reference notices were issued to the Attorney-General ofIndia and to the Advocates-General of the States. In pursuance of that the caseof the Union Government has been placed before us by the learnedSolicitor-General and that of the States of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar,Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Maharashtra, Mysore, Orissa, Punjaband West Bengal was presented to us by their respective counsel. On the datethe hearing of this case started, an application was made on behalf of theState of Uttar Pradesh also to be heard, but no statement of case had been putin on behalf of that State, and as no grounds were made out for condoning thedelay, we refused the application. 2. The reference is in these terms : 'Whereas ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]33CompCas1057(SC); [1964]4SCR99
Sinha, C.J.1. The following questions have been referred to the Special Bench by the Constitution Bench before which these cases came up for hearing : (1) whether the State Trading Corporation, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, is a citizen within the meaning of Art. 19 of the Constitution and can ask for the enforcement of fundamental rights granted to citizens under the said article; and (2) whether the State Trading Corporation is, notwithstanding the formality of incorporation under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, in substance a department and organ of the Government of India with the entirety of its capital contributed by Government; and can it claim to enforce fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution against the State as defined in Art. 12 thereof. 2. The questions were raised by way of preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution. 3. As the whole case is not before us, it is necessary...
Tag this Judgment!