Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC486; [1962(4)FLR71]; (1961)IILLJ663SC; [1962]Supp1SCR381
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These four appeals consist of two sets of cross appeals each and they arise from two petitions filed in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur challenging the validity of the notification dated June 11, 1958, issued by the State of Bombay, now represented by the State of Maharashtra, under s. 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Section 5 (11 of 1948) (hereafter called the Act). The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 205 of 1958 are the Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants' Association, Gondia and two others, whereas the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 214 of 1958 are Haji Latif Ghani Kachhi and five others. The impugned notification consists of seven clauses. By the majority decision of the High Court cls. 1 to 5 and the first part of clause 6 are held to be intra vires, whereas the latter part of clause 6 and clause 7 as well as the explanation added to it are held to be ultra vires. The first part of the finding is challenged by the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1971; [1962]Supp1SCR710
Shah, J.1. Out of a total area of 2,375 acres 3 gunthas of Dhanora - an Izara village in Taluka Pusad in the State of Madhya Pradesh - 2,283 acres and 28 gunthas is assessed land and the remaining 91 acres and 15 gunthas is unassessed. One Surat Singh who was the proprietor of the village, by sale deed dated May 24, 1947, conveyed an undivided half share in the village to Yeshwant Madhao Mahajan - hereinafter called Mahajan - for Rs. 25,000/- and on the same day executed a kabulayat (lease deed) for five years in respect of the same land for cultivation at an annual rental of Rs. 3,000/-. The Legislature of the Madhya Pradesh State enacted the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act. 1 of 1951 - hereinafter called the Act - to provide for acquisition of the rights of proprietors in estates, mahals, alienated villages and alienated lands in Madhya Pradesh and to make provision for other matters connected therewith. The Act was brought into o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC723; [1962]Supp1SCR829
Wanchoo, J.1. These two writ petitions which were heard along with Purushothaman Nambudiri v. The State of Kerala : AIR1962SC694 raise the constitutionality of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, No. IV of 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioners come from that part of the State of Kerala which was formerly in the South Canara district of the State of Madras and came to the State of Kerala by the States Reorganisation Act of 1956. Their lands are situate in Hosdrug and Kasargod Taluks which have now been made part of the Cannanore District in the State of Kerala. They hold large areas of lands, the major part of which is held by them as ryotwari pattadars, according to the ryotwari settlement in the State of Madras under the Board's Standing Orders of that State. In these lands they have areca and pepper plantations besides rubber plantation. They also grow other crops on some of the lands. The Act is being attacked on the ground that it contravenes Arts. 14, 19 and 31 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC981; [1962]Supp(2)SCR257; [1962]13STC236(SC)
Hidayatullah, J.1. These six petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution have been filed by one Bhaiyalal Shukla, who was doing business of construction of buildings, roads, bridges etc., as contractor for the Public Works Department in Rewa Circle of the former Vindhya Pradesh State, now a part of the State of Madhya Pradesh. By these petitions, he challenges the levy of sales tax on building materials supplied by him in the construction of buildings, roads and bridges for the years, 1953-54 to 1958-59. For the first year in question, sales tax amounting to Rs. 1,840-5-0 has already been charged and paid. He seeks refund of this amount. For the remaining years except the last two, proceedings for assessment have been completed, but the amounts have not been paid. For the remaining two years, proceedings are pending for assessment of the tax. The respondents in the case are the State of Madhya Pradesh, which stands substituted for the State of Vindhya Pradesh, and diverse officers conn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC932; [1963]1SCR166; [1962]13STC472(SC)
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. The sole point for determination in this appeal, which is directed against the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay is whether the appellant is not liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Central Provinces & Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act 21 of 1947), on the ground alleged that it had not been validly registered as a dealer under section 8 of the Act. The facts bearing on this contention are that the Central Provinces & Berar Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', received the assent of the Governor-General on May 23, 1947 and came into force on June 1, 1947. On May 27, 1947 a notification No. 601 was issued by the Provincial Government publishing draft rules which it 'proposed to make, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 28 of the Act' and on August 15, 1947, the rules as finally adopted were published. In the meantime two other notifications Nos. 597 and 599 had been issued on May 27, 1947, No. 597 under section 8 of the Act fixi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1406; [1963]1SCR491
S.K. Das, J.1. These are three consolidated appeals which arise from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court dated August, 9, 1957. They have been preferred to this Court on the strength of a certificate granted by the said High Court under Art. 132 of the Constitution certifying that the cases involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Art. 301 and other connected articles relating to trade, commerce and intercourse within the territory of India, contained in Part XIII of the Constitution. These appeals were originally heard by a Bench of five Judges and on April 4, 1961, that Bench recorded an order to the effect that having regard to the importance of the constitutional issues involved and the views expressed in the decision of this Court in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. The State of Assam : [1961]1SCR809 , the appeals should be heard by a larger Bench. The appeals were then placed before the learned Chief Justice for necessary orders, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC408; [1963]2SCR145
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, on a Certificate granted by that Court under Art. 133(1) of the Constitution. The respondent carries on the business of exhibiting films in premises called the Royal Talkies at Beawar under licences granted by the appropriate authorities under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) hereinafter referred to me 'the Act'. Acting in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 12(4) of the Act, the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer issued on November 23, 1954, a notification which, omitting what is not material, is as follows :- '(1) The licensee shall so regulate the exhibition of cinematograph films that at every performances open to the public, approved films are exhibited, the approved films to be exhibited in relation to other films at every such performance being in the same proportion as one is to five or the nearest lower or higher approximation thereto. (2) Only such films produced in India as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC222; [1963]2SCR353
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. The appellants are a joint Hindu family firm which has been carrying on business since 1911 in grains, dal, cereals, cotton ginning and pressing, oil manufacture and the like, at a place called Lehragaga in what was once the State of Patiala. The firm had an account called the Cash Credit Account in the Patiala State Bank which had a branch at Lehragaga and used to borrow money in this account on a pledge of its stocks. In 1951-52 there was a heavy slump in the prices of the commodities with the result that the amounts advanced by the Bank on the security of the goods were very much in excess of the market prices thereof. To cover this shortfall which came to Rs. 2,32,000/- the firm entered into an arrangement with the Bank on May 23, 1953, and it is this that forms the source of the present litigation. The Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- on what is called 'Demand Loan Account'. The firm deposited title deeds of the properties belonging to them as secu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC375; (1964)ILLJ24SC; [1963]2SCR943
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore in a Writ Petition filed by respondent challenging the validity of an order of dismissal dated July 5, 1956 made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Belgaum. The respondent entered service in the Police Department as a constable in the District of Bharwar in 1940 and was at the material dates a sub-inspector of Police. On a complaint preferred by one Machwe of Kurdiwadi against him, Mr. Majumdar, Inspector, C.I.D. made a preliminary investigation, examined a number of witnesses and recorded their statements, and submitted his report recommending further action. On that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Belgaum, started proceedings against the respondent, framed six charges against him, and called for his explanation. The respondent denied the charges and then a regular inquiry was held on November 4, 1954. Clause (8) of s. 545 of the Bombay Police Manual which lays down...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC531; (1964)ILLJ68SC; [1963]3SCR716
Shah, J.1. The appellant Madan Gopal was appointed an Inspector of Consolidation by order dated October 5, 1953 of the Settlement Commissioner of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union. The appointment was 'on temporary basis and terminable with one month's notice'. On February 5, 1955, the appellant was served with a 'charge-sheet' by the Settlement Officer, Bhatinda that he (the appellant) had received Rs. 150/- as illegal gratification from one Darbara Singh and had demanded Rs. 30/- as illegal gratification from one Ude Singh. The appellant was called upon to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him if the allegations in the charge-sheet were proved. The appellant submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet. On February 22, 1955, the Settlement Officer submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner Bhatinda, that the charge relating to receipt of illegal gratification from Darbara Singh was proved. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated March 17, 1955...
Tag this Judgment!