Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC648; (1964)0GLR481; [1964]5SCR294
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1963. Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 14, 1962, of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 145 of 1961. G.S. Pathak, G. Dutta, J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. C.K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, N.S. Bindra and R.H. Dhebar, for the respondents. November 5, 1963. The Judgment of P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.C. Shah and Raghubar Dayal JJ. was delivered by Shah J. The dissenting Opinion of K.N. Wanchoo and Subba Rao JJ. was delivered by Wanchoo J. SHAH J.-By notification published on September 1, 1960 under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, the Commissioner, Baroda Division, State of Gujarat, exercising functions entrusted to him under a notification dated July 24, 1959, issued by the President, under Art. 258(1) of the Constitution, notified that a piece of land Part of Final Plot No. 686, Ellis Bridge Town Planning Scheme, belonging to the appellant was like...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1473; [1964]52ITR538(SC); [1964]7SCR148
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 221 & 222 of 1963. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 16, 1959 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 138 and 139 of 1956. N. D. Kharkhanis and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants (in both the appeals). K. Srinivasan and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent (in the appeals). March 11, 1964. SARKAR J. and HIDAYATULLAH J. delivered separate opinions dismissing the appeals. SHAH J. delivered a dissenting opinion allowing the appeal. SARKAR J.-The question in these two appeals is whether certain proceedings for the recovery of tax from the assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1922, were invalid and should be quashed as the assessment order on which they were based had been revised in appeal. The High Court of Mysore held them to be invalid and quashed them. The revenue authorities have now appealed to this Court against that decision. I think it will be helpful to set out the facts chronologi- cally. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC745
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. This is Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 by which the President has formulated five questions for the opinion of this Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. The Article authorities the President to refer to this Court questions of law or fact which appear to him to have arisen or are likely to arise and which are of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon them. Article 143(1) provides that when such questions are referred to this Court by the President, the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon. In his Order of Reference made on March 26, 1964, the President has expressed his conclusions that the questions of law set out in the Order of Reference are of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient that the opinion of the Supreme Court of India should be obtained thereon. 2. It appears that on March 14, 1964, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC436; [1966]1SCR478
Hidayatullah, J.1. This appeal arises from an election petition filed after the last General Election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, in respect of the election from the Kasdol Legislative Assembly constituency held on May 4, 1963. The first respondent was declared elected and the appellant challenged his election alleging several acts of corrupt practices, publication of false statements, filing of false accounts etc. The election petition was supported by an affidavit sworn before K. S. Moghe, Officer for Administering oaths on Affidavits, Jabalpur, Moghe was was the Clerk of court in the District Court, Jabalpur. The first respondent objected that the affidavit was not sworn before the proper authority as required by rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and it was, therefore, prayed that the election petition should be dismissed or the allegations about corrupt practices should be struck out. The Election Tribunal by an order dated October 31, 1963 accepted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1089; [1966]60ITR112(SC); [1966]2SCR229; [1966]17STC418(SC)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 618 of 1963. Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 10, 1960 of the Madras High Court in C.C.C.A. No. 90 of 1957. S. T. Desai, K. R. Venkatram and S. Venkatakrishnan, for the appellant. A. Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Ramgam, for the respon- dent. The Judgment Of SUBBA RAO, WANCHOO and SIKRI, JJ. was delivered by SUBBA RAO J. The dissenting opinion of SHAH and RAMASWAMI, JJ. was delivered by SHAH, J. Subba Rao, J. This appeal by certificate raises 'the question whether a suit for the, refund of sales-tax assessed under a provision of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Act IX of 1939) declared to be ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature would lie. The appellants are a private company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. They carry on the business of building contractors. During the years 1948-49 to 1952-53 they were assessed to sales-tax by, the State of Madras on the basis that the contracts executed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1643; 1967(0)BLJR818; [1967]2SCR762
Subbarao, C.J.1. These three writ petitions raise the important question of the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. 2. Writ Petition No. 153 of 1966, is filed by the petitioners therein against the State of Punjab and the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The petitioners are the son, daughter and grand-daughters of one Henry Golak Nath, who died on July 30, 1953. The Financial Commissioner, in revision against the order made by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, held by an order dated January 22, 1962 that an area of 418 standard acres and 9 1/4 units was surplus in the hands of the petitioners under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act X of 1953, read with s. 10-B thereof. The petitioners, alleging that the relevant provisions of the said Act whereunder the said area was declared surplus were void on the ground that they infringed their rights under cls. (f) and (g) of Art. 19 and Art. 14 of the Constitution, filed a writ in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1458; [1967]3SCR28
Subba Rao, C.J.1. There 44 appeals by certificate are preferred against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the petitions filed by the respondents under Art. 226 of the Constitution for directing the state of Andhra Pradesh and other appropriate authorities to forbear from collecting the assessment of land revenue under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional assessment) and Cess Revision Act, 1962 (Act 22 of 1962), hereinafter called the Principal Act, as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (additional Assessment) and Cess Revision (Amendment) Act 1962 (Act 23 of 1962), hereinafter called the Amending act. For convenience of reference the Principal Act as amended by the Amending Act will be called in the course of the judgment as 'the Act'. The appellants raised the question of the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Act. 2. The Principal Act was passed on September 27, 1962 and it came in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC317; [1968]67ITR106(SC); [1968]1SCR65
Shah, J.1. Meyyappa (I), Alagammal his wife, and Chokalingam and Meyyappa (II) his two minor sons formed in 1940 a Hindu Undivided Family which traded in the name of 'M.S.M.M.'. The family carried on extensive business in money lending, rubber plantations, and in real estates in the Federated States of Malaya, Burma and India. 2. The property of the undivided family was divided between the three male members on February 22, 1940. The Meyyappa (I) were allotted at the partition 'business of the family' at Rangoon and at Karaikudi in the Ramnath District and three rubber estates in the Federated States of Malaya and some houses. Even after the partition Meyyappa (I) continued to remain in management on behalf of himself and his two minor sons of all the properties and the businesses carried on by the family when it was joint, and the businesses were carried on in the name of 'M.S.M.M.'. 3. The houses and the three rubber estates allotted exclusively to Meyyappa (I) were entered in the bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC414; 1969CriLJ663; [1969]2SCR177
Ramaswami, J. 1. In this case the petitioner has obtained a rule from this Court asking the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued under Article 32 of the Constitution for calling up and quashing the proceedings before the General Court Martial No. JAG 26/66-67/AA of 1965 from the Judge Advocate General (Army branch), Army Headquarters whereby the petitioner was found guilty of charges under Section 304 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a period of 6 years rigorous imprisonment and cashiering. Cause has been shown by the Attorney-General on behalf of the Union of India and other respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.2. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army in February, 1964 and was posted as Second Lt. (E.C.-55461) and was attached to 397 Engineering Construction Equipment Company in December, 1964. In August, 1965 the petitioner was posted as a Quarter Master and was transferre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC919; [1970(20)FLR176]; 1970LabIC787; (1969)IILLJ755SC; [1969]2SCR307
Shah, J. 1. These appeals arise out of an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, in I.D. Reference No. 70 of 1958. The first three appeals are filed by the employers, and the last two by the employees. By its award the Industrial Tribunal (Delhi, has framed two schemes relating to payment of gratuity to the workmen employed in four textile units in the Delhi region. The employers and the workmen are dissatisfied with the schemes and they have filed these appeals challenging certain provisions of the schemes.2. In the Delhi region there are four textile units; the Delhi Cloth Mills--which will be referred to as D.C.M.; Swatantra Bharat Mills--which will be referred to as S.B.M.; Birla Cotton Mills--which will be referred to as B.C.M. and Ajudhia Textile Mills--which will be referred to as A.T.M. The D.C.M. and S.B.M. are under one management. On March 4, 1958, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi made a reference under Sections 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ...
Tag this Judgment!