Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC724; [1969]2SCR261; [1970]26STC10(SC)
Ramaswami, J. 1. These appeals are brought by certificate from the judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland dated April 4, 1963, in Civil Rule No. 90 of 1960 and Civil Rule No. 382 of 1961, whereby the High Court dismissed the petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the appellant.2. Messrs. Hardeo Das Jagan Nath (hereinafter called the 'appellant') is a partnership firm carrying on business at MawkbarShillong in the District of United Khasi and Jaintia Hills. By a notification issued under Rule 6 of the Assam Sales Tax Rules 1947, the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam fixed May 20, 1948 as the date by which the dealers of Shillong administered area had to make applications for registration under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (17 of 1947), hereinafter called the 'Act'. By notification dated April 15, 1948, the Government of India had extended the provisions of the Act with slight modifications to the administered area in Shillong under Section 4 of the Extra Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC110; [1969]1SCR65
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the Madras High Court dated March 16, 1962 in A. S. No. 367 of 1958.2. The appellant carries on business in the manufacture and sale of coffee powder. He was for this purpose importing chicory under actual user's licence issued by the Government. The consignment of chicory in question was a consignment of 24-3/4 tons-495 cases which arrived at Madras port by 'S.S. Alwaki' in December, 1955. Exhibit B-9 was the licence under which the consignment was imported. The goods were cleared by the appellant on December 20, 1955. The case of the respondent was that the appellant agreed to sell the consignment to him under Ex. A-l dated November 26, 1955 after taking an advance of Rs. 7,500. The contract was, however, entered into in the name of the first defendant and P. W. 2 acted as a broker in the transaction. The respondent paid another sum of Rs. 20,000 on December 23, 1955 after the goods arrived and were clear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC872; [1969]1SCR679
G.K. Mitter, J.1. On April 6, 1967 the appellant before us, filed an Election Petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the election of the first respondent, B. N. Reddi to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Kollapur Constituency inter alia on the ground of corrupt practices committed by him, his election agent, polling ;agents and other workers mentioned in the schedule to the petition with his consent and praying for a declaration that the second respondent, K. Ranga Das was duly elected from the said constituency. The third respondent was another candidate who had contested the election but had fared very badly. The first respondent secured' 25,321 votes at the election overtopping the votes polled by the second respondent by approximately 1,600. The petitioners stated in paragraph 5 of the petition that one V. K. Reddi who had filed his nomination paper had been made to withdraw his candidature by the first respondent on payment of an -illegal gratifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2300; 1990(2)SCALE603; (1991)1SCC86; [1990]Supp1SCR499
ORDERT.K. Thommen, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition Clause 1378 of 1973. The appellants in the writ petition challenged the constitutionality of the East Punjab Molasses (Control) Amendment Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amendment Act, 1973') on the ground that the said amendment had not received the previous sanction of the President of India in terms of Article 304(b) of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellants were not shown to have been aggrieved by the impugned amendment.2. The Amendment Act, 1973 amended the provisions of the East Punjab Molasses (Control) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act Clause 11 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Principal Act'), as it stood at the relevant time. The Principal Act had been earlier amended in 1950, 1957, 1964 and 1968. It was subsequently amended in 1976. The appellants have, however, challenged only t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)87; AIR1996SC1910; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)874; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)43; 1996(2)ALT(Cri)131; (1996)98BOMLR842; 1996CriLJ2510; 1996(2)Crimes228(SC); JT1996(4)SC495; 1996(4)SCAL
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted. Heard Counsel for the Parties.2. Respondent, K.K. Jagtiani, was an Assistant Engineer in the service of the Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay. On the basis of a complaint received, a trap was laid. The respondent was caught accepting the money. The Municipal Commissioner granted sanction for prosecuting the respondent and another employee under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (the Act) and Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code on January 4, 1988. On that date, the respondent was in receipt of basic minimum salary which was less than Rupees twelve hundred per month. In due course, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent in the court of Special Judge, Greater Bombay under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Act and Sections 161 and 165 of the India Penal Code. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and framed charges. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the sanction granted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC674; [1992]74CompCas400(SC); (1992)2CompLJ156(SC); 1994CriLJ628; 1992(2)Crimes349(SC); (1992)104CTR(SC)203; [1992]196ITR1(SC); JT1992(4)SC22; 1992(1)SCALE992; (199
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dated 4th February, 1977 and arise in the following circumstances.2. The first accused, Sh. M.R. Pratap, who was the Managing Director of the Company Rayala Corporation Private Ltd., is the appellant in the present appeals. The respondent/complainant is the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Madras. The appellant is the first accused along with the second accused. A complaint was filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate purporting to be under Sections 277 and 273 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Sections 120-B and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to an offence said to have been committed during the assessment year 1965-66.3. According to the complaint the first accused was the Managing Director of the Rayala Corporation Private Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company and the second accused was the Chief A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC317; JT1999(8)SC379; 1999(6)SCALE616; (2000)1SCC145; [1999]Supp4SCR76
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 preferred by a candidate, who, though successful at the polls, has lost in the election petition before the High Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the election petition filed before the High Court.2. Mohinder Nath Sof at, the defeated candidate, filed an election petition putting in issue the election of Smt. Krishna Mohini, the returned candidate, alleging improper rejection of the nomination papers of Sarvshri Pritam Chand and Mohan Singh and also that the result of election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate having been materially affected by the improper acceptance of nomination paper of Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj. The two grounds were covered by Section 100(1)(c) and Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short). Both the pleas have prevailed w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(6)ALT8(SC); JT2009(15)SC99; 2009(11)SCALE166
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation of the application of the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [hereinafter called for the sake of brevity as `the Act'] vis-`-vis Section 6 thereof is in question in this appeal. It arises out of a judgment and order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the High Court Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No. 1403/2003 and 1404/2003 dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellants herein from a judgment and order dated 14.07.2003 in O.S. No. 305/2000 and O.S. No. 567/2001 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mysore between both the parties for a suit of partition. The two aforementioned suits for partition were filed - one by the appellants herein and the other by respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 herein. One K Doddananjundaiah indisputably is the predecessor- in-interest of the plaintiffs of both the suits. He along with his own brothers rightly formed a coparcenery. In or about 1941, a partition took place in terms where...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC295; [2007(2)JCR20(SC)]; JT2006(10)SC110; 2006(10)SCALE575; (2007)1SCC80; 2006(2)LC1449(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and/or extent thereof falls for our consideration in these appeals which arise out of judgments and orders dated 28.07.2003, 04.10.2004 and 24.11.2004 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2745 of 1988, 3153 of 1996 and 3737 of 2001 respectively.2. We may, however, notice the factual matrix of the matter from Civil Appeal No. 789 of 2005. Respondent is said to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe being belonging to Thakur community as envisaged under Entry 44 of the list of the Scheduled Tribes pertaining to the State of Maharashtra issued in terms of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. A certificate showing that he belongs to the aforementioned tribe community was issued to him. Respondent obtained appointments and/or admissions in various institutions pursuant to or in furtherance of such certificate. However, the Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the decision ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC590; 2006(13)SCALE335; (2006)11SCC1
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. These petitions challenge the legality of orders passed by the Speaker of Haryana Legislative Assembly (for short, 'the Assembly') disqualifying petitioners from being members of the Assembly. The impugned orders have been passed in exercise of the powers conferred on the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India. Four petitioners (Writ Petition Nos. 290, 291, 293-294 of 2004) were independent members of the Assembly. Petitioner - Jagjit Singh (W.P. No. 287 of 2004) belonged to a political party named 'Democratic Dal of Haryana'. He was a lone member representing his party in the Assembly. Petitioner- Karan Singh Dalal (W.P. No. 292 of 2004) was a lone member of a political party named 'Republican Party of India' in the Assembly.The petitioners were elected to the Assembly in election held in February, 2000. All impugned orders disqualifying the petitioners were passed on 25th June, 2004. The voting for election to Rajya Sabha took place on 28...
Tag this Judgment!