Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]3SCR809
Subba Rao, J. 1. These two petitions filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution by different parties are directed against the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Kasaragod, and the State of Kerala, for a declaration that s. 2A of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, as amended by Kerala Act 11 of 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is constitutionally void and for quashing the orders of assessment made by the first respondent pursuant to the said provision. 2. As it is common case that the decision in the first petition would govern the second one, it would suffice if the facts in the first petition were given. 3. Kasaragod Taluk, wherein the agricultural lands of the petitioner's family are situate, formed part of the district of South Kanara in the Madras State. Under the States Reorganization Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956) the Kerala State comprising the following territories was formed : (a) the territories of the existing State of Travancore-Coching excluding the ter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]48ITR21(SC)
SUBBA RAO J. - These two petitions filed under article 32 of the Constitution by different parties are directed against the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Kasaragod, and the State of Kerala, for a declaration that section 2A of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, as amended by Kerala Act II of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is constitutionally void and for quashing the orders of assessment made by the first respondent pursuant to the said provision.As it is common case that the decision in the first petition would govern the second one, it would suffice if the facts in the first petition were given.Kasaragod Taluk, wherein the agricultural lands of the petitioners family are situate, formed part of the district of South Kanara in the Madras State Under the States Reorganization Act, 1956, (Central Act 37 of 1956) the Kerala State comprising the following territories was formed : (a) the territories of the existing State of Travancore-Cochin, excluding the territo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC630; [1962(5)FLR354]; (1962)IILLJ366SC; [1963]3SCR930
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute in relation to a comparatively minor demand made against the appellants by the respondents - their employees but in challenging the validity of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in favour of the respondents on that demand the learned Solicitor-General has raised a general question before us. He contends that in granting the demand made by the respondents, the award has illegitimately and unjustifiably trespassed on the appellants' freedom of contract. The appellants as employers, are entitled to fix the terms of employment on which they would be willing to employ workmen and it is open to the workmen either to accept those terms or not; industrial adjudication should not interfere in such a matter. That is the nature of the general contention which has been raised before us in the present appeal. 2. The facts leading to the dispute are few and they lie within a very narrow compass. The appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC796; [1963]Supp1SCR563; [1963]14STC242(SC)
Kapur, J.1. In this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala the appellant is the State of Kerala and the respondent is the assessee. The appeal arises out of proceedings under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, (Madras Act No. IX of 1939) read with the rules made under s. 19 of that Act. In this judgment the former will be referred to as the Act and the latter as the rules. The area of Kozhikode was originally within the State of Madras, but by the States Reorganisation Act was transferred to the State of Kerala. The Madras General Sales Tax Act, however, continued to apply. 2. The assessment period for the purposes of the turnover in dispute is 1952-53. By an order dated March 27, 1954 the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kozhikode, imposed sales tax on the respondent on a net turnover of Rs. 12,56,178-14-0 and the appeal taken against that order to the Commercial Tax Officer was dismissed. On March 15, 1956 a notice was issued by the Depu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC754; [1963]Supp(1)SCR809
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises out of insolvency proceedings taken against the firm of T. A. Doshi, Bombay (hereinafter called the firm) by its creditors on the original side of the Bombay High Court, as well as in the District Court, Bellary. The orders of adjudication passed against the said firm by the two Courts have led to some avoidable complications and delay, with the result that the claim made by the respondents in respect of a portion of the property of the insolvent before the District Court at Bellary still remains to be tried, though the insolvency orders were passed as early as 1950. 2. It appears that on January 25, 1950, an application was presented (I.P. No. 2 of 1950) in the District Court, Bellary, by some of the creditors of the firm for adjudicating the firm as insolvent, and on December 13, 1950, an order of adjudication was passed. Pending the adjudication proceedings, the District Court appointed the Official Receiver as interim Receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC853; [1963]Supp1SCR844
Wanchoo, J.1. The appeal is by special leave from the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appellant has also filed a writ petition and as the two matters are connected, they will be dealt with together. 2. The appellant is Anant Prasad Lakshminivas Generiwal. He is also the petitioner in the writ petition and will hereafter be referred to as the appellant. The main respondents, who are also opposite parties in the writ petition, are the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Director of Endowments, Hyderabad. They will be referred to hereinafter as the respondents. The appellant claims to be the sole hereditary trustee and Mutwalli of the temple of Shri Sitaram Maharaj Sansthan and the subsidiary deity Shri Varadarajaswami, situate at Sitaram Bagh, in Hyderabad. In the earlier part of the nineteenth century, an ancestor of the appellant migrated to Hyderabad and carried on business there. He obviously prospered and in or about 1833 he built a temple at a cost of two lakhs of rupees an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC966; [1963]Supp2SCR302
Shah, J.1. In this group of appeals certified by the High Court of Madras under Art. 132(1) of the constitution the validity of ss. 52(1)(f), 55, 76(1) & (2), 80, 81 and 82 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act XIX of 1951 as amended by Act XXVII of 1954 is impugned. 2. At Udipi in the South Kanara District there are eight Maths which are reputed to be founded by Shree Madhvacharya, an exponent of the dualistic philosophy. Each of these Maths is presided over by a Mathadhipati or Swami who is invariably a Brahmin Sanyasin. There exists another Math Known as Shri Krishna Devaru Math of which the administration is carried on according to long-standing usage by the Swamis of the eight Maths in turn, each Swami administering for two years. There is also the Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Math of which Shree Sankaracharya Swamigal is the presiding head. 3. These ten appeals are directed against orders passed by the High Court of Madras refusing to declare the provisions aforesaid ultra v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC777; (1966)IILLJ152SC; [1964]1SCR671
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of theHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh dated December 13, 1960, dismissing Writ PetitionNo. 46 of 1960. The petitioner is the appellant before us. The respondents tothis appeal are the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Chairman of theTribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Andhra Pradesh. The appellant was aservant in the Hyderabad Revenue Service and in 1956 was holding the post ofDeputy Secretary to the Government in the Public Works Department. On a reportsubmitted by the C.I.D. the Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered an inquiryunder s. 4 of the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Enquiry) Act, 1950 (HyderabadAct No. XXIII of 1950) by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. TheTribunal enquired into 19 charges and submitted its report on July 11, 1959.The Tribunal found 4 charges proved and in view of the first charge whichinvolved acceptance of a bribe and charge No. 14 which related to tamper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1464; [1964]1SCR656
Wanchoo, J.1. The appeal and the writ petition arise out of the same order of the ChiefCommissioner of Pondicherry acting as the appellate authority under the MotorVehicles Act and will be dealt with together. The petitioner is one of fourteenpersons who had applied for a stage carriage permit before the State TransportAuthority, Pondicherry. The petitioner's application was rejected and thepermit was granted to Perumal Padayatchi, one of the respondents before us. TheState Transport Authority considered various factors one of which was thatPerumal Padayatchi was a native of Pondicherry and taking all the factors intoaccount, the permit was granted to Perumal Padayatchi. The petitioner went inappeal before the Appellate Authority, who is the Chief Commissioner ofPondicherry. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and observed thateven if it were conceded that the claims of the petitioner were more or lessequal to those of Perumal Padayatchi, the latter would be entitled toprefere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1964]2SCR403
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This group of eight appeals which has been brought to this Court with a certificate issued by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, arises out of a partition suit filed by the plaintiff Viziaram Gajapathi Raj II against his younger brother Visweswar Gajapathi Raj, defendant No. 1, his mother Vidyavathi Devi, defendant No. 2, his uncle Sir Vijayanand Gajapathi Raj, defendant No. 3, and his grand-mother Lalitha Kumari Devi, defendant No. 4. The parties to this litigation are members of the Vizianagram family which owns a very large estate. This estate is impartible and devolves by primogeniture. The relevant genealogy of the family which is set out at the end of this judgment clearly brings out the relationship between the parties, and shows at a glance how the Vizianagram Estate was held by different holders from time to time. Narayana Gajapathi Raj may be regarded as the founder of the family. His son who succeeded to the estate on the death of his father in 1845 can clai...
Tag this Judgment!