Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-11-1964
Reported in : AIR1965Mad392
(1) This appeal instituted by M. A. and Sons (appellants) from the order and decree of the learned Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing O. P. No. 478 of 1961, involves certain questions of interest with regard to a reference to arbitration, as provided for by the by-laws of the Madras Oil and Seeds Exchange (Pte.) Ltd (first respondent). The essential facts and dates are as follows:(2) There were certain contracts, which were of the character of forward contracts, as between the appellants and the second respondent firm (Kilachand and Devchand and Co. Pte. Ltd.) for supplies of groundnut oil on differing dates. It is not in dispute that, owing to the alleged bursting of the boiler apparatus, the appellants were unable to deliver, and reported the inability; in brief, the contracts were broken. On the principle of S. 60 of the Indian Sales of Goods Act, the second respondent choose to treat the contract as subsisting, and waited till the date of delivery. As the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-28-1964
Reported in : AIR1965AP457
Venkatesam, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, in O. S. No. 8 of 1958. The facts necessary for the determination of the questions arising in this case are as follows : - The plaintiff J. Kuppanna Chetty, Ambati Ramayya Chetty and Company of Kadiri, is a firm carrying on business as groundnut and mundy merchants. They took on lease a groundnut decorticating factory at Kadiri, known by the name of Vittal Seshappa Chetty Sons, Groundnut Factory. The factory was under the management of one of the partners, Kuppanna Chetty. Vittan Subbayya Chetty, son of Seshayya Chetty was in arrears of Income-tax relating to the year 1951-52 and 1952-53 to the extent of Rs. 20,921-10-0 and Rs. 9,035-4-0, respectively. The Income-tax Officer issued a certificate under S. 46 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to the Collector of Bellary for realisation of the said arrears. The Tahsildar, Kadiri, was directed by the Collector to attach the said facto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-30-1964
Reported in : AIR1965Kant240; AIR1965Mys240; ILR1964KAR468; (1964)2MysLJ316
ORDER1. These are Tax Revision Petition preferred by the assessee under S. 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. In S.T.R.P. No. 42/63, which relates to the assessment year 1959-60, the disputed turnover is Rs. 96,642-50 and in S.T.R.P. No. 40 of 1963 which relates to the year 1960-61, the disputed turnover is Rs. 3,11,306.91. The contention of the assessee in regard to the transactions relating to the disputed turnovers in both the years is, that they relate to purchases made in the course of inter-State trade and as such, not chargeable to tax under S. 5(3)(b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act,1957. The contention of the assessee has been rejected by the Appellate Tribunal holding that from the agreements of sale produced, it cannot be held that movement of goods from one State to another has been occasioned under the terms of the contract and consequently, the transactions pertaining to the disputed turnover do not fall within the category of sales or purchases in the course of inter-S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-10-1964
Reported in : AIR1966Guj175; (1965)GLR554
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition challenges a determination made by the Collector under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The determination came to he made by the Collector under the following circumstances. The first and second petitioners owned a piece of land admeasuring 55 square yards situate at Lal Darwaja in the city of Ahmedabad. They agreed to grant a lease of the said piece of land to the third petitioner on the terms and conditions contained in a draft indenture of lease which was agreed upon between the parties. The third petitioner brought the draft indenture of lease to the Collector and applied to have the opinion of the Collector as to the duty with which it was chargeable under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. This application was made on 20th June 1961 and was accompanied by the requisite fee directed by the Collector. On receipt of the application, it appears, the Collector felt doubt as to the amount of duty with which the draft indenture of lease was c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-09-1964
Reported in : AIR1965SC961; [1965]2SCR53
Gajendragadkar, C.J. 1. The short question which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the order passed by the President of India on May 15, 1961, approving the action which was proposed to be taken against the appellant, Jyoti Prokash Mitter, amounts to a decision on the question about the appellant's age as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court under Art. 217(3) of the Constitution. In the note placed before the President along with its accompaniments it was proposed that the appellant should be informed that his correct date of birth had been determined to be December 27, 1901, and so, he should demit his office of puisne Judge of the Calcutta High Court on December 26, 1961 on which date he would attain the age of 60. The draft of the letter which was intended to be sent to the appellant in that behalf was also placed before the President. On the file, the President made an order, 'approved'; and the question is whether this is an order which can be related to Art. 217(3)....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-26-1964
Reported in : AIR1965SC1473; [1965]35CompCas321(SC); [1965]56ITR77(SC); [1965]1SCR833
Sikri, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Madras High Court, answering a question referred to it under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the Revenue. 2. The question referred to it was the following : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the bank was entitled to claim deduction of the entire interest paid by it on fixed deposits, either under section 10(2)(iii) or 10(2)(xv) ?' 3. The relevant facts and circumstances are these. The respondent, the Indian Bank Ltd., Madras, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, carried on the business of banking. In the normal cause of its business, it received deposits from constituents and paid interest to them. It invested a large sum in securities both of the Central and State Government (including Mysore Government). The interest on Mysore Government securities was exempt from income-tax and super-tax under the provisions of a notification ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-13-1964
Reported in : AIR1965AP294; 1965CriLJ180
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J. (1) The Petitioner, Rai Bahadur Seth Durga Prasad Private limited, of Visakhapatnam, has filed this writ petition with a prayer as follows:- 'To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction restraining the respondents..... from proceeding any further under the colour and guise of the warrants Nos. 9 and 10, dated 24-9-1963 and dated 27-9-1963, respectively, issued by the first respondent herein to respondents 2 and 3 herein and to strike down the said warrants...... as being void and illegal and direct the return of all the account-books, documents, other files and records and other articles.....seized and removed from the premises of the petitioner.' (2) There are three respondents. The first respondents is the deputy Collector of Customs, Vizag, Respondents 2 and 3 are preventive officers of the Customs Department, Vizag. (3) The petitioner has extensive business in the territories of Union of India including expo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-21-1964
Reported in : [1966]61ITR30(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. This reference involves two questions, one relates to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 33(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the other relates to the status of the firm of Messrs. F. Y. Khambhaty which carried on business at Kano in Nigeria and in which the assessee was a partner along with one Lahorewala and was having a share of sixty per cent. as against the share of forty per cent. of the said Lahorewala. The first question was referred to this court by the Tribunal in the reference made by the Tribunal on June 10, 1960, while the second question has been referred to us as a result of an order passed by this court on November 29, 1962, in Income-tax Application No. 13 of 1962. 2. The two questions arise as a result of assessments having been made against the assessee, F. Y. Khambhaty and the said firm of Kano, hereinafter referred to as the Kano firm, for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1953-54. The relative previous years, in so far as the assessee' s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-06-1964
Reported in : AIR1966Bom70; (1965)67BOMLR234
Tambe, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, wherein the vires of the Gold Control Rules, contained in part XIIA of the Defence of India Rules, have been challenged. In the prayer clauses of the petition no doubt, validity of the entire rule were not challenged but only some of the rule were not mentioned. But the arguments advanced before us the were in respect of rules in general. If would not therefore be necessary to consider each rule separately.(2) The two petitioners before us are dealers in gold. They profess and parties Jain religion. The two petitioners carry onto business in the name and style of 'Messrs. Chandkumar Amichand & Co'. The principal business of the petitioner is in bullion. They buy and sell gold in course of their business. In their petition they say that the business carried on by the them is on a vast scale. Eleven persons are employed by them in the firm and the annual salary to the Rs. 20,000. The firm is also a registered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-09-1964
Reported in : AIR1965SC1238; [1965]55ITR666(SC); [1965]2SCR91
Shah, J.1. Krishnappa and his two sons - Thimmayya and Venkatanarsu - constituted aHindu undivided family. They carried on business in mining in the name andstyle of Krishnappa and Sons. The family was disrupted in 1946, and all itsproperties were divided among the members of the family. The business ofKrishnappa and Sons was taken over by a firm which the partners were Krishnappaand his two sons. A private limited Company styled 'Krishnappa Asbestosand Barytes (Private) Ltd.' took over the business of the firm on May 21,1947 for Rs. 2,04,000. Thimmayya obtained employment under the Company as minessuperintendent at a monthly salary of Rs. 400 and Venkatanarsu as GeneralManager at a monthly salary of Rs. 500. 2. Proceedings for assessment of tax due by the Hindu undivided family forthe years 1941-42, 1942-43, 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47 were pending at thetime when the Hindu undivided family was disrupted. On May 20, 1946,Venkatanarsu claimed before the Additional Income-tax Officer, ...
Tag this Judgment!