Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC467; [1952]1SCR110
Bose, J.1. The appellant was convicted under of the Jaipur Opium Act and fined Rs. 50. The case as such is trivial but the High Court of Rajasthan in Jaipur granted special leave to appeal as an important point touching the vires of the Act arises. We will state the facts chronologically. 2. It is conceded that the Rules of Jaipur had full powers of government including those of legislation. On the 7th September 1922, the late Maharaja died and at the time of his death his successor, the present Maharaja, was a minor. Accordingly, the Crown Representative appointed a Council of Ministers to look after the government and administration of the State during the Maharaj's Minority. 3. On the 11th December, 1923, this Council passed a Resolution which purported to enact the Jaipur Opium Act, and the only question is whether the mere passing of the Resolution without promulgation or publication in the Gazette, or other means to make the Act known to the public, was sufficient to make it law....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC508
Mahajan, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated 4-12-1950 of the Madhya Bharat High Court in Criminal Revision No. 139 of 1950.2. The appellant Pushkar Singh stood his trial for offences under Sections 449 and 372, Gwalior Penal Code, before the Additional City Magistrate of Lashkar. The Magistrate held that no case was established against him and that the sum of money recovered from Pushkar Singh's house belonged to him.The prosecution evidence to the effect that Pushkar Singh brought the money from inside and gave it to the police was disbelieved and it was found that it could not be held that this money belonged to the complainant or appertained to the theft committed in his house. As a result of these findings Pushkar Singh was acquitted. As regards the articles and the money taken from Pushkar Singh's house, it was ordered that they be returned to him after expiry of the period for appeal. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed an application f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC454; (1952)54BOMLR1; [1951]20ITR451(SC); [1952]1SCR1
Mahajan, J.1. The sole controversy in this appeal centers round the point as to whether or not excess profits tax is payable on the sum of Rs. 20,005 received by the respondent from Messrs Parakh & Co. by way of rent for the dyeing plant let out to them during the chargeable accounting period. 2. The respondent (Sri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd.) is a manufacturer of silk cloth, and as a part of its business it installed a plant for dyeing silk yarn. During the chargeable accounting period (1st January, 1943, to 31st December, 1943) owing to difficulty in obtaining silk yarn on account of the war it could make no use of this plant and it remained idle for some time. On the 20th August, 1943, it was let out to Messrs E. Parakh & Co. on a rent of Rs. 4,001 per month. The Excess Profits Tax Officer by his assessment order dated 11th June, 1945, included the sum of Rs. 20,005 realized as rent for five months, in the profits of the business of the respondent and held that excess profits tax was p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC441
Bose, J.1. This is a quarrel between husband and wife. The appellant is the husband.2. On 29-3-1946 the respondent obtained an order against the appellant under Section 488, Criminal P. C. for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 70/-a month. The order was obtained from the Court of a Magistrate at Lahore which is now in Pakistan. It is not disputed that at that time the Court making the order was a proper and competent Court nor is it disputed that prior to the partition of India the order could have been executed under Section 490, Criminal P. C. in the Court of the First Class Magistrate at Delhi. The order was directed to have effect from 31-3-1947.3. The appellant paid the respondent a sum of Rs. 240/- in installments in pursuance of this order but as, according to the respondent, a further sum of Rs. 860/- was due on 18-3-1949 she applied under Section 490 to the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Delhi, for its enforcement.4. The appellant resisted on several grounds. We...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC429; [1951]20ITR594(SC)
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Patna. It arises out of an income-tax reference made to the High Court under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that a joint Hindu family, of which the present appellant was the karta, was assessed to income-tax for the year 1939-40. In 1944 the Income-tax Officer considered that certain income of the family taxable in 1939-40 had escaped assessment. In the meanwhile, the joint family had become divided and necessary steps had been taken by the members to have and order passed under Section 25A (1) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice in the name of the joint Hindu family and served it on the appellant under Section 34 read with Section 22 of the Income-tax Act to make a return in respect of the escaped income and the appellant sent a return in response to that notice. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer made an assessment on the escaped income of Rs. 3...
Tag this Judgment!