Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP237; [1959]10STC263(AP)
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. These three petitions raise a common question of law and were, therefore, heard together. 2. The petitioners, who are dealers in petroleum products, have petrol hunks in different parts of the city of Hyderabad. They were called upon to register themselves as dealers among other things, as required by the provisions of the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment Act. 1958) Act V of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature and to which the assent of the Governor was obtained on 25-3-1958.This led them to file the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the provisions of the Act, questioning the validity of the said Act. The vires of the Act are challenged before us on the ground that it was not competent for the Andhra Pradesh legislature to amend the Madras Sales...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker182
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. These nine Original Petitions arise out of nine separate assessments of the respective Petitioners for the financial year 1957-58 under the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 22 of 1950 as amended by Act 8 of 1957. By virtue of the amendment, the principal Act had been extended on 6-8-1957 to the whole of Kerala including the former Malabar District but with effect from. 1-4-1957. The Income-tax Officers concerned required the various Petitioners to include in their returns their agricultural income derived from land situated in Malabar and received by them during their previous year, i.e. the year ending on 31-3-1957 or on any day anterior to it but within that year as the case may be.Now the former Malabar District was dis-integrated from the Madras State and became part of Kerala only as and from 1-11-1956. The income of the 'previous year' directed to be returned as above and sought to be made liable comprised therefore to major extent or in who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1959Bom363; (1959)61BOMLR829; ILR1959Bom1267
Tambe, J. 1. An important question of law arises out of a preliminary objection raised in behalf of the State of Bombay. The preliminary objection raised relates to the maintainability of the petition against the present State of Bombay. This decision will govern the preliminary objection raise din three cases, viz,., Misc. Petn. No. 523/56, Miscellaneous Petition No. 470/56 and Special Civil Application No. 73 of 1957. The consideration of this question turns of the interpretation of Sections 87, 88 and 116 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 Act 37 of 1956 hereinafter called the Act.2. The case in general that falls for our consideration is that the petitioners before us were in the service of he former State of Madhya Pradesh. Their services were terminated by the orders, of the Government of the then State of Madhya Pradesh prior to the date the Act came into force. Two of the petitioner were serving on the date of termination of their services in the territories which now form ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)IILLJ485Bom
Tambe, J.1. An important question of law arises out of a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State of Bombay. The preliminary objection raised relates to the maintainability of the petition against the present State of Bombay. This decision will govern the preliminary objection raised in three cases, viz., Miscellaneous Petition No. 523 of 1956, Miscellaneous Petition No. 470 of 1956 and Special Civil Application No. 73 of 1957. The consideration of this question turns on the interpretation of Ss. 87, 88 and 116 of the State Reorganization Act, 1956, Act XXXVII of 1956, hereinafter called the Act. 2. The case in general that falls for our consideration is that petitioners before us were the services of the former State of Madhya Pradesh. Their services were terminated by the orders of the Government of the then State of Madhya Pradesh prior to the date the Act came into force. Two of the petitioners were serving on the date of termination of their service in the territories w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1959]10STC162(AP)
ORDERThe Order of the Court was pronounced bySatyanarayana Raju, J.1. The petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, is a firm carrying on business at Eluru in the District of West Godavari, and has filed the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ restraining the Commercial Tax Officer, Eluru, from collecting sales tax for the years 1951-52 and 1952-53.2. The assessee was assessed to sales tax on a turnover of Rs, 1,91,985-5-1 for the assessment year 1951-52 and on a turnover of Rs. 4,37,156-7-8 for the assessment year 1952-53 on 11 th February, 1953, and 30th March, 1954, respectively. Subsequently, on 27th August, 1954, the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer made a surprise inspection of the business premises of the assessee and recovered two account books containing transactions in paddy and castor-cake for the year 1954-55. On 25th September, 1954, the officer made a second inspection ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP493
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner and pass order thereon.2. The Principal of Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad catled for applications for admission into the two Medical Colleges in the city of Hyderabad, the last date for the receipt of applications being 25-6-1958. The petitioner, who secured 59 per cent of marks in Part III of the Intermediate Examination consisting of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, applied for a seat in answer to that notification. She was one of those who were interviewed by the Selection Committee and was awaiting receipt of orders. She seems to have been selected for admission into the college. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and which is not denied by the respondents that she secured the ninth rank in the list of candidates selected from the Marathwada area.3. At this stage, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1960P& H29
A.N. Bhandari, C.J. (1) This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent raises the question whether a right of appeal which has been destroyed under the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Judicature Ordinance, 2005 Bk., has been revived by S. 63 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.(2) On 10-9-1956 the Chief Justice of the Pepsu High Court passed an order under Art. 226 of the Constitution quashing certain orders passed by the Financial Commissioner of Patiala. On the same day the appellant who was dissatisfied with the order of the Chief Justice presented an application under S. 52 of the Pepsu Judicature Ordinance 2005 Bk., for a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to a Division Bench of the said Court and on the same day the learned Chief Justice dismissed this application. The State of Pepsu was integrated with the State of the Punjab on 1-11-1956 and the appellants preferred an appeal to this Court under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC544; 1959CriLJ660; 1959Supp(1)SCC904; [1959]Supp1SCR904
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This appeal was preferred by the State of Ajmer, but after the reorganisation of States, the State of Rajasthan stands substituted for the former State. It was filed against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer, who certified the case a fit for appeal to this Court under Article 132 of the Constitution. 2. The Ajmer Legislative Assembly enacted the Ajmer (Sound Amplifiers Control) Act, 1952 (Ajmer 3 of 1953), (hereinafter called the Act) which received the assent of the President on March 9, 1953. This Act was successfully impugned by the respondents before the learned Judicial Commissioner, who held that it was in excess of the powers conferred on the State Legislature under section 21 of the Government of Part C States Act, 1951 (49 of 1951) and, therefore, ultra vires the State Legislature. 3. The respondents (who were absent at the hearing) were prosecuted under section 3 of the Act for breach of the first two conditions of the permit granted to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant108; AIR1959Mys108; ILR1959KAR150
M. Sadasivayya, J.1. The petitioner in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was the opponent-landlord in Revision Application No. TEN/B/3535 of 1936 on the file of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal. The present Respondent No. 1 was the applicant-tenant in the said revision application. In that revision application, the Bombay Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 10-9-1956 set aside the order which had been passed by the Prant Officer in favour of the landlord and dismissed the original application which had been filed by the landlord, for possession of the land of which the applicant in the revision application was the tenant. The present petition under Article 227 is directed against the said order passed in revision by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal.2. On behalf of the tenant-respondent No. 1, it has been contended firstly, that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere under Article 227, and secondly, that even if it is held that this Court has jurisdiction, there are no good...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC994
Hidayatullah, J.1. The petitioner Hamid Raza has moved this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, Previous to this the petitioner had obtained a certificate of fitness from the Judicial Commissioner of Vindhya Pradesh on 4-1-1956 to appeal against the order dated 7-5-1955 passed on writ application No. 25 of 1955. Though the petitioner deposited the amount of security, as well as the printing charges, he took recourse to Article 32, as a more expeditious and adequate remedy.2. The petitioner carries on business as a manufacturer of bidis under the name and style of Hamid Raza Manufacturing Company Rewa. In the year 1953, the Vindhya Pradesh Tendu Leaves Act, 1953, was enacted and it came into force on May 19, 1954. In pursuance of a provision therefore the petitioner applied to the appropriate authority on January 19, 1955, for a licence. His application is Annexure 'A'. On February 4, 1955, the Divisional Forest Officer, Rewa, declined to grant him a licence stating as the reaso...
Tag this Judgment!