Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1955]27ITR126(SC); [1955]1SCR941
Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J.1. The appellant is a public limited joint stock company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, with its registered office at Calcutta. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of cotton yarn and piece-goods. On the 28th of July, 1944, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to it under Section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act calling upon it to file the return of its income for the assessment year 1944-45 (account year being 1943-44). Before the expiry of the due date for filing the return the account books of the appellant company together with the documents relevant to the accounts, were taken into custody by the Sub-Divisional Officer Narayanganj and it is alleged that these remained in the custody of the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate till January, 1950, when they were handed back to the appellant. In this situation the assessee pleaded for extension of time to furnish the return. This request was refused, and a show cause not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC53; [1955]1SCR862
Mukherjea, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of an appellate bench of the Calcutta High Court, dated the 24th February, 1953, reversing, on appeal, the judgment and order of a single Judge sitting on the Original Side of that Court, passed on an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows : On the 7th of July, 1950, the respondent, Moran and Company Limited, passed two Bought Notes to the appellant company, couched in identical terms, under which the appellant purchased 12,00,000 yards of hessian cloth, 6,00,000 yards under each contract, on certain terms and conditions stated therein. The delivery was to be made every month from January, 1951, at the rate of 1,00,000 yards per month under each of those notes and payments were to be made in cash on delivery, each delivery being treated as a separate and distinct contract. The Bought Notes commenced thus : 'Dear Sirs, We have this da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC585; 21(1955)CLT474(SC); 1955CriLJ1300
S.R. Das, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Orissa, pronounced on 24-7-1951 in Government Appeal No. 5 of 1950 whereby the High Court reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge of Sundar Nagar -- Sambalpur and convicted the appellant, a sorter employed in the Postal department, of offences under Section 381, Indian Penal Code, and Section 52, Indian Post Offices Act for having on 3-1-1949 stolen an insured cover of the face value of .Rs. 3,000 from the mail van attached to 13 Down Passenger train running from Jharsuguda to Tatanagar and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years on each count, the sentences running concurrently and to a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine to a further term of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months.2. At the beginning of its judgment the High Court summarises the prosecution case as follows. The appellant Bansidhar was Head Sorter No. 7--Out-section and Shib ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC160; 1955(0)KLT351(SC); (1956)ILLJ235SC; [1955]1SCR1011
Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J.1. This appeal by leave of the High Court of Judicature of Travancore-Cochin at Ernakulam is directed against an order of a Full Bench of that Court dismissing an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Government of the united State of Travancore-Cochin removing the appellant from service of the State and permanently debarring him from reappointment in service.2. The facts giving rise to the petition and the appeal are these : The petitioner entered the service of erstwhile Travancore State in the year 1928. By promotion he became the Executive Engineer, Electricity Department in August 1937 and subsequently Electrical Engineer to Government in October 1944. He was the Electrical Engineer to Government on the 1st July 1949 when the States of Travancore and Cochin were integrated by a Covenant entered into between the rulers of the two States. By an order of the Government of the united State of Travancore-Cochin, dated the 11...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC216; 1955CriLJ572; [1955]1SCR1083
Bose, J. 1. Five persons, including the three appellants, were prosecuted for the murder of one Ramchander Shelke. Each was convicted and each was sentenced the death under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The appeals and the confirmation proceedings in the High Court were heard by M. S. Ali Khan and V. R. Deshpande, JJ. They differed. The former considered that the convictions should be maintained but was of opinion that the sentence in each case should be commuted to imprisonment for life. The latter favoured an acquittal in all five cases. The matter was accordingly referred to a third Judge, P. J. Reddy, J. He agreed with the first about the convictions and adjudged all five to be guilty under section 302. On the question of sentence he considered that the death sentences on the three appellants, Pandurang, Tukia and Bhilia, should be maintained and that those of the other two should be commuted to transportation for life. 3. It seems that the opinion of the third Judge was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC196; 1955CriLJ526; [1955]1SCR1150
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. These are appeals by special leave against the orders of the Punjab High Court made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, reversing the orders of the Special Judge, Delhi, quashing certain criminal proceedings pending before himself against these appellants for alleged offences under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Judge quashed the proceedings on the ground that the investigations on the basis of which the appellants were being prosecuted were in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and hence illegal. In Appeal No. 95 of 1954 the appellants are two persons by name H. N. Risbud and Indar Singh. In Appeals No. 96 and 97 of 1954 H. N. Risbud above mentioned is the sole appellant. These appeals raise a common question of law and are dealt with together. The appellant Risbud was the Assistant Development Officer (Steel) in the office of the Directorate-General...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC325
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. These two are appeals on leave granted by the High Court of Bombay under Article 133(1) (c) of the Constitution against its common judgment in Second Appeals Nos. 936 and 937 of 1947. The appellant in each of these appeals is the State of Bombay and the respondent is Mulji Jetha & Company.The respondent owned three survey numbers at Jalgaon in the State of Bombay being Survey Nos. 253-A, 254-A, and 253-B, which, prior to the year 1911, were used and assessed as agricultural lands. In the year 1911, the respondent made * an application under Section 35, Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (Bombay Act V of 1879) (hereinafter referred to as the Code), to the Collector of Jalgaon for permission to divert the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 253-A and 254-A from agricultural to non-agricultural use for the purpose of constructing thereon a structure in accordance with a plan submitted along with that application. In the year 1912, he made another similar application in respect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC576
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab by leave granted under Article 133 of the Constitution read with Sections 109 and 110 and Order 45, Rule 2 Civil P. C. The appeal arises out of a suit filed in 1938 by the respondent herein, Raja Shiv Rattan Dev Singh, Raja of Poonch against (1) Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, (2) Local Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee of Sri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, and (3) 57 Sikhs, for a declaration to the effect that a house known as Bunga Raja Dhian Singh in Amritsar and four shops appurtenant thereto, two of which are close to the Sikh Gurdwara, Sri Darbar Sahib, belong to him and are his private property and that they are not a Sikh Gurdwara.The suit which was filed in 1938 was dismissed by the trial Court on certain preliminary issues and that dismissal was reversed on first appeal and the suit was remanded. On second appeal therefrom to the High Court the dismissal by the trial court was restored...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC633; (1956)58BOMLR831; 1955CriLJ1410; [1955]2SCR94
Das, J.1. The appellant before us was on the 9th December, 1952 convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, 13th Court, Bombay, of an offence under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act (Act XXV of 1949) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 250 or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay but his appeal was summarily dismissed by a Bench of that Court on the 19th January, 1953. After the dismissal of that appeal the State of Bombay made a Criminal Revision application to the High Court for enhancement of the sentence. Notice having been issued to the appellant under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned counsel for the appellant claimed the appellant's right under section 439(6) to show cause against his conviction. This the High Court did not permit him to do. The High Court, however, did not think fit to make any order for enha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC600; 1955(0)BLJR550; (1956)ILLJ1SC; [1955]2SCR391
Imam, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Allahabad High Court affirming the decision of the Civil Judge of Allahabad. 2. The appellant was appointed to the United Provinces Civil (Executive) Service in 1940 and in due course was confirmed. He was posted to various stations and in 1944 he was posted to Lakhimpur Kheri, where he joined in July 1944. On 23rd August, 1944, the Deputy Commissioner of Lakhimpur Kheri received a telegram from Government informing him that the appellant was suspended forthwith pending inquiry into his conduct and that a copy of the telegram was forwarded to the appellant for information. On 26th August 1944, the Deputy Commissioner wrote to the appellant that he was required to appear before the Commissioner of the Lucknow Division on 28th August, 1944, to answer the charges, a copy of which would be forwarded to him. He further informed the appellant that he could treat his case under rule 55 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and A...
Tag this Judgment!