Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-29-1958
Reported in : AIR1959All315; 1959CriLJ543
O.H. Mootham, C.J.1. The question which has been referred to this Bench is 'whether this Court has power to revoke, review, recall or alter its own earlier decision in a Criminal Revision and rehear the same? If so, in what circumstances?'2. It is common ground that there is no section of the Code of Criminal Procedure which specifically confers such power on this Court, but it is contended that the Court has an inherent power to review a judgment or order previously made by it on a criminal revision application if it considers it expedient to do so in order to secure the ends of justice, and that that power has been preserved by Section 561-A. There is authority which supports this view but, with great respect, I do not think that the argument is well founded.3. Section 561-A was introduced into the Code by the! Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1923, and it provides that'nothing in this Code be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-26-1958
Reported in : 1960CriLJ1614
ORDERT.P. Naik, J.1. This petition under Article 228 of the Constitution is founded on the contention T that the Drugs Act, 1940, as amended by the Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1955, was unconstitutional and void, as it unreasonably restricted the fundamental right of the petitioner to manufacture and sell his patent' and proprietary medicine, 'Germs Killer' without disclosing on the carton or label of the drugs Its true formula Or list of ingredients.2. The relevant facts may shortly be stated as follows: The petitioner is the manufacturer of a medicinal preparation which he manufactures, stocks, exhibits, distributes and sells under an invented proprietary name 'Germs Killer' since before the year 1928. The name 'Germs Killer1 of the said medicine has been registered under the Trade Marks Act. The medicine is manufactured and sold by the petitioner for the external treatment of skin diseases.3. It is not disputed that the said medicinal-preparation is a drug within the meaning of Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-23-1958
Reported in : AIR1958MP286
ORDER1. This case comes before the Division Bench on a reference by Bhutt, J. The facts of the case sufficiently appear from the order of reference and need not be stated again. The reference involves consideration of two questions. They, are as follows : (i) Whether the State Government should be directed to issue another notification empowering any particular class of Judges to entertain thesepetitions? (ii) Whether, even if this is now done, the petition in question would not be barred by limitation if it is hereafter presented before a duly constituted authority? 2. Under Section 20-A (2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, an election petition is to be presented to the District Judge or Additional District Judge or to a Civil Judge especially empowered by the Provincial Government is this behalf. The first question i^ whether the special empowering is to be only of the Civil Judge or also of the District Judge and the Additional District Judge. The second...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-28-1958
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR536
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle 1(1), Bombay, and the Union of India, and it raises a short question about the construction of Section 35 of the Income-tax Act read with Section 1, Sub-section (2) and Section 13 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953 (XXV of 1953). It arises in this way. The Income-tax Officer, by his assessment order made on October 9, 1952, for the assessment year 1952-53, assessed the respondent, the Bombay Dyeing and ., under the Act. In the said assessment order the respondent was given credit for Rs. 50,603-15-0 as representing interest at 2 per cent, on tax paid in advance under Section 18A of the Act. This credit was given to the respondent in pursuance of the provisions contained in Section 18A, Sub-section (5) of the Act as it then stood. On May 24, 1953, the Amendment Act came into force. Section 1, Sub-section (2) of the Amendment Act provides that 'subject to any special provision made in this beha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-28-1958
Reported in : AIR1958SC875; [1958]34ITR143(SC); (1958)IIMLJ182(SC); [1959]1SCR703
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle 1(1), Bombay and the Union of India and it raises a short question about the construction of section 35 of the Income-tax Act read with section 1, sub-section (2) and section 13 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953 (XXV of 1953). It arises in this way. The Income-tax Officer, by his assessment order made on October 9, 1952, for the assessment year 1952-53, assessed the respondent, the Bombay Dyeing and ., under the Act. In the said assessment order the respondent was given credit for Rs. 50,603-15-0 as representing interest at 2% on tax paid in advance under section 18A of the Act. This credit was given to the respondent in pursuance of the provisions contained in section 18A, sub-section (5) of the Act as it then stood. On May 24, 1953, the Amendment Act came into force. Section 1, sub-section (2) of the Amendment Act provides that 'subject to any special provision made in this behalf in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-10-1958
Reported in : AIR1958Cal273
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is McLeod and Co, Ltd. The respondents are the Sixth Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal andthe discharged employee K. P. Sanyal. The object of complaint is the award made by such Industrial Tribunal dated the 18th June, 1957, whereby Respondent K. P. Sanyal was held to be a clerk and workman of the petitioner. The Tribunal held that the termination of Sanyal's services without permission of the Tribunal was a clear contravention of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore directed reinstatement of Sanyal in the post he was holding at the date of his discharge and payment of all his wages up to the date of reinstatement within 15 days of the publication of the award in the Calcutta Gazette. 2. Two objections have been urged against the award on behalf of the applicant. The first is that Sanyal was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The secon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-22-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Ori148
S. Barman, J.1. The defendants are the appellants before us. In May 1950, the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants alleging that they were trespas ers on the suit land. In September, 1951, there was a decree for ejectment of the defendants. Against the said decree, seven defendants appealed. During the pendency of the appeal one of the defendants being defendant No. 6 Chintamani Paital, died leaving him surviving his heirs and legal representatives. Admittedly, there was no substitution of the deceased's heirs and legal representatives.2. The only question for consideration on these facts, briefly stated above, is whether it was a case of partial or total abatement.3. It appears from the frame of the suit, as in the plaint, that it was a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title. The prayers in paragraph 10 of the plaint are as follows:'(a) that it be declared that the plaintiff No. 1 through the trustees plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 has title to the suit lands and that the def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-09-1958
Reported in : [1959]35ITR793(Bom)
K.T. Desai, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee in this case is Bai Navajbai N. Gamadia. The assessment year is 1952-53, the previous year being the financial year 1951-52. A re-assessment was made by initiating assessment proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee's appeal before the Tribunal in connection with the re-assessment for the assessment year 1952-53 was heard along with the assessee's two other appeals being Income-tax Appeals Nos. 6113 and 6114 of 1956-57 in connection with re-assessment for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55. In all these three appeals, a common contention was raised before the Tribunal in regard to the validity of the initiation of the action taken under section 34. 2. The facts giving rise to the reference before us briefly are as follows : In December, 1940, the assessee made an oral trust in respect of securities of the face value of Rs. 5 lakhs. The object o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-10-1958
Reported in : AIR1959Cal169,63CWN451
P. Chakhavartti, C. J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Bachawat, J., dated 27-6-1955, whereby the learned Judge revoked the authority of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry to arbitrate; in a dispute between the appellants and the respondents which had been referred to the Chamber at the instance of the appellants. He held that the reference then pending before the Chamber was a second reference of the same dispute which could not legally be entertained but, since the Chamber was nevertheless entertaining it and thus acting illegally, the only proper course to take was to revoke the authority of the Chamber. For his reasons, he referred to those given in his order in the case of Hulaschand Rupchand v. Baranagore Jute Factory Co., Ltd. (96 Cal LJ 66).2. The facts are few and simple. On 13-8-195l, the appellants entered into a contract with the respondents for sale to them of 2000 maunds of Ready jute 'packed in bales, each weighing about 3 1/2 &/or 4 maunds'. In pursuance o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-14-1958
Moog Industries, Inc. v. FTC - 355 U.S. 411 (1958) U.S. Supreme Court Moog Industries, Inc. v. FTC, 355 U.S. 411 (1958) Moog Industries, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission No. 77 Argued January 14, 1958 Decided January 27,1958 * 355 U.S. 411 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The question whether a valid order of the Federal Trade Commission, directing one firm to cease and desist from engaging in illegal price discrimination in violation of 2 of the Clayton Act, should go into effect before competing firms are similarly restrained is for determination by the Commission; it should be considered by a reviewing court only if raised before the Commission; and a determination of it by the Commission should not be overturned in the absence of a patent abuse of discretion. Pp. 355 U. S. 411 -414. 238 F.2d 43 affirmed. 241 F.2d 37, judgment vacated and cause remanded. PER CURIAM. The general question presented by these two cases i...
Tag this Judgment!