Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC186; (1961)63BOMLR423; [1961]31CompCas1(SC); 1961CriLJ319; [1961]1SCR801
Sarkar, J.1. The respondents were Directors of Hirjee Mills Ltd. They were prosecuted before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, for two offences under the Companies Act, 1913, as amended by Act XXII of 1936. The first offence was that they knowingly and wilfully authorised the failure to file the summary of share capital for the year 1953 and thereby became punishable under sub-section (5) of section 32 of the Act, for a default in carrying out the requirements of that section. The second offence was that they were knowingly and wilfully parties to the failure to lay before the company in general meeting the balance sheet and profit and loss account as at March 31, 1953 and thereby became punishable under section 133(3) of the Act for a default in complying with the requirements of section 131. There was a separate trial in respect of each offence. 2. The learned Magistrate found that no general meeting of the company had been held in the year concerned. Following Imperator v. Pi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1.Leave granted.Introduction2. A new State - State of Nagaland - was formed by the State of Nagaland Act, 1962 (for short, `the 1962 Act') which came into force on December 1, 1963 comprising the territories which immediately before the appointed day were comprised in the Naga Hills - Tuensang Area of the State of Assam. Prior to the 1962 Act, Naga Hills-Tuensang Areas Act, 1957 was enacted by the Parliament by which certain changes were brought about with regard to the administration of the area viz., Naga Hills - Tuensang Area within the State of Assam. The pay structure applicable to civil servants of Assam was made applicable to the civil servants of the Naga Hills-Tuensang Area and as regards the service conditions including the age of superannuation, the Central Government Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules were made applicable to them. After creation of the State of Nagaland, the conditions of service of the State Government employees continued to be governed by the same Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) No. 8424 of 2010. 2. Leave granted. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of these appeals as they involve similar issues both of facts as also of law and therefore, they were heard together. 3. Appeals arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 19104-19106 of 2008 are directed against the judgment and order dated 14.3.2008 in WP (T) No. 6377 of 2007, WP (T) No. 5895 of 2007 and WP (T) No. 5892 of 2007. The appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 21491 of 2008 is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.3.2008 in WP (T) No. 6071 of 2007 and the appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8424 of 2010 is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.7.2009 in W.P. (T) 54 of 2009 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi allowing all the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents herein. CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 19104 OF 2008 4. The facts leading to the filing of the case in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 19104 of 2008 are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC284; [1960]2SCR239
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The Okara Electric Supply Co. Ltd., which is a Joint Stock Company and Shrimati V. V. Oberoi, one of the principal shareholders of the said company (hereinafter called petitioners 1 and 2 respectively) have filed the present petition against the State of Punjab and the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter called respondents 1 and 2 respectively) in which they have claimed a writ, order or direction in respect of a notice issued by respondent 1 on January 3, 1958. The petition was presented on January 3, 1959 and it claimed an order or writ restraining the respondents from giving effect to the said notice. It appears that on January 4, 1959, in pursuance of the said impugned notice the respondents took possession of the petitioners' property in question, and so, by an order passed by the learned Chamber Judge the petitioners were allowed to make an additional claim for a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hand o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC476; 1956CriLJ837; (1957)ILLJ4SC; [1956]1SCR182
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. Ram Kishan, the first appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 43, is a partner-proprietor in the firm of Kundan Lal Raja Ram of Saharanpur. Prem Chand, the second appellant, is a partner in the firm of Narain Prasad and Prem Chand in the same place. The appellant, Gian Chand, is the munim of a firm called Lekh Raj Shambhu Nath. Some of the Saharanpur merchants, including the three firms, were suspected of exporting potatoes at concessional rates on false declarations or certificates that they were seed potatoes. Police investigation was proceeding in this connection at Saharanpur in October, 1951. Madan Lal, Railway Section Officer, examined as P. W. 4 in the case, was deputed by the Railway Department to assist the Special Police Establishment in the investigation. Labhu Ram, Railway Parcels clerk in the Railway at Saharanpur, was deputed by the Station Master to help the Police party. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that during the progress of the investigatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC217; [1963]2SCR333
Das Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a complaint made by the appellant, the Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd., Shamli, to the Railway Rates Tribunal. The complaint as originally made was against the station to station rates on sugarcane on the Shahdara (Delhi) - Saharanpur Light Railway imposed by the respondent, the Railway Company, by their rates Circular No. 8 of 1953 with effect from October 1, 1953. The complaint was that these rates had been and were unreasonable. The Railway Company in their answer to the complaint pointed out that the rates imposed by the rate Circular No. 8 of 1953 had long before the date of the complaint ceased to be in force and that subsequent to the decision of this Court in S.S. Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. : 1983CriLJ1044 a new rate had come into operation from February 10, 1960, under Local Rate Advice No. 2A of 1960. After this the complaint prayed for amendment of his complaint by adding a complaint against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1256; [1971]80ITR477(SC); (1971)2SCC17; [1971]SuppSCR390
Sikri, C.J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the Madras High Court under Section 66A (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as' the Act, is from the judgment of the Madras High Court in a reference made to it under Section 66(1) of the Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench.2. The Tribunal referred the following question.Whether the present proceedings initiated under Section 34(1)(a) of the Act against the assessees are valid in law 3. The relevant facts may now be stated. For the assessment year 1948-49 (accounting year ending November 12, 1947) an assessment was made on Abdullabhai Fazalali in the status of an individual on September 30, 1948, on a total income of Rs. 9,102. The sources of income considered in the assessment were share income from the firm of S.A. Bhagat and Co., and property income. Subsequently, it came to light that Abdullabhai Fazalali had deposited Rs. 40,000 in cash on July 28, 1947 in the branch of the Bank of I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(7)SC128; 2000(5)SCALE64; (2000)6SCC488
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. This Civil Appeal is against the Judgment dated 17th September, 1987 delivered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. By this Judgment the Division Bench dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant against a Judgment of a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court which upheld the challenge of the 1st Respondent to Ordinances and Amendment Act set out hereinafter.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:On 6th February, 1925 the Government of Uttar Pradesh granted to one M/s. Martin & Co. a licence for supply of electric energy. This licence was subsequently transferred to the 1st Respondent. One of the terms of the licence was that at the end of the licence period the Government had a right to purchase the undertaking. The licence was for a period of 50 years. The 50 years period would thus end on 5th February, 1975. On February 1, 1974 the Appellant served a notice on the 1st Respondent, under Section 6(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1223; 1970MhLJ551(SC); (1970)1SCC208; [1970]3SCR409
M. Hidayatullah, C.J.1. The National Coal Development Corporation Ltd. appeals against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, November 15, 1965, in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. By the judgment under appeal the appellants are restrained from carrying on depillaring operations underneath the land of the respondent Manmohan Mathur in village Chirimiri in District Surguja in Madhya Pradesh.2. The facts are as follows: Chirimiri is a coal-bearing area. On February 1, 1957 the Government of Madhya Pradesh, acting in exercise of the functions of the Central Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 entrusted to it by the President under Article 258(1) of the Constitution, issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act stating that the lands specified in Chirimiri village were needed for the prospecting of coal seams for development of collieries by the Central Government. On June 8, 1957 the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC722; JT2009(11)SC344; 2009(11)SCALE794; (2009)9SCC772:2009(5)LH(SC)3354
Aftab Alam, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Government of Maharashtra, the appellant before us, is in occupation of an area of 9000 sq. ft. (11,050 sq. ft. as per the affidavit-in- reply filed by the appellant) comprising the sixth floor of a building on a monthly rental of Rs. 5236.58/-, besides water charges at the rate of Rs. 515.35/- per month. The suit premises, used for housing the office of the Registrar Co-operative Societies is situate at Fort, opposite GPO, (near C.S.T. Railway Station) in the heart of the city of Mumbai. The appellant is in occupation of the suit premises since 1966. At that time the building belonged to the Maharaja of Travancore. Respondents 1 to 3 purchased it under a deed of assignment dated May 5, 1982 and stepped into the shoes of the landlord.3. The appellant suffered a decree of ejectment passed by the Court of Small Causes on June 30, 2003 in RAE & R Suit No. 1233/3730 of 1986 on grounds of (i) default in payment of taxes and water charges as stipulated u...
Tag this Judgment!