Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-10-1970
Reported in : AIR1970SC564; [1970]40CompCas325(SC); (1970)1SCC248; [1970]3SCR530
..... were also asked to maintain a percentage of their assets in cash or approved securities. thereafter the indian companies (amendment) act was passed in 1942 by which a proviso was added to section 277f to the effect that any company which used as part of its ..... court will be able to go into it. by the word 'illusory' is meant something which is obvious, patent and shocking. if for a property worth rs. 1 lakh compensation is fixed at rs. 100 that ..... stand the test the adequacy of the product falls outside justification'. in metal corporation case : [1967]1scr255 compensation was to be equated to the cost price in the case of unused machinery in good condition and written down value as understood in income-tax law was to be the value of the ..... v. the state of orissa : [1969]3scr374 vrajlal manilal & co. and anr. v. the state of madhya pradesh and ors. : [1970]1scr400 and municipal committee, amritsar and ors. v. state of punjab and ors. : [1969]3scr447 . these cases dealt with the validity ..... upon the statement in halsbury's laws of england, 3rd edn.. vol 2, article 270 at pp. 150 & 151 that:a 'banker' is an individual partnership or corporation, whose sole or predominating business is banking, that is the receipt of money ..... 1952]1scr889 spoke of public purpose in the background of article 39 which speaks of the directive principles. article. 39 enacts that the state shall in particular direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-1970
Reported in : AIR1971SC530; (1971)1SCC85; [1971]3SCR9
..... act 1957 sections 2(p) and 5(1)(iii), gift tax act 1958 section 5(1)(xiv), hindu succession act, 1956 section 5(iii), income-tax act 1922 section 4(3)(x); income-tax act 1961 section 10(19), estate duty act 1953, section ..... hearing fee in those petitions in which the petitioners have appeared through the same counsel.mitter, j.150. on the 6th september, 1970 there was issued in the name of the president an order of the following text:151. 'in exercise of the powers vested ..... into a covenant on the terms mentioned therein as they were convinced that the welfare of the people of the region could best be secured by the establishment of a state with a common executive, legislature and judiciary, and they were resolved to entrust to a constituent assembly consisting ..... the president the right to confer that status on a ruler by recognition. this result was reached by treaties, covenants and agreements.39. the source or origin of paramountcy of the crown was not the treaties, sanads or agreements. there were no paramountcy ..... to be so. in consequence a writ of mandamus shall issue not to enforce the orders. the petitions are allowed with costs.shah, j.83. on august 15, 1947, maharajadhiraja jivaji rao scindia of gwalior-hereinafter called ' ..... prevented by promissory estoppel and had acted in breach of a fiduciary duty.32. in the reply affidavit filed by mr. asoka sen (joint secretary in the ministry of home affairs) all the allegations and submissions (besides the patent facts) were denied. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-12-1970
Reported in : AIR1970SC1147; (1971)73BOMLR305; 1971MhLJ1(SC); (1970)1SCC415; [1970]3SCR689
J.C. Shah, J. 1. Dadiba Hormusji Boatwalla was one of the eight partners of Messrs Meghji Thobhan & Company--a firm of Muccadams and cotton brokeRs. Boatwalla died on February 20, 1957. By virtue of Clause 8 of the deed of partnership the business of the firm was continued by the surviving partneRs. Khorshed and Nariman--widow and son respectively of Boatwalla--obtained letters of administration to the estate of Boatwalla and commenced an action in the High Court of Bombay for an account of the partnership between Boatwalla and the surviving partners and for an order paying to the plaintiffs the amount determined to be due to Boatwalla at the time of his death. The suit was resisted by the surviving partners--who will hereinafter be called 'the defendants'. Tarkunde, J., passed a preliminary decree declaring that qua Boatwalla the partnership stood dissolved on February 20, 1957, but not in respect of the surviving partners, and directed that an account be taken of the partnership upto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-26-1970
Reported in : (1971)3SCC958
S.M. SIKRI, J.1.This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab dismissing in limine the second appeal filed by Mst Mahli, plaintiff, now appellant before us, against the decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge (with enhanced appellate powers), dismissing the first appeal from the order and decree of the Subordinate Judge, III Class, Rohtak, filed by the plaintiff and accepting the appeal filed by the respondents. The trial court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession of 1/9th share of the land in dispute.2. In order to appreciate the points debated before us it is necessary to set out the pedigree table and a few facts.Nota Shiv Lal Chandgi Bhagwani widowDefendant 3 Ram Sarup Mst Mahliplaintiff daughter PhoolmatiDefendant 5 daughter ChhotuDefendant 4 daughter Hoshiar SinghDefendant 3 Ranbir SinghDefendant 13. Chandgi owned fair amount of land in village Asan, Tehsil and District Rohtak. He was Jat by caste and governed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-10-1970
Reported in : AIR1970SC2079; 1970(0)KLT630(SC); (1970)2SCC417; [1971]1SCR734
M. Hidayatullah, C.J.1. These appeals by certificates granted by the High Court of Kerala under Articles 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution are directed against a common judgment, September 19, 1969, declaring certain provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1969 (Act 9 of 1969) to be ultra vires the Constitution of India while upholding the remaining Act as valid. They were heard together. This judgment will dispose of all of them. The validity of the Act was challenged in the High Court by diverse petitioners in 36 petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Some parts of the Act were declared ultra vires the Constitution As a result there are cross appeals. 36 appeals have been filed against the several petitioners by the State of Kerala. Another 36 appeals have been filed by the University of Kerala which made common cause with the Government of Kerala. 7 appeals have been referred by seven original petitioners, who seek a declaration that some other provisions of the Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-11-1970
Reported in : AIR1971SC1454; [1970]78ITR33(SC); (1970)2SCC436; [1971]1SCR748
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The question or law arising for decision in these appeals by certificate under Section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) is :Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the managing director's remuneration received by Sri Rajkumar Singh was assessable in his individual hands and not in the hands of the assessee Hindu Undivided Family ?2. This question was referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'A' to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on an application made under Section 6(1) of the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh. The High Court has answered that question in favour of the Revenue. As against that decision this appeal has been brought.3. The assessee in this case is a Hindu Undivided Family and the concerned assessment year is 1954-55, the relevant accounting period being the year ending Diwali 1953 i.e., November 6, 1953. Previously a Hindu Undivided Family...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-12-1970
Reported in : AIR1971SC1238; (1970)3SCC140; [1971]2SCR573; 1971(III)LC35(SC)
Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a decree of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench, Delhi).2. On July 18, 1955, the appellants entered into an agreement with the respondents for the purchase of plot No. 8 measuring 1500 Sq. Yds in Jangpura B, New Delhi for Rs. 22,500/-. The contract was evidenced by receipt Exhibit P-6 which was in the following terms :Received with thanks from Messrs. Ramesh Chander Chandiok and Kailash Chandra Chandiok the sum of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven thousand and five hundred only) as earnest money of the purchase money of Rs. 22,500/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand and five hundred) for the sale of Plot No. 8 measuring 1500 sq. yds in Jangpura B., purchased from the Rehabilitation Ministry and owned by us. The balance of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) shall be paid to us by them within one month of the execution of this receipt on the execution of the sale deed by us in their favour.It is common ground that the aforesaid plot had been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-23-1970
Reported in : AIR1971SC2303; (1971)IIMLJ65(SC); (1971)1SCC38; [1971]2SCR430
Hegde, J.1. In these two petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioners who unsuccessfully sought admission to certain Medical Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu have asked for a writ of mandamus to direct the State of Tamil Nadu to allot to each one of them a seat in one of the Government Medical Colleges in that State and for consequential orders.2. In the State of Tamil Nadu, there are eight Medical Colleges out of which three are situate in the city of Madras, one in Madurai, one in Chingleput, one in Coimbatore, one in Thanjavur and one in Tirunelveli. The total seats available in Madras Colleges are 500. The sanctioned strength of seats in Madurai, Chingleput, Coimbatore, Thanjavur and Tirunelveli are 200, 50, 100, 200 and 75 respectively. Thus the total number of medical seats available in the Government Colleges for 1st year of M.B.B.S., course in the State of Tamil Nadu are 1125. We understand that for these seats nearly 7,000 students applied for admission.3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-16-1970
Reported in : AIR1971SC369; (1971)1SCC12; [1971]2SCR640
Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.2. In December 1966 Labhu Ram who was the owner of the land in dispute sold the same in two lots to Bhagwan Das (deceased) now represented by his legal representatives and others. The lands mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of the title of the plaint in the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen were sold for Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively. The respondent Chet Ram was a tenant-at-will of the lands covered by the sales. Bhagwan Das and Others filed a suit against Chet Ram in the revenue court for ejectment under Section 14A(i) read with Section 9(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 which was decreed on July 31, 1967. On August 31, 1968 Bhagwan Das and Others entered into possession of the aforesaid lands after evicting Chet Ram by virtue of the decrees for eviction obtained against him.3. After his eviction Chet Ram the present respondent filed a suit for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-12-1970
Reported in : AIR1970SC1232; 1971CriLJ1066; (1970)3SCC481; 1971(III)LC27(SC)
S.M. Sikri, J.1. Fifteen persons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, on various charges Under Sections 120B, 148, 147, 447, 302 read with 34, 302 read with 149, and 302. He acquitted accused Nos. 6, 13, 14 and 15 and convicted the other accused under various sections. The High Court, on appeal, acquitted accused No. 12. Accused Nos. 2 and 8 have been released by the Government and accused No. 7 has recently died. We are left with the appeals of accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11.2. It was the case of the prosecution that at the time of the occurrence accused No. 1 was armed with a single barrel gun, accused No. 3 with a double barrel gun and accused No. 4 also with a double barrel gun, and the rest of the accused were armed with sticks, etc. Out of the 15 original accused, accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 were residents of Chowduvada, accused No 4 was resident of Dwarapudi. Accused Nos. 8 and 15 were from Rajam Bheemavaram and accused Nos. 9 to 13 were from Sivarampur...
Tag this Judgment!