Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR769; (1950)IIMLJ564(SC); [1950]1SCR536
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay and it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to direct the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and the Superintendent of Stamps at Bombay to state a case for the opinion of the Court under section 57 of the Stamp Act. 2. The respondent company, for its business, borrowed money from the Central Bank of India Ltd. at Bombay. In order to secure the loan a document was executed on the 22nd of March, 1945, with a stamp of Rs. 16-8-0, on the footing that it was a deed of hypothecation without possession of the goods. When the deed was sent to the Sub-Registrar for registration he impounded the same and sent it to the Stamp Office. The Assistant Superintendent of Stamps wrote to the respondent that the document was a mortgage with possession, chargeable with duty under article 40(a) of the Schedule and inquired why it was not duly stamped before execution. The respondent's solicitors in their reply contended that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1950SC129; 1950CriLJ1525; 1951(0)KLT1(SC); (1950)IIMLJ431(SC); [1950]1SCR605
Patanjali Sastri, J. 1.This is an application under article 32 of the Constitution praying for the issue of writs of certiorari and prohibition to the respondent, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi, with a view to examine the legality of and quash the order made by him in regard to an English weekly of Delhi called the Organizer of which the first applicant is the printer and publisher, and the second is the editor. On 2nd March, 1950, the respondent, in exercise of powers conferred on him by section 7(1)(c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949, which has been extended to the Delhi Province and is hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act, issued the following order : 'Whereas the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, is satisfied that Organizer, an English weekly of Delhi, has been publishing highly objectionable matter constituting a threat of public law and order and that action as is hereinafter mentioned is necessary for the purpose of preventing or combating activities prejudicial to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1950SC124; 1950CriLJ1514; (1950)IIMLJ390(SC); [1950]1SCR594
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The petitioner is the printer, publisher and editor of a recently started weekly journal in English called Cross Roads printed and published in Bombay. The Government of Madras, the respondents herein, in exercise of their powers under section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act) purported to issue an order No. MS. 1333 dated 1st March, 1950, whereby they imposed a ban upon the entry and circulation of the journal in that State. The order was published in the Fort St. George Gazette and the notification ran as follows :- 'In exercise of the powers conferred by section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order, Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXIII of 1949). His Excellency the Governor of Madras, being satisfied that for the purpose of securing the public safety and the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, hereby prohibits, with effect on and from the date of publication of this ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC5; [1950]18ITR584(SC); [1950]1SCR563
Mehr Chand Mahajan, J. 1. This appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 31st August, 1944, raises the same points as have been discussed in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1949 [New Piecegoods Bazar Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay [1950] S.C.R. 553. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred four questions to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. These questions related to the year of assessment 1939-40. The High Court answered two of the questions in the affirmative and two in the negative. The two questions relating to the appeal are those that were answered in the affirmative and are as follows :- 'Whether (1) the amount of house-tax and (2) the amount of water-tax, imposed by the Municipal Board of Allahabad under section 128, sub-section (1), clauses (i) and (x), respectively of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916, and paid by the owner as a lessor under section 149 of that Act s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1950SC188; (1950)NULLLLJ921SC; (1950)ILLJ921SC; [1950]1SCR459
Kania, C.J.1. I have read the judgments prepared by Messrs. Fazl Ali, Mahajan and Mukherjea JJ. in this case. As the views in those judgments in respect of the nature of the duties and functions of the Industrial Tribunal do not show agreement I consider it necessary to add a few words of my own. 2. In my opinion, the functions and duties of the Industrial Tribunal are very much like those of a body discharging judicial functions, although it is not a Court. The rules framed by the Tribunal require evidence to be taken and witnesses to be examined, cross-examined and re-examined. The Act constituting the Tribunal imposes penalties for incorrect statements made before the Tribunal. While the powers of the Industrial Tribunal in some respects are different from those of an ordinary civil court and it has jurisdiction and powers to give reliefs which a civil Court administering the law of the land (for instance, ordering the reinstatement of a workman) does not possess in the discharge of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR764; (1950)IIMLJ559(SC); [1950]1SCR553
Mehr Chand Mahajan, J. 1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in an income-tax matter and it raises the question whether municipal property tax and urban immoveable property tax payable under the relevant Bombay Acts are allowable deductions under section 9(1)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. The assessee company is an investment company deriving its income from properties in the city of Bombay. For the assessment year 1940-41 the net income of the assessee under the head 'property' was computed by the Income-tax Officer in the sum of Rs. 6,21,764 after deducting from gross rents certain payments. The company had paid during the relevant year Rs. 1,22,675 as municipal property tax and Rs. 32,760 as urban property tax. Deduction of these two sums was claimed under the provisions of section 9 of the Act. Out of the first item a deduction in the sum of Rs. 48,572 was allowed on the ground that this item represented tenants' burdens paid by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1950]18ITR516(SC)
MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, J. - This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in an income-tax matter and it raises the question whether municipal property tax and urban immoveable property tax payable under the relevant Bombay Acts are allowable deductions under Section 9(1)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The assessee company is an investment company deriving its income from properties in the City of Bombay. For the assessment year 1940-41 the net income of the assessee under the head 'property' was computed by the Income-tax Officer in the sum of Rs. 6,21,764 after deduction from gross rents payments. The company had paid during the relevant year Rs. 1,22,675 as municipal property tax and Rs. 32,760 as urban property tax. Deduction of these two sums was claimed under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. Out of the first item a deduction in the sum of Rs. 48,572 was allowed on the ground that this item represented tenants burdens paid by the assessee, ot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1950SC211; [1950]1SCR519
Kania, C.J.1. This is an application for a writ of Certiorari and prohibition under article 32 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner who is the President of the All India Hindu Mahasabha since December, 1949 was served with an order of externment dated the 31st of March, 1950, that night. By that order he is directed by the District Magistrate, Delhi, not to remain in the Delhi District, and immediately to remove himself from the Delhi District and not to return to the District. The order was to continue in force for three months. By another order of the Madhya Bharat Government he was directed to reside in Nagpur. That order has been recently cancelled. The petitioner disputes the validity of the first order on the ground that the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949, under which the order was made, is an infringement of his fundamental right given under article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. He further contends that the grounds of the order served on him are vague, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1950SC163; [1950]1SCR566
Das, J.1. I am reading the judgment of the Court. 2. This is an application under article 32 of the Constitution of Indian made by Rashid Ahmed for enforcement of his fundamental right to carry on his business which is said to have been completely stopped by the respondent, the Municipal Board of Kairana. 3. The facts shortly are as follows : 4. The petitioner is an Aratia (commission agent) carrying on wholesale business in vegetables and fruits at Kairana in the District of Muzaffarnagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He has been carrying on this business for the last two years at a rented shop in Bazar Jama Masjid in the town of Kairana. Until recently there were no bye-laws of the respondent Board regulating the sale of vegetables and fruit within the limits of the municipality. In March, 1949, the respondent Board published certain proposed bye-laws made under section 298 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. These bye-laws were passed by the respondent Board on the 19th April, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC451; (1950)IIMLJ555(SC)
S.R. Das, J.1. This application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ of 'habeas corpus' made by Ashutosh Lahiry at present detained in District Jail, Delhi, under an order of detention passed on the 1st April 1950 by the District Magistrate of Delhi under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 raises two questions, namely: (1) that the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 takes away or abridges the fundamental rights of the Indian citizens conferred by Part III of the Constitution and is accordingly void under Article 13(2) of the Constitution; and (2) that the Order of detention has been made 'mala fide' and is an abuse of power and as such void, illegal and inoperative.The first question mentioned above is now concluded by the decision of this Court which, by a majority, upheld the validity of the impugned Act except as to certain provisions which were held to be severable. The provisions which were held to be bad have no bearing on the present case.2. In order to determine...
Tag this Judgment!