Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1526; [1964]2SCR686
Shah, J.1. The appellant instituted Suit No. 250 of 1950 in the Court of the CivilJudge (Senior Division), Junagadh for a decree for Rs. 72693/11/- alleging thatthe appellant had a personal account with the respondent in respect of drafts,cheques, hundis and cash, and at the foot of that account Rs. 58,000/- asprincipal amount and Rs. 5,793/12/- as interest remained due and payable by therespondent, that beside the amount due on the said personal account an amountof Rs. 8,899/15/3 was due to him in respect of a transaction of sale of 1300bags of groundnut sent by him between January 16 to January 28, 1950, and theprice of gunny bags and groundnut oil cakes delivered to the respondent. Theappellant further alleged that forward contracts were prohibited with effectfrom November 19, 1949 by the Saurashtra Groundnut and Groundnut Products(forward Contracts Prohibition) order, and that the said contracts beingillegal the appellant was not subject to any liability arising from adjustmentsof ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1964]2SCR915
Sinha, C.J. 1. These two consolidated appeals, by special leave, raise the question ofthe interpretation of certain provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954(Bombay XXVII of 1955) which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act, withparticular reference to the scope and effect of s. 90 of the Act, whereby theBombay Town Planning Act (Bombay I of 1915) was repealed, and certain orders ofthe State Government saved from the effect of the repeal. It appears that the Ahmedabad Municipal Borough, which wasreplaced by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation - the sole respondent in theseappeals and which hereinafter will be referred to as the Borough and theCorporation respectively - declared its intention by a resolution dated October1, 1941, to promulgate a scheme under the Act of 1915 in respect of the areaknown as Khokhara - Mohmedabad. The said Scheme was in due course sanctioned bythe Government of Bombay on July 14, 1942. Under that Act an arbitrator wasappointed in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1361; (1965)ILLJ103SC; [1964]2SCR982
Ayyangar, J. 1. The State of Rajasthan is the appellant in this appeal which has beenfiled pursuant to a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court ofRajasthan under Art. 133(1)(c) of the constitution and it challenges thecorrectness of a judgment of High Court allowing a petition under Art. 226 ofthe Constitution filed by the respondent. 2. The respondent, Ram Saran, was appointed a Constable in 1947 in the Ajmerdistrict police force. Two years thereafter he was promoted to the rank of HeadConstable and was confirmed in that post. On June 29, 1956 he was appointed toofficiate as a Sub-Inspector. At that stage the states Reorganization Act(XXXVII of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the Act, was enacted which becameoperative from November 1, 1956, - referred to in the Act, as the appointeddate, and by virtue of its provisions the former State of Ajmer was merged inthe State of Rajasthan and under its terms again the respondent was absorbed inthe Police Service of the Rajasthan St...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC880; [1963]49ITR165(SC); [1964]3SCR191
Shah, J. 1. Nagappa son of Pullanna resident of Nandyal carried on business in yarn, drugs and forward contracts. He acquired in that business a considerable estate which was treated by him as property of the joint family of himself and his sons. Nagappa and his sons were assessed by the Income-tax authorities to pay income-tax and supper-tax in the status of a Hindu undivided family as set out in the following table :- Year of Year of Date of Income-tax andaccount ending. assessment. order. super-tax assessed.--------------- ---------- ------- ------------------24-3-44 1944-45 25-2-48 Rs. 51,116-7-014-3-45 1945-46 25-2-48 Rs. 21,452-1-02-4-46 1946-47 31-3-48 Rs. 21,012-13-02. Besides this amount of income-tax and super-tax he was assessed to pay penalty and excess profits tax aggregating to Rs. 26,602/-. The total amount of tax due for the three years of assessment 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47 aggregated to Rs. 1,23,233/5/-. Nagappa did not pay the tax. The revenue authorities of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC207; [1964]4SCR280; [1964]15STC74(SC)
Subba Rao, J.1. These four companion appeals arise out of a common judgment of the High Court of Kerala dismissing the four petitions filed by the appellant seeking to quash the orders of assessment made by the Sales Tax authorities imposing sales tax in respect of 'works contracts'. 2. The undisputed facts may briefly be stated. The appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The principal office of the Company is at Mattancherry. It carries on business in iron, hardware, electrical goods, timber, coir, engineering contracts etc. In the course of its business, the Company acted as engineering contractor for the State and Central Government departments and also for private parties. On March 17, 1959, the Sales Tax Officer, special Circle, Ernakulam assessed the Company to sales tax under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125 M.E. for the assessment year 1952-53 in respect of 'works contracts'. The Company filed a revision petition bef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC521; (1966)ILLJ749SC; [1964]4SCR964
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 290 to 293 of 1962. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 23, 1959, of the Punjab High Court in L. P. As. Nos. 358 to 361 of 1959. S.M. Sikri Advocate-General for the State of Punjab, Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants. S.P. Sinha, Sukhdev Singh Sodhi, S. K. Mehta, Shahzadi Mohiuddin, and K. L. Metha, for the respondents. September 19, 1963. The judgment of P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and J. R. Mudholkar, JJ. was delivered by Mudholkar J. K. Subba Rao, J. delivered a dissenting opinion. MUDHOLKAR, J.-These four appeals arise out of four writ petitions preferred by four persons under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging a notification made by the Government of Punjab on October 31, 1957 "de-confirming" the petitioners from permanent posts of Tahsildars and according to them the rank of officiating Tehsildars. The petitions were heard together and were dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC648; (1964)0GLR481; [1964]5SCR294
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1963. Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 14, 1962, of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 145 of 1961. G.S. Pathak, G. Dutta, J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. C.K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, N.S. Bindra and R.H. Dhebar, for the respondents. November 5, 1963. The Judgment of P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.C. Shah and Raghubar Dayal JJ. was delivered by Shah J. The dissenting Opinion of K.N. Wanchoo and Subba Rao JJ. was delivered by Wanchoo J. SHAH J.-By notification published on September 1, 1960 under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, the Commissioner, Baroda Division, State of Gujarat, exercising functions entrusted to him under a notification dated July 24, 1959, issued by the President, under Art. 258(1) of the Constitution, notified that a piece of land Part of Final Plot No. 686, Ellis Bridge Town Planning Scheme, belonging to the appellant was like...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC175; [1965(10)FLR65]; (1970)ILLJ649SC; [1964]6SCR279
Wanchoo, J. 1. These appeals and writ petitions raise common questions and will be dealt with together. The appeals arise out of six writ petitions filed in the Mysore High Court and six of the writ petitions filed in this Court are by the same petitioners who applied in the Mysore High Court. Two writ petitions (Nos. 173 and 174) have been filed by two others. They also filed writ petitions in the High Court, though they have not filed appeals from the decision of the High Court. They will all be referred to as petitioners hereafter. 2. The case before the High Court was briefly this. All the petitioners were appointed sub-inspectors in the former Hyderabad State, under s. 6 of the Hyderabad District Police Act (No. X of 1329 Fasli). Under r. 399 of the Hyderabad District Police Manual, issued by the Government of Hyderabad under s. 10 of the Hyderabad District Police Act, post of circle inspectors were to be filled by promotion from the rank of sub-inspectors. The subsequent rules pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1179; [1964]52ITR443(SC); 1964MhLJ697(SC); [1964]6SCR846
Shah, J. 1. Bhopal Sugar Industrial Ltd. - hereinafter called 'the Company' - was incorporated under the Companies Act of the former Indian State of Bhopal. In 1953 the State of Bhopal, which was then a Part 'C' State under the Constitution of India, enacted 'the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act, IX of 1953' providing for imposition and levy of tax on agricultural income. The Act was applied to the territory of the entire State of Bhopal and was brought into force on July 15, 1953. 2. By the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (No. 67 of 1956), territory of the Part 'C' State of Bhopal was incorporated with effect from November 1, 1956, into the newly formed State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, enacted that by the constitution of the reorganized State, no change in the laws in force which immediately before November 1, 1956, extended or applied to any constituent regions, was effected, and territorial references in the laws to an existing Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1501; [1964]7SCR32
Wanchoo, J.1. This appeal on a certificate granted by the Orissa High Court raises the question of the constitutionality of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, No. II of 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The challenge to the Act was made by the father of the present appellant by a writ petition filed in the High court of Orissa. The appellant was substituted for his father on the death of the latter while the writ petition was pending in the High Court. The case put forward in the petition firstly was that the Shri Jagannath Temple (hereinafter referred to as the Temple) was the private property of the petitioner, Raja of Puri, and the Act, which deprived the appellant of his property was unconstitutional in view of Art. 19 of the Constitution. In the alternative it was submitted that the appellant had the sole right of superintendence and management of the Temple and that that right could not be taken away without payment of compensation, and the Act inasmuch as it took awa...
Tag this Judgment!