Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-18-1953
Reported in : AIR1954SC155; (1954)56BOMLR280; [1954]25ITR50(SC); [1954]1SCR444
Mahajan, J.1. This is appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay delivered on a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, whereby the High Court answered the first referred question in the negative.2. The assessment in question concern the year 1943-44. A Hindu undivided family was carrying on business in Bombay, Madras and the Mysore State. Its business was taken over by a registered firm on March 17, 1942. For the purpose of this appeal however this circumstance is not material. The case has been dealt with on the assumption that a single assessee carried on business from October 10, 1948, to November 8, 1942, the relevant accounting year. According to the accounts of the assessee, during this period the Mysore branch purchased goods from the Bombay head office and the Madras branch of the value of Rs. 2,45,455. The Income-tax Officer estimated these purchases of the Mysore branch in British India at Rs. 3,00,000 and its profits at Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-12-1953
American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. United States - 344 U.S. 298 (1953) U.S. Supreme Court American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. United States, 344 U.S. 298 (1953) American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United States Argued November 17-18, 1952 Decided January 12, 1953 * 344 U.S. 298 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Syllabus Under the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, as amended, the Interstate Commerce Commission promulgated rules governing the use by authorized motor carriers of equipment not owned by them but leased from the owners or obtained by interchange with other authorized motor carriers. These rules abolish trip leasing and revenue splitting with driver owners; require written contracts, carrier inspection, control and responsibility for nonowned equipment, and, for interchanged equipment, require drivers employed by the certified carrier over whose route it travels. Held: 1. The promulgation of these rules for authorized carr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-12-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Ori171
Narasimham, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a declaration that the provisions of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 (Orissa Act 3 of 1948) are void as being inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed Hinder the Constitution and that proceedings under that Act pending in the Court of the Second Officer, Russelkonda, in Misc. Petition No. 38 of 1950 are without jurisdiction.2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of about 22 acres of agricultural land in Canjam district. He alleged that formerly he allowed the opposite party to cultivate about five acres of his land; but as the latter defaulted in payment of rent he evicted him as early as 1946 and took over the cultivation of the said land through his farm servants. In January 1948, the Orissa Legislative Assembly passed, an Act entitled the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948, which having been assented to by the Governor-General, came into force in all the districts of the old Province...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-13-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Kant89; AIR1954Mys89; ILR1953KAR578; (1955)33MysLJ4
Vasudevamurthy, J1. The appellant was the plaintiff in the Court of the First Munsif of Bangalore. He brought a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the Bangalore City Municipality, either by itself or through its servants from issuing permits or making leases in favour of anybody else to vend fruits in the Kalasipalyam Bus stand, Bangalore City, so long as the lease in his favour subsisted and was not otherwise legally terminated. The Municipality had, it was alleged, granted a lease in his favour by an agreement dated 9-12-1948 conferring upon him the sole and exclusive right to vend fruits in the entire area known as Kalasipalyam Bus Stand on a monthly rental of Rs. 32/-; notwithstanding that grant the Municipality is said to have given licences to other people to similarly vend fruits in that area before the arrangement in his own favour was property terminated. That suit was filed on 26-9-1949 but subsequently on 6-3-1950 the plaintiff filed with the permission of the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-15-1953
Reported in : AIR1953P& H217
Khosla, J.1. The appellant Suresh Kumar, a young lad of 18, was tried upon a charge under Section 379, Penal Code, and upon his conviction was awarded a sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment because he admitted two previous convictions. 2. The appellant was found guilty of picking the pocket of Mehr Chand at the Railway Station Ambala Cantonment. Mehr Chand stated that he left the train to take his meal and as he was about to re-enter his compartment he felt a pull at his waist-coat pocket. The door of his compartment was crowded and on putting his hand in his pocket he found that his money was stolen. The appellant was near-by & was seen trying to slip away, He was at once caught and a ten-rupee note and a piece of five-rupee note which had been stolen from the complainant's pocket were recovered from him. A razor was also found upon his person. 3. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the appellant stole two currency notes from the pocket of Mehr Chand. The five-rupee note wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-20-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Bom371; (1953)55BOMLR387; ILR1954Bom117
Bavdekar, J.(1) Criminal Application for Revision No. 642 of 1952 arises from the admitted transport by the applicant of 7 1/2 Bengali maunds of juwar from his own village of Khanjorili to Mandvi on April 8, 1951. Such a transport without a licence is prohibited by Clause 5 (1) of the Bombay Foodgraius (Regulation of Movement and Sale) Order, 1949. The applicant raised a defence that he was transporting the grain under a permit issued by a Revenue Patel. But it has been found that the Revenue Patel had no power to issue a permit for this transport of the grain. It is not contended before us that that finding is wrong. But the learned advocate, who appears on behalf of the applicant, challenges the conviction of the applicant on two grounds. He says that, in the first instance, in this case the learned Magistrate, who convicted the applicant, was not empowered to take cognizance of the offence, inasmuch as there was no report made by a public officer, as required by Section 11, Essentia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-21-1953
Deka, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ or writs of the nature of Mandamus and Prohibition on the five opposite parties of whom opposite party No. 1 is the Deputy Commissioner of Lakhimpur, No. 2 Municipal Board of Dibrugarh, No. 3 the present lessee, No. 4 an unsuccessful bidder and No. 5, the State of Assam. The petition is on behalf of one Mahboob Khan who claims to be the lessee of a municipal market within the municipality of Dibrugarh for the year 1952-53 and his allegation is that the Deputy Commissioner by an illegal order restrained him from obtaining the lease and the Government of Assam have affirmed that order. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: On 26-3-1952, the Chairman of the Dibrugarh Municipal Board with a sub-committee of the said Board put up to auction the settlement of the New Market for the year 1952-53 that is the right to collect tolls for the said period and Mahboob Khan was the highest bidder at the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-23-1953
Reported in : AIR1953SC205; [1953]4SCR913
Bhagwati, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the late Chief Court of Oudh, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge of Sitapur, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. 2. One, Thakur Shankar Bux Singh, proprietor of the Estate known as Rampur Kelan, situated in District Sitapur (Oudh) was heavily indebted and the estate had been in the possession of Deputy Commissioner of Sitapur as receiver from 1892 up to 11th July, 1901. Thereafter he was declared a disqualified proprietor under the provisions of 8(D)(1) of the U.P. Court of Wards Act (U.P. Act III of 1899) and the Court of Wards took possession of the estate on the 1st August, 1901. Under Section 34 of the Act he was not competent to dispose his property by will without the consent in writing of the Court of Wards, though prior to the 1st August, 1901, he had made four successive wills, the last being dated 19th June, 1901, under which he gave his estate absolutely to his wife. On the 30th No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Decided on : Jan-30-1953
Reported in : 195528ITR121(Nag.)
This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. The question referred is "whether the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on 28th March, 1950, is in accordance with law".2. The assessee Inderjit Singh is the son of Shri P. S. Sial. The assessment year is 1944-45. The assessee submitted a return for the year ending on 31st March, 1944, in which he declared his income to be Rs. 22,185-8-0. According to him, the amount of Rs. 21,100 represented his share of profits made by the partnership entitled the Chhindwara Military Hutting Contract of which he and his father were partners. The details of the income were shown as follows :- The Income-tax Officer filed the case as the total income was below the taxable limit. The reason for excluding the amount of Rs. 21,100 was that he had in the previous assessment year held that there was no partnership between the father and the son and that the business belonged to P. S. Sial alo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-30-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Ori185
Jagannadha Das, C.J.1. These are applications under Article 226 of the Constitution lor the issue of mandatory writs against the State of Orissa restraining them from issuing any notifications or taking any other steps under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1 of 1952, in so far as the estates to which these applications relate. These eight applications concern eight per-manently settled estates of the ex-Madras area, which since 1-4-1936, became part of the then newly formed State of Orissa. All the applications involve substantially the same questions and are therefore dealt with together. 2. The trend of economic and political thought of the nation has insisted upon the abolition of Zamindari tenure and the elimination of intermediaries between the State and the cultivator as the first step in any general measure of agrarian reform. It has been considered that concentration of large blocks of land in the hands of a limited number of Zamindars denying fair distribution thereof to the...
Tag this Judgment!