Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1788; 1967MhLJ1(SC); [1966]3SCR885
Sikri, J.1. These two petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution raise substantially the same questions of law and were heard together and may conveniently be disposed of together. It would be convenient to give a few facts in Writ Petition No. 66 of 1965. 2. The petitioners who are citizens of India are owners of some land in Greater Bombay in the South Salsetta Taluka in the Bombay Suburban District. There are four respondents to the petition; the first is the State of Maharashtra, the second the Commissioner, Bombay Division, the third the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Fourth the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, established by notification under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The predecessor in office of the second respondent, by notification dated March 30, 1962, published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette, purporting to act under s. 4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894) - hereinafter referred to as the Act - notified that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1922; [1966]SuppSCR104
Hidayatullah, J. 1. The appellant Messrs. Nandram Hunatram of Calcutta, a firm consisting of four partners including one Kishan Lal Aggarwal, held a mining lease for coal in respect of Handidhua Colliery for a period of 30 years commencing on April 6, 1959. Under Part VII of the lease, which contained the covenants of the lessee, the firm had undertaken to commence mining operations within one year from the date of the execution of the lease and then to continue the work of searching and winning minerals without voluntary intermission in a skilful and workman-like-manner. The firm had appointed one M. L. Goel as the Manager and Kishan Lal Aggarwal as the occupier of the colliery. It appears (and in fact it is not denied) that the partners fell out among themselves and as none of them was willing to spend money on the colliery, work deteriorated and came to a standstill in May 1962. Goel reported to the State Government that the wages of the labourers had not been paid for weeks, that w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC278; (1967)69BOMLR20; [1966]SuppSCR188
Sarkar, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent Vijay Kumar against the appellant on February 9, 1954 to enforce a mortgage. The plaint stated that the appellant executed the mortgage on December 13, 1934 in favour of Tarabai, the proprietor of the firm of Narayandas Chunilal, and that the amount secured on it became due on December 13, 1943. Vijay Kumar claimed that he was adopted by Tarabai on July 16, 1948 as a son to her deceased husband Motilal Hirakhanwala and became entitled to enforce the mortgage as her sole heir on her death on April 23, 1952. After setting out the particulars of the mortgage, Vijay Kumar asked for a decree for foreclosure. In his written statement the appellant admitted the mortgage but denied that Vijay Kumar had been adopted by Tarabai and stated that she had died leaving as her heirs three daughters, Rajkumari, Premkumari and Mahabalkumari, the mother of Vijay Kumar Besides denying Vijay Kumar's right to enforce the mortgage, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC295; [1966]36CompCas639(SC); [1967]1SCR898; [1966]SuppSCR311
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 381 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 7, 1965 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil Writ No. 1626-C of 1965. M. C. Setalvad, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, for the appellants. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, B. R. L. Iyengar, R. K. P. Shankardass and R. H. Dhebar, for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to 7. S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, C. Ramakrishna and A. V. V. Nair, for respondent No. 2. The dissenting Opinion Of SARKAR, C.J. and MUDHOLKAR., J. was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, J HIDAYATULLAH. BACHAWAT and SHELAT JJ. delivered separate judgments allowing the Appeal. Mudholkar, J. On May 19, 1965 Mr. D. S. Dang, Secretary of the Company Law Board issued an order on behalf of the Company Law Board made under s. 237 (b) of the Companies Act, 1956 appointing 4 persons as Inspectors for investigating the affairs of the Barium Chemicals Ltd., appellant No. I before us, since its incorporation in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1742; (1967)69BOMLR133; [1967]1SCR110
Shelat, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the Judgment and order of the High Court of Maharashtra dismissing the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The question arising in the appeal is whether the Assistant Charity Commissioner appointed under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 as extended to the area of Vidharbha has jurisdiction to hold an inquiry under section 19 of that Act in spite of a previous finding by the Registrar under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 30 of 1951 that the trust in question was not a public trust within the meaning of the latter Act. The facts leading to the writ petition may briefly be set out. 2. In October 1953, one Jaferbhai claiming to be a beneficiary applied under s. 5 of the M.P. Act to the Registrar that the trust known as Mehdibaug founded in Nagpur in 1891 and its properties which were and are admittedly in possession of and managed by the appellant was a public trust. As required by section 5(2) of that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC661; [1967]1SCR362
Sikri, J.1. These appeals by certificates granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad raise one principal question. Whether the amendment of the definition of the word 'estate' in clause (8) of s. 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Reforms Act) made by s. 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1963, hereinafter called the impugned Act, is within the definition of the word 'estate' in Art. 31A(2) of the Constitution 2. These appeals arise out of a petition filed by Raja Anand Brahma Shah of Agori Barhar-Raj under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The State of Uttar Pradesh had issued a notification No 3549/1/A-499 dated June 30, 1953, extending the provisions of Reforms Act, 1950, to apply to the areas to the South of Kaimur Range. It then issued another notification No. 3949/(1)-A-499-1949 dated July 1953, directing the vesting of all 'estates' situated to the south of Kaimur i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC669; [1967]1SCR400
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order dated February 25, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Petition No. 72 of 1965. The High Court summarily dismissed the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing a notification issued in pursuance of sub-section (1) of s. 10 of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962 in respect of the delimitation of certain Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petition was rejected on the short ground that under Art. 329(a) of the Constitution the said notification could not be questioned in any court. Article 329 - which is relevant for our purpose - reads : 'Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 327 or article 328, shall not be called in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1131; [1967]1SCR627; [1967]19STC35(SC)
Bhargava, J.1.These appeals arise out of proceedings for assessment of sales-tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act No. IX of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of certain sales of cotton. The respondents were registered dealers in cotton, including kappas, groundnuts and cotton seeds with their Head Office at Bellary and Branch Offices at a number of places. They were also licensees under s. 8 of the Act in respect of cotton. They made various purchases of cotton at their places of business and subsequently sold them to different parties. Amongst these were a number of persons who were not resident within the area to which the Act applied. The question arose as to who was liable to pay the sales-tax in respect of those transactions of sale of cotton in which the cotton had been sold by the respondents to non-residents. When the case came up before the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal determined the course of transactions and held as follows : '...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC898; [1967]1SCR643
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This judgment will govern Civil Appeal No. 1653 of 1966 and Writ Petition No. 193 of 1966. The appeal has been filed, after obtaining special leave of this Court, by the Samyukta Socialist Party, through its General Secretary, against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab, November 18, 1965, dismissing summarily a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petition has been filed by Mr. Madhu Limaye, M.P., a member of the Samyukta Socialist Party. These two proceedings raise a common question and challenge the action of the Election Commission in allotting the 'Hut' as the reserved election symbol to the Praja Socialist Party, which symbol was previously reserved for the Samyukta Socialist Party. The challenge is on the ground of want of jurisdiction and also on the basis of fact. The Rule and Notification whereunder the action purported to be taken are also challenged as unconstitutional in the petition. The controversy arises in the following ci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC795; [1967]63ITR300(SC); [1967]1SCR777
Shah, J.1. By a resolution dated August 23, 1952, it was resolved to wind up the respondent company and to appoint a liquidator for that purpose. The paid-up capital of the assessee was Rs. 25 lakhs, and on the date of commencement of winding up it had an accumulated profit of Rs. 5,34,041. From time to time the liquidator distributed the assets in his hands among the shareholders. The following table sets out the distributions made by the liquidator : ---------------------------------------------------------------------Assessment year Distribution Date of Amount per share distribution distributed Rs. Rs.---------------------------------------------------------------------1953-54 .. .. .. 600 9-9-1952 15,00,000Do .. .. .. 90 25-9-1952 2,25,0001954-55 .. .. .. 60 10-11-1952 1,50,000Do .. .. .. 30 6-5-1953 75,000Do .. .. .. 30 23-2-1953 75,0001955-56 .. .. .. 80 10-11-1953 2,00,000---------------------------------------------------------------------Out of the distribution made on Septemb...
Tag this Judgment!