Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-26-1962
Reported in : AIR1963SC1207; [1963]Supp2SCR459; [1963]14STC316(SC)
ORDER In exercise of the power conferred by clause 7 of the Sugar and Sugar Products Control Order, 1943. 1. Shashi Kiran, Assistant Sugar Controller for India, having been duly authorised in this regard under clause 2 of the said order by the Sugar Controller for India hereby direct you to supply 1200 tons/maunds of Sugar by 31-1-47 to Bengal in accordance with the despatching instructions of the Director of Civil Supplies Bengal, Calcutta. 2. A permit No. 1988 to enable you to despatch sugar in compliance with this order is attached. (Sd.) Shashi Kiran, Asstt. Sugar Controller for India. To the Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Majhawlia, District Champaran. And now the despatch order :- EXPRESS STATEMOTIPATMAJHOWALIA UNDERSTAND SUGAR CONTROLLER ISSUED PERMIT FOR 600 TONS SUGAR THIS PROVINCE FULLSTOP DESPATCH IMMEDIATELY 300 TONS MANGALORE DRAFTS ON ME THROUGH CENTRAL BANK CALICUT 300 TONS COIMBATORE DRAFTS OF ME THROUGH CENTRAL BANK MADRAS FULLSTOP SEND RAIL RECEIPTS FO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-07-1962
Reported in : AIR1962SC1371; [1962]32CompCas514(SC); [1962]Supp3SCR632
Hidayatullah, J.1. On August 8, 1960, the Reserve Bank of India made an application in the High Court of Kerala under s. 38 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) read with the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), for the winding up of the Palai Central Bank, Ltd. (having its registered office at Palai in the State of Kerala), for the appointment of the Official Liquidator of the High Court as the Liquidator with all the powers under the said Acts and for the appointment of the Official Liquidator as the Provisional Liquidator during the pendency of the application. This application was allowed on December 5, 1960, and the present appeal with special leave, has been filed against the order. 2. The Palai Central Bank, Ltd. (herein referred to as the Palai Bank or the Bank) was incorporated in January, 1927 under the Travancore Companies Regulations. Till 1936, it was known as 'The Central Bank, Ltd.', when the name was changed. In March 1937, the Palai Bank was included in the Seco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-02-1962
Reported in : AIR1963SC1484; [1963]Supp(1)SCR871
Kapur, J. 1. These two appeals pursuant to a certificate are from the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Income-tax Reference No. 16 of 1955 answering the question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the affirmative and against the assessee company. The appellant in both the appeals is the assessee company and the Commissioner of Income-tax is the respondent. 2. The facts of these appeals are shortly as follows : The assessee company was registered in the erstwhile Baroda State and its status during the assessment years was that of a non-resident. The relevant assessment years were 1941-42 and 1942-43 the previous years being the calendar year 1940 and 1941. It carried on the business of dyeing and selling dyed yarn. It effected sales of dyed yarn of the total value of Rs. 14,22,996/- and Rs. 19,22,107 in the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1941-42 and 1942-43 respectively. The sales were made to purchasers both in the Indian States and in what was Bri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-02-1962
Reported in : [1963]48ITR92(SC)
KAPUR J. - These two appeals pursuant to a certificate are from the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Income-tax Reference No. 16 of 1955 : [1962]45ITR275(Bom) answering the question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the affirmative and against the assessee company. The appellant in both the appeals is the assessee company and the Commissioner of Income-tax is the respondent.The facts of these appeals are shortly as follows : The assessee company was registered in the erstwhile Baroda State and its status during the assessment years was that of a non-resident. The relevant assessment years were 1941-42 and 1942-43 the previous years being the calendar years 1940 and 1941. It carried on the business of dyeing and selling dyed yarn. It effected sales of dyed yarn of the total value of Rs. 14,22,995 and Rs. 19,22,107 in the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1941-42 and 1942-43 respectively. The sales were made to purchasers both in the Indian States and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-06-1962
Reported in : AIR1963SC1417; [1963]Supp2SCR760
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution against its judgment and order dated February 2, 1956. By the judgment, under appeal, which was passed in a Letters Patent Appeal, the Divisional Bench confirmed the order of a learned single judge dismissing the petition of the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Seth Banarsi Das, the appellant before us, was the petitioner in the High Court and the two respondents before us, namely, the Cane Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow, and the Cane Marketing Society Ltd., Bijnor, were the opposite parties. The petition asked for a number of writs in the alternative, but its purport was to seek to prohibit the two respondents from continuing certain proceedings pending before the Cane Commissioner under rule 23 of the United Provinces Sugar Factories Control Rules, 1938. That rule provides for arbitration in disputes touching agreements entered into by suga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-27-1962
Reported in : AIR1963SC734; 1983(13)ELT1376(SC); [1963]Supp1SCR349
Wanchoo, J.1. These twenty-nine petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution rise common questions and will be dealt with together. They have been filed by two firms who obtained patentes to carry on business in Pondicherry in September, 1954, for the first time. As the facts in all the petitions are similar, we shall only give the facts generally to understand the questions raised before us. The two firms, it may be mentioned, did not carry on any business in Pondicherry before September, 1954, when they got a patente each and the proprietor of one of them is a resident of New Delhi while the proprietor of the other is a resident of Bombay. 2. The administration of Pondicherry was taken over by the Union of India from November 1, 1954. Before that Pondicherry was under the administration of the Government of France and was a free port. Import into Pondicherry was thus not subject to any restriction, except with regard to certain goods with which we are not concerned in the present peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-16-1962
Reported in : AIR1962SC1052; [1962]Supp3SCR235
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These three Writ Petitions are filed by the three respective petitioners under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e). They were heard separately but it would be convenient to deal with them by one common judgment because they raise for our decision the same constitutional questions. In all the petitions, the constitutional validity of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, (Act LVII of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act) and of Rule 3 in Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, is challenged. It would also be convenient to set out briefly at the outset material facts on which the three petitions are based.2. Izhar Ahmad Khan, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 101 of 1959, claims to be a citizen of India and was a resident of Bhopal. He was enrolled as a voter in the Parliamentary as well as State Legislative Assembly Electoral Roll. On the 20th August, 1952, he was taken into custody by the police...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-26-1962
Reported in : AIR1963SC946; [1962]45ITR414(SC); [1963]1SCR1
Subba Rao, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of a division Bench of the Allahabad High Court confirming those of a single Judge of that court dismissing the application filed by the appellant to review the order of the High Court dated November 22, 1958. 2. The facts leading up to the filing of this appeal may be briefly stated. The respondent held certain zamindari and agricultural properties in different districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh. On December 22, 1952, the Additional Collector, Banaras, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under the provisions of the U.P. Agricultural Income-Tax Act (Act III of 1949), assessed the respondent to an agricultural income-tax of Rs. 99,964-12-0 for the year 1359 fasli. On September 30, 1955, the respondent filed a petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the said order on the ground that the Additional Collector, Banaras, had no jurisdiction to make th...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-18-1962
Reported in : AIR1966SC1172; [1963]2SCR226
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises from a writ petition filed by the appellant, Raghutilaka Tirtha Sripadangalavaru Swamiji, in the Mysore High Court challenging the validity of s. 6(2) of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952 (XIII of 1952) hereafter called the Act, and the notification issued under the said section on March 31, 1952. 2. The appellant's case as set out in his writ petition before the High Court was that the impugned section as well as the notification issued under it infringed his fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 19(1)(f), 26, 31 and 31A of the Constitution. This contention has been rejected by the High Court and it has been held that the section and the notification under challenge are valid and constitutional. The appellant then applied for a certificate from the High Court, both under Art. 132 and Art. 133 of the Constitution. The High Court granted him certificate under Art. 133, but refused to certify the case under Art. 132. There after the appellant ap...
Tag this Judgment!