Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC978; [1967]1SCR873
Shelat, J.1. One Soni Virji Sundarji for himself and on behalf of the Hindu joint family of which he was the Karta executed a deed of mortgage dated December 11, 1907 in respect of two shops in Jamnagar in favour of Jetha Roopchand, to secure repayment of Rs. 800 advanced to the said family. The said mortgage was with possession and was redeemable in 8 years. On August 25, 1930 the coparceners of Virji, who had died in the meantime, by an agreement of sale agreed to sell and respondents 1 and 2 agreed to purchase the said two shops together with certain other properties for Rs. 3,200, subject of course to the said mortgage. In spite of the said agreement of sale the coparceners of Virji by a registered deed of sale dated September 10, 1930 sold the said shop and the said properties to Lalji Jetha and Kanji Jetha, the sons of said Jetha Roopchand, for Rs. 3,400. The said Lalji and Kanji both died and the appellants and respondents 3(1) to 3(9) are the heirs and legal representatives of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1967)IILLJ434SC; [1967]2SCR70
Mitter, J.1. These are two appeals from a common judgment and order of the High Court of Mysore covering a number of Writ Petitions filed in that Court on special leave granted by this Court. 2. The appellants are two out of a total number of 43 persons who filed separate petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the Mysore High Court on October 1, 1964. The main prayer in all the petitions was that a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding the State of Mysore to promote each petitioner to the cadre of Assistant Engineers from the date on which the petitioner was placed in charge of a sub-division with all consequential benefits. To put in short, the demand of the petitioners was that they should all receive benefits which others promoted before and after them had received. According to the petitions, some of these persons had received such benefits before the petitioners and some had been accorded similar advantages although they were promoted as Assistant Engineers lon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC944; [1967]2SCR109
Shah, J.1. The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 - hereinafter called 'the Act' - was enacted with the object of reorganising the State of Punjab. By the Act which came into force on November 1, 1966, the eastern hilly areas of the old State were transferred to the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh; the territory known as Chandigarh in Kharar tahsil was constituted into a Union territory; and the remaining territory was divided between the new State of Punjab and the Haryana State. The old State of Punjab had a bi-cameral Legislature with 154 members in the Legislative Assembly and 51 members in the Legislative Council. Under s. 13 of the Act as from November 1, 1966, the Legislative Assembly of the new State of Punjab consists of 87 members and the Haryana Legislative Assembly consists of 54 members. The new State of Punjab has also a bi-cameral Legislature. Out of the original membership of 51, 16 members whose names are set out in the Seventh Schedule to the Act ceased to be members...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1776; [1967]3SCR603
Shelat, J. 1. The appellants are members of a Hindu undivided family of which the first appellant is the Karta. Prior the August 21, 1956, the family owned 64.35 standard acres of land in village Kurali, District Patiala. The land stood in the revenue records in the name of the first appellant. On December 23, 1957, the first appellant transferred 26 standard acres to one Babu Singh by a registered deed. According to them, they had planted an orchard in 10 acres of land. Their contention was that the said 26 standard acres and the said 10 standard acres could not be taken into account while ascertaining surplus land under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, XIII of 1955. Both these claims were rejected by the authorities. By his order dated January 20, 1961, respondent No. 3 declared 34.35 standard acres out of the said 64.35 standard acres as surplus land. The appeal filed by the appellants against the said order was rejected. They then filed a revision application before re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1541; [1967]65ITR656(SC); [1967]3SCR864
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought by special leave from the Judgment of the Mysore High Court dated March 20, 1962 dismissing writ petition No. 109 of 1960. The appellants had prayed therein for the grant of writ for quashing a notice dated January 16, 1960 issued by the respondent under s. 15 of the Excess Profit Tax Act 1940 (Act XV of 1940), hereinafter called the 'Act' calling upon the appellants to submit a return of the standard profit and the profits actually made during the chargable accounting period from October 30, 1943 to October 30, 1944 on the ground that the profits had been under assessed. 2. The appellants carried on a business constituting themselves into a partnership called ' Guduthur Thimmappa & Brothers in 1934. On the date of commencement of the business the Partners were G. Thimmappa, G. Ekambarppa and G. Padmmabhan each of the partners representing their respective joint families. The business of the firm was in Bellary town and the partners of the firm we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC59; [1968]1SCR148
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These five appeals on certificate granted by the Madras High Court raise common questions of law and will be dealt with together. We shall give brief facts in one of the appeals (No. 150 of 1967) arising out of writ petition No. 132 of 1964 in order to understand the questions that fall to be decided in the present appeals. On August 19, 1964, at about 5.00 p.m., the officers of the Commercial Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as the Department) raided the premises of Zenith Lamps and Electricals Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Company). It is said that the premises were searched and a suit-case was seized and forcibly removed by the officers who made the raid, in spite of the fact that they were informed that the box did not contain any papers or documents belonging to the Company and its contents consisted merely of personal effects of one of the Managing Directors, namely, Shri Ramkishan Srikishan Jhaver. The raid and search were made by the authorities c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1889; (1968)ILLJ576SC; [1968]1SCR185
Ramaswami, J.1. In this case the petitioner, Roshan Lal Tandon has obtained a rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India should not be issued commanding the respondents not to carry out the directives contained in the notification of the Railway Board No. E(NG)65 PM1-26 dated the 27th October, 1965, Annexure 'D' to the Writ Petition, in so far as it grants protection to the existing Apprentice Train Examiners and lays down the procedure to fill upgraded vacancies. Cause has been shown by the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given. There were originally two scales for Train Examiners - Rs. 100 - 185 ('D' Grade) and Rs. 150 - 225 ('C' Grade). These scales were later revised as a result of the recommendations of the Second Pay commission and the scale of 'D' Grade was increased to Rs. 180 - 240 and that of 'C' Grade to Rs. 205 - 280. On February 18, 1961 the Railway...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC349; [1968(17)FLR179]; 1968LabIC360; (1968)IILLJ120SC; [1968]1SCR407
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Mysore High Court dated January 15, 1963 in Writ Petition No. 48 of 1962 granting a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the appellants to accord to the respondent the benefit of both the revised higher pay scales for the Matriculate Tracers with effect from the respective dates on which they came into force. 2. The respondent, Narasing Rao was employed as a tracer in the Engineering Department in the Ex-Hyderabad State on the scale of pay Rs. 65 - 90. In the cadre of tracers of that State, there were matriculates as well as non-matriculates. But there was no distinction made in the scale of pay for that reason and all the tracers were placed in the same scale. The respondent was a non-matriculate. There was re-organisation of States in 1956 and as a result of the re-organisation a part of the area of Hyderabad State became part of the new Mysore State. The respondent was allotted to the new Mysore S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC422; (1968)70BOMLR324; 1968MhLJ363(SC); [1968]1SCR641
Shelat, J. 1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court at Bombay dated 11/12-12/1962 in Writ Petition 259 of 1962. 2. The appellant is the mahant of a pubic and religious trust called Kabir Nirnay Mandir. The trust is being administered at Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh and the bulk of its properties is situate there, except three pieces of land at Vadjai, a village in Dhulia District. Respondent 1 is the tenant of two out of these three pieces of land situate at Vadjai. The question in this appeal is whether the appellant can apply and obtain an exemption certificate under section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The Act was originally passed in 1948 but was drastically amended by Amendment Act, XIII of 1956 which came into force on August 1, 1956. The Amendment Act inducted into the Act inter alia secs. 32 to 32R and secs. 88A to 88D. Secs. 32 to 32R deal with purchase of land by tenant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC579; 1968(16)BLJR254; [1968]68ITR227(SC); [1968]2SCR1
Shah, J. 1. This case is a sequel to the judgment pronounced by this Court on December 3, 1965 : Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Straw Products Ltd. : [1966]60ITR156(SC) . 2. The assessee was incorporated in August 1935 with its Head Office in the Indian State of Bhopal, and commenced business as a manufacturer of wrapping paper in 1939. The assessee entered into an agreement with the Ruler of Bhopal under which the assessee was exempted from payment of all taxes to the State for a period of ten years expiring on October 31, 1948. 3. The State of Bhopal merged with India on August 1, 1949. The territory was constituted into a Chief Commissioner's Province, and was later merged with the State of Madhya Pradesh under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The Governor-General of India issued the 'Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States) Ordinance' 21 of 1949 to make certain taxation laws applicable to the merged States. By clause 3 of the Ordinance, amongst other Acts, the ...
Tag this Judgment!