Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1486; [1964]34CompCas473(SC); [1994]52ITR524(SC); [1964]7SCR17
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. These four appeals arise from four writ petitions filed by the appellant, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax, Hyderabad, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, in which it claimed a writ of prohibition restraining them from collecting any tax, or taking any proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act against them. In its writ petitions, the appellant further claimed an order, writ, or other appropriate direction quashing the assessment orders passed by respondent No. 1 on the 29th February, 1960, for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. For the first year, a tax of Rs. 13,60,963.86nP. has been imposed for the period January 11, 1958, to March 31, 1958, and for the latter year, a tax of Rs. 34,44,430.48nP. has been levied for the period April 1, 1958, to March 31, 1959. After hearing the parties, the High Court has dismissed the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1515; [1964]7SCR82
Wanchoo, J.1. These six petitions under Art. 32 of Constitution raise a common question about the constitutionality of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land Act, No. 58 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was assented to by the President on April 13, 1962 and came into force on publication in the Fort St. George Gazette on May 2, 1962. The constitutionality of the Act is attacked on the ground that it violates Arts. 14, 19 and 31(2) of the Constitution. It is not necessary to set out in full the attack made on the constitutionality of the Act in these petitions. It will be enough if we indicate the two main attacks on the constitutionality of the Act under Art. 14. The first of these is with respect to s. 5 of the Act which lays down the ceiling area. The second is on s. 50 of the Act read with Sch. III thereof, which provides for compensation. It is urged that the Act is not protected under Art. 31-A of the Constitution and is therefore open to attack in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1559; (1965)ILLJ328SC; [1964]7SCR228
Wanchoo, J. 1. This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the system prevailing in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of promotion of head-constables to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police as violative of Arts. 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner was a head-constable in the former State of Ajmer and was duly included in the approved list of head-constables to be promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspectors of Police in 1955 and was appointed on July 14, 1956 as officiating Sub-Inspector of Police. On November 1, 1956, the former State of Ajmer merged in the State of Rajasthan under the States Reorganisation Act. The petitioner was absorbed in the police service of the State of Rajasthan and a fresh order posting him as officiating Sub-Inspector in Rajasthan was passed on November 1, 1956. According to the petitioner, the practice of Police administration in Rajasthan is that the whole police force of the State is generally under the administrative control of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC868; (1966)ILLJ50SC; 1964MhLJ747(SC); (1964)2MysLJ(SC)33; [1964]7SCR471
Ayyangar, J. 1. A very short question regarding the proper construction of Rule 50(b) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules is involved in this appeal which comes before us by a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Mysore under Art. 133 of the Constitution. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal which are necessary to be narrated to appreciate the only point urged before us were these : The respondent was recruited as an Upper Division Clerk by the Government of Bombay in 1931 and was later appointed substantively as a Junior Assistant in the Political Department. While so, on September 17, 1943 his services were transferred on deputation to the office of the Controller of Rationing, Bombay to work as a Senior Assistant in the newly started Rationing department which was a temporary department. He obtained successive promotions in this department and by March, 1954 he was drawing a pay of Rs. 460/- p.m. in the grade Rs. 350 - 30 - 650 as Rationing Officer. That department ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1781; [1964]7SCR456
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. The principal question of law which arises in this group of 37 civil appeals relates to the construction of section 3 of the Madras Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act, 1949 (No. 29 of 1949) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The dispute which has given rise to these appeals centers round the validity of two notified orders issued by the respondent, State of Andhra Pradesh on the 28th January, 1955, and 30th January, 1955 respectively, and it is the contention of the appellants that the said notified orders are outside the purview of s. 3. The appellants in all these appeals are supplied electricity by the respondent for many years past, and several individual agreements have been passed between them and the respondent during the period 1946 to 1952 prescribing the terms and conditions on which the said supply would be made to them. One of these terms stipulated the rate at which the supply of electricity had to be charged against th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1598; [1963]33CompCas568(SC); [1964]7SCR503
Sarkar, J.1. The appellant is a company carrying on business as supplier of electricity in a certain area in the State of Bombay. The respondents Bhathena and Tendulkar were consumers of electrical energy supplied by the appellant. The present appeals arise out of disputes between these consumers and the appellant concerning the legality of the charges made by the appellant for electricity supplied by it. 2. The supply of electrical energy is controlled by two statutes and the questions involved in the present cases will turn on them. These statutes are the Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948. I will first consider the Act of 1910. Section 3 of this Act gives power the Government to grant a licence to a party to supply electrical energy in any specified area and to prescribe in the licence the limits of price to be charged by it for the supply. This section further provides that the provisions in the Schedule to the Act would, unless otherwise directed, be deeme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC136; (1964)2MysLJ(SC)58; [1964]7SCR549
Sikri, J. 1. This a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for enforcing the fundamental rights of the petition under Arts. 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution. Although the petition raises various points, before us only two points have been argued by Mr. Garg, on behalf of the petitioner. We are grateful to Mr. Garg, who has argued as amicus curiae, for the assistance he has given. The two points may be formulated as follows : (1) That the Mysore General Services (Revenue Sub-ordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959, were not made with the previous approval of the Central Government under s. 115(7) of the State Re-organisation Act, and, therefore, do not govern the petitioner insofar as the conditions of service have been varied to his disadvantage; (2) That the Madras-Government had, prior to November 1, 1956, by various orders, reduced the petitioner in rank in violation of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution and Art. 16. 2. In order to appreciate the arguments addressed to us, it is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1690; (1964)66BOMLR698; [1964(9)FLR324]; (1964)IILLJ639SC; 1965MhLJ73(SC); [1964]7SCR639
Das Gupta, J.1. A short point arises for consideration in this appeal. But to understand how the point arises it is necessary to embark on a somewhat lengthy statement of facts. 2. Three Road Transport Corporations established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 were operating in the States of Bombay, Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad in 1956 when the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 was enacted. These three corporations were known as the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation, the Provincial Transport Service and the State Transport Marathewada respectively. As a result of the reorganisation of the States under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 the former State of Bombay lost certain of its territories to the newly formed State of Mysore and some areas to the State of Rajasthan. On the other hand, the State of Bombay gained the Marathewada from the State of Hyderabad and the Vidharbha area from the State of Madhya Pradesh and certain other areas from the then existing State of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC601; [1964]7SCR879
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. The writ petition from which this appeal by special leave arises had been filed by the appellant Bisheshwar Dayal Sinha by which he challenged the validity of the order issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the Bihar University directing the reconstitution of the Governing Body of the Rajendra College, Chapra, and of the relevant new statutes framed by him under which the said order is purported to have been issued. His case was that the relevant new statutes are ultra vires the authority of the Vice-Chancellor and the impugned order passed by him in pursuance of the said relevant statutes is, therefore, illegal, inoperative and void. Along with the petition filed by the appellant, four other petitions had been filed by other persons seeking to obtain similar relief. The Patna High Court has, in substance, rejected the appellant's case and has accordingly dismissed the appellant's writ petition as well as the other petitions filed by the persons. On behalf of the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1442; [1965]2SCR756
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by certificate raises the question whether an appeal lies under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent for the High Court of Lahore, to a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court against a judgment passed by a single Judge of the said High Court in a second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958), hereinafter called the Act. 2. The facts relevant to the question raised may be briefly stated. The respondents are the owners of plot No. 5, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. Messrs. Allen Berry & Co. Private Ltd. took a lease of the same under a lease deed dated March 1, 1956. Messrs. Allen Berry & Co. assigned their interest under the said lease deed to South Asia Industries (Private) Ltd., the appellant herein. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application before the Controller, Delhi, under section 14 of the Act for the eviction of the appellant from the said premises on the ground that Messrs. Allen Berry & Co. unauthorizedly as...
Tag this Judgment!