Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC118; [1953]23ITR180(SC); [1953]4SCR46
Das, J.1. These two consolidated appeals are directed against the judgment and order made on January 11, 1950, by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in References No. 80 of 1946 and No. 38 of 1948 under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act whereby the High Court relying on its earlier decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. R. Rm. M. Sm. Sevugan alias Manickavasagam Chettiar, held that the references were incompetent and accordingly refused to answer the questions raised therein. The facts are shortly as follows. 2. The respondent who is a Nattukotai Chettiar had his headquarters at Karaikudi in India and also carried on his money-lending business at branches at Maubin, Kualalumpur and Singapore. He also had income from properties at Maubin and Singapore. For the assessment year 1941-42 the Income-tax Officer calculated the assessee's accrued foreign income as Rs. 29,403 at Maubin, Rs. 27,731 at Kualalumpur and Rs. 34,584 at Singapore, in all Rs. 91,718. After deductin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC150; [1954]1SCR578
Ghulam Hasan, J. 1. This petition by twenty persons under article 32 of the Constitution prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition or other suitable order or directions, quashing the orders dated the 1st July, 1952, and the 14th October, 1953, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Deputy Custodian Evacuee Property) Karnal, in the State of East Punjab, hereinafter referred to as the first respondent, whereby the petitioners are alleged to have been deprived of their fundamental right of property and are unable to hold the same within the meaning or article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. 2. The petitioners are displaced persons from Pakistan who migrated to India after the partition of 1947. They owned certain agricultural land in Tehsil Chunian, District Lahore, which, according to them, was mostly canal irrigated land of the first grade, yielding on an average 16 to 20 maunds of wheat per acre. It appears that upon partition the East Punjab Government was confro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC119; (1954)56BOMLR681; [1954]24CompCas103(SC); (1954)IMLJ355(SC); [1954]1SCR674
Patanjali Sastri, C.J. 1. I have fully discussed and explained the meaning and effect of articles 19 and 31 in my Judgment just delivered in Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1952 - The State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose and Others : [1954]1SCR587 . On that view I agree with my learned brothers that the impugned Ordinance authorises, in effect, a deprivation of the property of the Company within the meaning of article 31 without compensation and is not covered by the exception in clause (5)(b)(ii) of that article. The Ordinance thus violates the fundamental right of the Company under article 31(2), and the appellant as a preference shareholders who is now called upon to pay the moneys unpaid on his shares is entitled to impugn the constitutionality of the Ordinance. I also agree with my learned brother Mahajan that the previous of this Court in Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India and Others [2950] S.C.R. 869. is distinguishable and has no application here for the reasons mention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC155; (1954)56BOMLR280; [1954]25ITR50(SC); [1954]1SCR444
Mahajan, J.1. This is appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay delivered on a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, whereby the High Court answered the first referred question in the negative.2. The assessment in question concern the year 1943-44. A Hindu undivided family was carrying on business in Bombay, Madras and the Mysore State. Its business was taken over by a registered firm on March 17, 1942. For the purpose of this appeal however this circumstance is not material. The case has been dealt with on the assumption that a single assessee carried on business from October 10, 1948, to November 8, 1942, the relevant accounting year. According to the accounts of the assessee, during this period the Mysore branch purchased goods from the Bombay head office and the Madras branch of the value of Rs. 2,45,455. The Income-tax Officer estimated these purchases of the Mysore branch in British India at Rs. 3,00,000 and its profits at Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC139; [1954]1SCR842
Das, J. 1. These three appeals which have been heard together arise the same or similar questions. Appeal No. 167 of 1953, relates to Hemgir of which the appellant, Shri Biswambhar Singh, is the proprietor. It comprises an area of about 360 square miles out of which 145 square miles are covered by forests. Appeal No. 168 of 1953 is by the appellant, Shri Janardhan Singh, who is the proprietor of Sarapgarh comprising an area of about 45 square miles. Appeal No. 169 of 1953 relates to Nagra the proprietor whereof is the appellant, Shri Sibanarayan Singh Mahapatra. It comprises an area of 545 square miles including 109 square miles of forests. 2. All these proprietors are the descendants of Bhuiyan Chiefs and they claim that their ancestors where independent ruling chiefs of their respective principalities. There is no dispute that in course of time they became subordinate vassals of the Raja of Gangpur. It appears from Connolly's Report, Mukherjee's Report and Ramdhyani's Report that nei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC153; (1954)56BOMLR286; [1954]1SCR572
Das, J. 1. The petitioner before us is in occupation of two rooms Nos. 387 and 388 in Barrack No. T-93 in Sion Dharavi Camp in Greater Bombay. The camp consisting of several tenements was constructed and owned by the Government of India during the last world war for the use of the military. In 1948 the Government of Bombay now represented by the State of Bombay purchased the camp and entrusted the management thereof to the Bombay Provincial Housing Board - a body constituted by a Government Resolution. In the same year the Bombay Housing Board, the respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the Board), was established by the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 (Act No. LXIX of 1948) as a body corporate, competent to acquire and hold property. The purposes of the Act included the management and use of lands and buildings belonging to or vested in the Board. The Board is authorised to frame and execute housing schemes. Under section 3(3) the Board is to be deemed to be a local authority for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC92; (1954)IMLJ314(SC); [1954]1SCR587
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This appeal raises issues of great public and private importance regarding the extent of protection which the Constitution of India accords to ownership of private property. 2. The first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) purchased the entire Touzi No. 341 of the 24-Parganas Collectorate at a revenue sale held on January 9, 1942. As such purchaser, the respondent acquired under section 37 of the Bengal Revenue Sales Act, 1859 (Central Act No. 11 of 1859) the right 'to avoid and annul all under-tenants and forthwith to eject all under-tenants' with certain exceptions which are not material here. In exercise of that right the respondent gave notices of ejectment and brought a suit in 1946 to evict certain under-tenants, including the second respondent herein, and to recover possession of lands. The suit was decreed against the second respondent who preferred an appeal to the District Judge, 24-Parganas, contending that his under-tenure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC4; 1956CriLJ121
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Punjab under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution against its judgment confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, Penal Code, and the sentence of death passed in respect thereof. The incident which gave rise to the charges against the appellant resulted in four persons receiving gun-shot injuries and they were (1) Bishan Chand, (2) his wife Mst.. Kanta Devi, (3) Bishan Bhagwan, and (4) his sister, Mst. Kamala Devi. Of the four, the first two succumbed shortly thereafter and the other two survived. The case for the prosecution is as follows.On 12-8-1952, there was a ceremony at the house of Bishan Chand deceased to which some of his relations were invited. Mst. Satya Devi, the wife of the appellant was one of such invitees, she being related to Bishan Chand through his predeceased first wife. The feelings between the appellant and his wife. Mst. Satya Devi, were said to have become so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC163; [1954]25ITR72(SC); [1954]1SCR537
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. The two connected appeals arise out of applications made to the High Court of Judicature at Bangalore under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Circle, Bangalore, to assess the appellant to income-tax and super-tax on his income accruing prior to April 1, 1950, in the State of Mysore and praying for the issue of appropriate writs in that behalf. The applications were dismissed by the court and leave to appeal having been refused, the appellant has brought these appeals by special leave of this court. 2. It is a matter of admission that the officer making the assessments was an officer appointed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and that in making such assessments he has applying the Income-tax law in force in the State of Mysore down to the end of the year of account 1948-49. The officer was exercising jurisdiction in the State by virtue of the proviso to section 13 of the Indian Finance Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC158; [1954]25ITR58(SC); [1954]1SCR541
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Rajasthan directing by writ issued under article 226 of the Constitution that the Union of India, appellant herein, should not levy Income-tax on the income of the respondent accruing, arising or received in Rajasthan (excluding the area of the former covenanting State of Bundi) prior to April 1, 1950. 2. The respondent resides and carries on business in the District of Jodhpur in Rajasthan which is one of the States specified in Part B of the First Schedule to the Constitution (hereinafter referred to as Part B States). In May, 1950, the respondent was required to file a return of his income for the previous year, that is the year ending March 31, 1950, for assessment to income-tax, and subsequently was also asked to produce the relevant account books before the Income-tax Officer, Jodhpur, on August 11, 1950. Thereupon the respondent presented the petition, out of which this appeal arises, on August 23, 195...
Tag this Judgment!