Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-23-1962
Reported in : AIR1962Mad450
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.(1) This appeal which arises out of an order returning an application for probate of a Will, for presentation to the proper court has been placed before the Full Bench, by reason of a conflict between the decisions. reported in Karthiruma Goundan v. Rangammal, ILR 55 Mad 701: AIR 1932 Mad 456 and P. J. Francis v. P. J. Varghese : (1956)2MLJ288 . The facts relevant for and giving rise to this appeal are: The appellant claiming as an executor under an alleged will of one P.W. Subbaraya Reddiar who died on 1-7-1957, first applied for the grant of pro-bate of the will in the Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The application was opposed by the daughter of the deceased who contested the genuineness of the will and who inter alia denied the jurisdiction of the Sub Court to dispose of a contentious application for probate. To appreciate the latter objection, it is necessary to refer to two notifications conferring jurisdiction on the Sub Court to grant probate of a will. They ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-24-1962
Reported in : AIR1962SC922; [1962]Supp2SCR741
Wanchoo, J.1. These five appeal on certificates granted by the High Court of Kerala raise a common question of law and will be dealt with together. Two of them (appeals 89 and 90) are from what was formerly the Cochin area and the other three are from what was the Travancore area. They relate to a tax on tobacco in these areas. As the facts, laws and rules in the two areas are similar we propose to deal in detail with the appeals from the Cochin area. 2. In 1909, Act VII of 1084 was passed by the Maharaja of Cochin to consolidate and amend the law relating to tobacco and was called the Cochin Tobacco Act, VII of 1084 (hereinafter called the Cochin Act). Section 4 of the Cochin Act prohibited the possession for sale, transport, import or export, sale and cultivation of tobacco except as permitted under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Section 5 of the Act gave power to the Diwan to make rules from time to time consistent with the Act to permit absolutely or subject to any conditi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-25-1962
Reported in : (1962)2MLJ318
ORDERS. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal which arises out of an order returning an application for probate of a will, for presentation to the proper Court has been placed before the Full Bench, by reason of a conflict between the decisions reported in Karthiruma Goundan v. Rangammal (1933) 62 M.L.J. 622 : I.L.R. 55 Mad. 701 and P. J. Francis v. P.J. Varghese (1956) M.L.J. 288. The facts relevant for and giving rise to this appeal are : The appellant claiming as an executor under an alleged will of one P. W. Subbaraya Reddiar who died on 1st July, 1957, first applied for the grant of probate of the will in the Sub-Court at Tirunelveli. The application was opposed by the daughter of the deceased who contested the genuineness of the will and who inter alia denied the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court to dispose of a contentious application for probate. To appreciate the latter objection it is necessary to refer to two notifications conferring jurisdiction on the Sub-Court to grant probate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-26-1962
Reported in : AIR1962Cal563,66CWN796
Bachawat, J.1. This reference raises the question, whether the land lord is required to serve notices, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, on a sub-tenant who has become a direct, tenant by an order under Section 16(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 during; the pendency of a suit for ejectment against, him and the former tenant and whether the landlord is entitled to maintain the suit in the absence of such notices. Opposite Party No. 2, Labh Singh was a monthly tenant of suite No. 2 at 7 Clyde Row under opposite party No. 1, Mohon Kumar Mukherjee. Petitioner V.R. Verma, was a monthly, sub-tenant of the aforesaid suite No. 2 under Labh Singh. M.K. Mukherjee alleges that, on or about March 21, 1956, he served on Labh Singh one month's notice to quit the premises expiring with the month of the tenancy. On or about, April 29, 1956 V.R. Verma, gave, notice of the sub-letting to M.K. Mukherjee unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-22-1962
Reported in : AIR1963All101
ORDERW. Broome, J.1. This writ petition challenges a demand made in September 1957 by the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property for arrears of rent in respect of the premises at No. 30 Elgin Road, Allahabad; and the petitioner asks for a writ of mandamus to be issued, requiring the Assistant Custodian not to treat any share or interest in the aforesaid premises as evacuee property and not to realise any amount from him by way of arrears of rent in respect thereof.2. The house in question was purchased by the petitioner and his brother Mohammad Mohmood Husain in the year 1941 in equal shares. In 1947 the petitioner's brother went off to Pakistan; and on 26-8-1952 he was killed there in an air-crash. According to the respondent, Mohammad Mahmood Husain had migrated to Pakistan and his share of the property vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property under U. P. Ordinance No. 1 of 1949. The petitioner did not initially challenge the vesting order but agreed to deposit with the Custodian...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-01-1962
Reported in : AIR1964AP398
Ekbote, J.1. In this revision petition a short but important question with regard to the effect of Section 33 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter called the I960 Act, is raised.2. The essential facts are these: The respondent who is a landlady filed an application for eviction under Section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 1954 Act) on the ground that the tenant was a wilful defaulter and that the landlady requires the suit house for her own residence. The tenant denied that he is a defaulter and also disputed the personal requirement of the landlady.3. The Rent Controller after due enquiry dismissed the petition rejecting both the contentions of the landlady. Dissatisfied with that decision the landlady went in appeal before the Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.4. The learned Judge allowed the appeal on the ground that the landlady requires the house bona fide for her ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-07-1962
Reported in : AIR1963SC622; [1963]3SCR957
Wanchoo, J.1. These six petitions under Art. 32 of the constitution raise a common point and will be dealt with together. The main question raised in all these petitions is whether the State-Governments are entitled to tax the three Ayurvedic preparations, namely Mirtasanjibani, Mritasanjibani Sudha and Mritasanjibani Sura, which are manufactured by these petitioners, under the various Excise Act in force in the respective States. Further points were raised in the petitions as regards the validity of the restrictions imposed in the matter of the import, export, possession and sale of these three Ayurvedic preparations. But the learned counsel for the petitioners stated before us that he was not pressing any other point except one viz., whether the various State-Governments could tax these three Ayurvedic preparations under the various Excise Acts in force in the States concerned. We propose therefore to deal with this point only in the present cases. 2. The case of the petitioners is b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-10-1962
Reported in : AIR1963Bom121; (1963)65BOMLR65; ILR1962Bom664; 1963MhLJ205
Abhyankar, J.1. This judgment will also dispose of Special Civil Application No. 240 of 1961.2. Special Civil Application No. 175 of 1961 is filed by one Shri R.D. Shirkhedkar. He was serving in the Office of respondent No. 2, the Senior Deputy Accountant General, Maharashtra, (Nagpur Branch), at Nagpur as a Superintendent in the Subordinate Accounts Service Class III. He joined the Office of the Accountant General, Central Provinces and Berar, in the year 1940 and was confirmed as a Superintendent in 1953. On reorganisation of the State he was allocated to the State of Bombay. The petitioner's case is that he is a member of the Civil Audit find Accounts Association of Class III employees in the office of respondent No. 2 at Nagpur. Between 1954 to 1958 the petitioner was the President of the Association at Nagpur.3. In Special Civil Application No. 240 of 1961, the petitioner is Narayan Narhar Deshpande. He joined the service in the Indian Audit and Accountants Department at Nagpur as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-10-1962
Reported in : (1963)ILLJ428Bom
Abhyankar, J.1. This judgment will also dispose of Special Civil Application No. 240 of 1961. 2. Special Civil Application No. 175 of 1961 is filed by one R. H. Shirkhedkar. He was serving in the office of respondent 2, the Senior Deputy Accountant-General, Maharashtra (Nagpur Branch), at Nagpur, as a superintendent in the Subordinate Accounts Service, class III. He joined the office of the Accountant-General, Central Provinces and Berar, in the year 1940 and was confirmed as a superintendent in 1953. On reorganization of the State he was allocated to the State of Bombay. The petitioner's case is that he is a member of the Civil Audit and Accounts Association of class III employees in the office of respondent 2 at Nagpur. Between 1954 and 1958 the petitioner was the president of the association at Nagpur. 3. In Special Application No. 240 of 1961, the petitioner is Narayan Narhar Deshpande. He joined the service in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department at Nagpur as an upper division...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-27-1962
Reported in : AIR1963SC953; [1963]48ITR186(SC); [1963]Supp2SCR515
S.K. Das, J.1. These two appeals on certificates granted by the High Court of Rajasthan have been heard together, because they raise common questions of law and fact, and this judgment will govern them both. 2. Shortly put, the main question in C.A. No. 399 of 1960 is whether the appellant, the Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd., is liable to pay excise duty on the cloth and yarn manufactured and produced by it, in accordance with the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 which provisions were extended to the territory of the State of Rajasthan on April 1, 1950. The main question in C.A. No. 214/1956 is whether the same appellant is liable to pay income-tax in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 from the date on which those provisions were extended to the territory of the State of Rajasthan. C.A. No. 399 of 1960 arises out of a suit which the appellant had filed in the court of the District Judge, Jodhpur. That suit was dismissed by the learned...
Tag this Judgment!