Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC385; [1970]75ITR174(SC); (1969)2SCC351; [1970]1SCR678
A.N. Grover, J.1. These two appeals by special leave involve a common question relating to the validity of a notification issued by the Government of Kerala in August 1963 empowering certain revenue officials including the Taluka Tahsildar to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer under the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called the Act. The notification was expressly stated to be effective from 1st April, 1962--a date prior to the date of the notification.2. The facts in one of the appeals (C.A. 942/66) may be stated: One Kunchacko of Alleppey allowed the income-tax dues from him to fall into arrears. The Income-tax Officer took steps to recover the arrears through the Tahsildar. Certain shares standing in the name of the assessee were attached by the Tahsildar. The first respondent Ponnoose claimed to have obtained a decree for a certain sum against the assessee. He also got the shares standing in the name of the assessee attached in execution proceedings. Ponnoose filed a p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC564; [1970]40CompCas325(SC); (1970)1SCC248; [1970]3SCR530
J.C. Shah, J.1. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper--hereinafter called 'the petitioner'--holds shares in the Central Bank of India Ltd., the Bank of Baroda Ltd., the Union Bank of India Ltd., and the Bank of India Ltd., and has accounts--current and fixed deposit --with those Banks : he is also a director of the Central Bank of India Ltd. By these petitions he claims a declaration that the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance 8 of 1969 promulgated on July 19, 1969, and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969 which replaced the Ordinance with certain modifications impair his rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution, and are on that account invalid.2. In India there was till 1949 no comprehensive legislation governing banking business and banking institutions. The Central Legislature enacted the Banking Companies Act 10 of 1949 (later called 'The Banking Regulation Act') to consolidate and amend the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1563; [1970]78ITR50(SC); (1970)2SCC168; [1971]1SCR539
J.C. Shah, J. 1. This appeal is filed with certificate granted by the High Court of Patna under Section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The India Machinery Stores (P) Ltd. is a private company incorporated with the object of taking over the business carried on by the India Machinery and Mills Stores--hereinafter called 'the vendors'. By an agreement dated August 2, 1956, the Company agreed to purchase all the assets of the vendors, goodwill, and the 'book-debts and other liabilities and claims against the Company' as on the date of transfer in consideration of allotment of 260 fully paid-up shares of the Company of -the nominal value of Rs. 2.60.000/-. It was provided by Clause 4 of the agreement :That all assets of the Vendors in respect of all its business shall be taken over at the book value standing in the books of accounts of the vendors as on the 1st August One Thousand Nine Hundred. Fifty-six.3. In a proceeding for assessment to tax for 1958-59, the Income-tax Offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC2097; (1970)2SCC567; [1971]2SCR197
1. The Judgment of S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat and C.A. Vaidialingam JJ., was delivered by Sikri, J. Bhargava, J. and Mitter, J. gave separate opinions.2. These four election petitions filed under Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Act (XXXI of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and Article 71 of the Constitution of India challenge the election of the respondent Shri V.V. Giri, to the office of the President of India. The petitioner in Election Petition No. 1 of 1969, Shri Shiv Kirpal Singh, was a candidate in the election, and so was the petitioner in Election Petition No. 3, Shri Phul Singh. The nominations of both these petitioners were rejected by the Returning Officer. Election Petition No. 4 was filed by Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy, M.P., and twelve other electors, all members of Parliament. Election Petition No. 5 was filed by Shri Abdul Ghani Dar, M.P., and nine other members of Parliament and eight members of Legislative Assemblies of Haryana, Madhya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC481; (1970)2SCC780; [1971]2SCR446
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 491 of 1969. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.R.K. Garg, D. P. Singh, S. C. Agrawala, R. K. Jain, V. J. Francis and S. Chakravarti, for the petitioner. Niren De, Attorney-General, Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor- General, J. M. Mukhi, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatulla, C.J. This petition seeks a declaration against the Union of India and the Chairman Central Board of Film Censors, that the provisions of Part 11 of the Cinematograph Act 1952 together with the rules prescribed by the Central Government, February 6, 1960, in the purported exercise of its powers under S. 5-B of the Act are unconstitutional and void. As a consequence the petitioner asks for a writ of mandamus Or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the direction contained in a letter (Annexure X) dated July 3, 1969 for deletion of certain sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC530; (1971)1SCC85; [1971]3SCR9
ORDERIn exercise of the power vested in him under Article 366(22) of the Constitution, the President hereby directs that with effect from the date of this Order His Highness Maharajdhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur do cease to be recognised as the Ruler of Gwalior. align='right'>By order and in the name of the President.Sd./-L. P. SINGHSecretary to the Government of India2. All these orders were notified together in the Gazette of India of September 19, 1970, Part II. They resulted in the forthwith stoppage of the Privy Purses received by the Rulers and the discontinuance of their personal privileges.3. These writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were filed by some of the Rulers as test cases to question the orders. They ask for a writ, direction or order, declaring the Presidential Order to be unconstitutional, mala fide, ultra vires and void, and for quashing it, a writ, direction or order declaring that the several petitioners continue to be Rulers and thus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC733; 37(1971)CLT233(SC); (1971)3SCC153
G.K. Mitter, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution pray for a declaration that Sections 3(2) (a), 8(1) and Rule 5-B (6), (7), (8), (9) and (16) and Rule 6(3) and Rule 7(1) of the Orissa Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1961 as amended and the rules framed thereunder are violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 19(1) of the Constitution, for a declaration that the 'revised policy' as enjoined by the said Orissa Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Amendment Act, 1969 and rules framed is arbitrary, discriminatory and mala fide and for a writ or direction in the nature of a mandamus quashing the appointment of respondents 2 to 108 as purchasers.2. To appreciate the grievances of the petitioners it is necessary to note in brief how the trade in Kendu leaves has been taken over by the State of Orissa by successive legislation and two decisions of this Court bearing thereupon. Kendu leaves appear to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1731; (1971)2SCC261; [1971]SuppSCR677
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. These two Writ Petitions under Article 32 challenge the vires and Constitutionality of Sections 4(2) and 5 of the Punjabi University Act 35 of 1961 as amended (hereinafter called 'the University' or 'the Act', as the case may be). It is also prayed that (i) the Notification of the Punjab Government No. 5592-ED-1(2E)/59/12447 dated 13-5-1969 extending the area in which the University shall exercise its powers and (ii) the Circular of the University No. 8617-8661/GS/Misc. dated 15-6-70 as modified by Circular No. 9866-989G/DSG dated 2-7-70 enclosing the decision of the Senate Sub-Committee dated 1-7-70 be quashed as being illegal, unconstitutional and void.2. The Petitioners are educational institutions founded by D.A.V. College Trust and Society registered under the Societies Registration Act as an association comprised of Arya Samajis. These Colleges were affiliated to the Punjab University before the reorganisation of the State of Punjab in 1966. The Universi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)2SCC452; [1971]SuppSCR900; 1971(4)WLN43
Vaidialingam, J.1. In both the writ petitions under Article 32 and the civil appeal, by special leave, common questions that arise for consideration relate to the validity of Rule 28B and 32 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules) and the Circular No. F. 1. (6) Apptts. D/50 dated August 27, 1966 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan as well as the Order of the Government of Rajasthan No. F. 2(24) Apptts. (A-IV)/66 dated January 4, 1967. In the two writ petitions the Order No. F. 2(24) Apptts. (A-IV)/66 dated January 22, 1970 and in Writ Petition No. 139 of 1970 a further Order of the State Government No. F. 27(24)A (A-4)/66 dated February 21, 1970 are also challenged. The nature of the various Orders as well as the Rules and the Circular that are challenged will be referred to later at the appropriate stage.2. Civil Appeal No. 1815 of 1970 arises out of the Division Bench Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1061; [1972]83ITR582(SC); (1971)2SCC779; [1972]2SCR33
S.M. Sikri, C.J.1. This appeal is from the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ No. 2291 of 1970, which was heard by a Bench of five Judges. Four Judges held that Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1969, insofar as it amended the relevant provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. Pandit, J., however, held that the impugned Act was intra vires the legislative powers of Parliament. The High Court accordingly issued a direction to the effect that the Wealth Tax Act, as amended by Finance Act, 1969, insofar as it includes the capital value of the agricultural land for the purposes of computing net wealth, was ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. We may mention that the majority also held that the impugned Act was not a law with respect to entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; in other words, it held that this tax was not covered by entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule.3. The Wealth Tax Ac...
Tag this Judgment!