Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1957)2MLJ167
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These are petitions for the issue of writs of prohibition directed against the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Non-resident Special Circle, Madras requiring him not to take further proceedings in pursuance of the notice issued by him to the respective petitioners. The point raised by the writ petitions at the stage of the final argument was as regards the constitutional validity of the Sales Tax Law validation Act, 1956(Central Act VII of 1956) which we shall refer to as the impugned Act).2. Before discussing the legal points raised, it would be useful to set out the main facts of the three cases which are nearly identical.3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 37 of 1955 is the Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Company, Bangalore. This company which manufactures textile goods in Bangalore City was effecting sales in the State of Madras and the goods were delivered in Madras in pursuance of such sales. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer issued a notice to the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1957Ori56; 23(1957)CLT67
Narasimham, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by the owner of wet lands in village Raghunathpur, in Chatrapur Taluk of Ganjam-district, challenging the validity of the Orissa. Tenants Relief Act 1955 (Orissa Act V of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. In 1948 the Orissa Legislature passed an Act known as the Orissa Tenants Protection Act for the purpose of granting temporary protection from eviction to the tiller of the soil (usually known as Bhagchassis) and also for reducing the produce rent payable by a tenant to his landlord. After the coming into force of the Constitution the validity of this Act was unsuccessfully challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in Sashi Bushan v. Mangal, ILR (1953) Cut 45: (AIR 1953 Orissa 171) (A).In that decision the full history of the circumstances leading to the passing of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act was given and it is unnecessary to repeat the same here. It is suffici...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All414
Kidwai, J.1. These four appeals are in the nature of test cases fixed before this Full Bench in order to determine the question whether, under the rulesof this Court, a special appeal lies to a division Bench from the decision, of a Single Judge on a petition for the issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. The point was fully argued before us by the learned counsel for the appellants in each of the appeals and we are obliged to Mr. Jagdish Swarup for the assistance which he gave us, as amicus curiae by putting the other side of the case before us.2. The necessary facts relating to all the four appeals are stated in the order of my learned brother, Beg J., and it ig unnecessary for me to repeat them.3. The question raised before us depends upon the interpretation on Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the rules of the Court. That rule reads as follows:--'An appeal shall lie to the Court from the judgment (Not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC540; [1957]1SCR488
Das, C.J. 1. This is an application for special leave to appeal from the judgment passed on February 10, 1955, by the High Court of Andhra. The suit out of which this application arises was instituted on April 22, 1949, in the sub-court of Bapatla, which was then within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The judgment of the trial Court was passed on November 14, 1950, dismissing the suit. The plaintiff appealed. On October 1, 1953, the Andhra State was formed and a new High Court was established under s. 28 of The Andhra State Act, 1953 (Act XXX of 1953), and apparently the appeal stood transferred to the High Court of Andhra under the provisions of s. 38 of the same Act. On March 4, 1955, the High Court of Andhra accepted the appeal, reversed the decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit. The application for leave to appeal to this Court was dismissal on the ground, inter alia, that the value of the property was only Rs. 11,400 and did not come up to the amount of Rs. 20,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1957Bom186; (1957)59BOMLR409; ILR1957Bom795
Shah, J.1. This is an application by the petitioners praying that an appropriate Writ be issued by this Court restraining the State Government from enforcing the Collection Order dated 26-7-1956 against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 4,874/- in a manner prejudicially affecting the fundamental rights of the petitioners by levy of non-agricultural assessment otherwise than by authority of law. 2. The petitioners are the owners of. S. Nos. 193, 194A. Hissas Nos 1 and 3, 195 Hissas Nos. 13h and 17. 262 Hissas Nos. 1. 2 and 3 (part) of Vile Parle in Greater Bombay, The lands admeasure 13.539 square yards in area. The lands have been converted to non-agricultural user since the year 1928 and several buildings have been erected thereon by the petitioners, Originally these lands were part of a Khoti estate. In 1950 the State Legislature enacted the Salsette Estates (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act of 1951, and the lands became Khalsa lands. Thereafter the Additional District Deputy ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1957Bom252; (1957)59BOMLR616
Shah, J.1. The petitioner, a resident of village Pali in the district of Thana, is a landlord owning 135 acres of Kharif lands and 70 acres of Warkas lands in the villages of Bhusegaib, Tighar, Nangurle, Venagaon, Parada, Dahigaon, Sapele, Vave, Vavaloli, Tambus and Avalas in Karjat Taluka of Kolaba district. The petitioner pay Rs. 990/-as assessment and local fund cess for the aforesaid lands. In this application the petitioner contents that Bombay Act 13 of 1956, which purports to amend the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948, is invalid. The petitioner urges that when Bill No. 34 of 1955, which subsequently was published as Act 13 of 1956, was submitted to the President for his assent, the President suggested certain alterations, but the bill was not returned to the Legislature of the State of Bombay and was published as an Act: and as the provisions of Art. 201 of the Constitution of India were contravened the Bill was not validly enacted as law. He also contends that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1957Bom270; (1957)59BOMLR527
Tendolkak, J. 1. This is a petition which raises the question of the assessability to land revenue of certain lands which belonged to the petitioner who was an inamdar. Part of his inam lands consisted of survey No. 6 measuring 4 acres 8 gunthas in the village of Athwar, Taluka Choraisi. The village was included in the limits of Surat City, and in the City survey carried on in 1924-25 the said land came to bear City Survey No. 60 Ward No. 13 of the City of Surat. Inam of the said land was- recognised under the Bombay Summary, Settlement Act, 1863, and on the 21st of April. 1879 a Sanad was issued by the Secretary of State-in-Council under the signature of; the Col lector of Surat in which it is stated that the said land is the private property of the Inamdar. In the Register of Alienated Villages and Lands maintained under Section 53 of the Bombay Land Re-venue Code, the land has been described as permanent (enfranchised private property) subject to payment of Rs. 7/- as Salami and Bs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All505
Desai, J.1. This is an application, purporting to be under Order 45, Rule 13, C. P. C., for the issue of an order staying operation of the order passed by this Court on October 8, 1956, in Writ Petition No. 252 of 1956 and maintaining the status quo as regards possession over the land covered by the orders of the consolidation authorities. The facts leading to this application are as follows:2. Under Section 26 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (No. 5 of 1954) possession of some land belonging to opposite parties Nos. 1 to 11 was transferred to other tenants of the village, who are opposite parties 12 to 16. After exhausting the remedy as provided in the Act against the transfer they filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, Mukhtar Singh v. State of U. P. : AIR1957All297 . A Bench of this Court quashed the orders of the consolidation authorities regarding transfer of possession of the Opposite parties' land on 8th October, 1956 on the ground that Section 14 (ee) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1957]8STC690(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These several writ petitions which we shall presently group into various classes have been filed by dealers in several commodities who under the rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act have been required to take out licences and pay the fees prescribed therefor under these rules. The common point that arises in these several petitions is the validity of the licensing provisions themselves and the objection to quantum of the licence fee prescribed by the rules, and in particular to these fees as enhanced by certain amendments made in 1955 to which we shall advert in its proper place.2. These dealers fall into several classes depending upon the commodities in which they are trading and it would be convenient to classify them even at the beginning so that the problems arising in regard to each trade might be dealt with in a group. 3. W.P. Nos. 85, 116, 117, 404, 457 to 459 are concerned with dealers trading in hides and skins. The petitioners in W.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1958Mad249; (1957)2MLJ469
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These several writ petitions which we shall presently group into various classes have been filed by dealers in several commodities who under the rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act have been required to take out licences and pay the fees prescribed therefor under these rules. The common point that arises in these several petitions is the validity of the licensing provisions themselves and the objection to quantum of the licence fee prescribed by the rules, and in particular to these fees as enhanced by certain amendments made in 1955 to which we shall advert in its proper place.2. These dealers fall into several classes depending upon the commodities in which they are trading and it would be convenient to classify them even at the beginning so that the problems arising in regard to each trade might be dealt with in a group.3. W.P. Nos. 85, 116, 117, 404, 457 to 459 are concerned with dealers trading in hides and skins. The petitioners in W...
Tag this Judgment!