Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC285; [1955]2SCR1331
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. This is an appeal by leave of the High Court of Calcutta under article 132(1) of the Constitution. The appellant before us was the Registrar and Accountant-General of the High Court a Calcutta its Original Side. He was appointed to the post by the Chief Justice of the High Court on the 4th March, 1948 and confirmed therein on the 15th of November, 1948. He was dismissed therefrom with effect from the 1st September, 1951, by an order of Chief Justice dated the 3rd September, 1951. There were various charges against him and Mr. Justice Das Gupta was deputed by order of the Chief Justice dated the 28th May, 1951, to make an enquiry and submit a report. Mr. Justice Das Gupta made a full enquiry and submitted his report on the 11th August, 1951, in which he exonerated the appellant in respect of some of the charges but found him guilty in respect of the other charges. The learned Judge expressed his conclusion as follows : 'Mr. Bose (the appellant) must be held to be gu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC231; (1956)ILLJ227SC; [1955]2SCR1315
Bose, J.1. We are concerned here with three appeals. They arise out of a dispute between the J.K. Iron and Steel Company Limited and the Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union. We will call them the company and the Mazdoor Union respectively. The facts are as follows. 2. The Company had its factory and other works at Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh. On 10-4-1948 the Ministry of Commerce in the Government of India ordered the company to shift its Jute Baling Hoops factory from Kanpur to Calcutta. 3. As no land was available in Calcutta no effect could be given to this order till the year 1950-51. On 19-3-1951 the Iron and Steel Controller ordered the Company to stop the rolling of jute baling hoops at once. Accordingly, the production of these hoops was stopped from that date. 4. At the same time there was scarcity of scrap iron and the Company's case is that that forced it to reduce the working of its furnace from three shifts a day to one. 5. The Company states that because of these two causes it was o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC217; 1956CriLJ426; (1956)IMLJ135(SC); [1955]2SCR1285
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1955. On appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 27th February 1954 of the Saurashtra High Court at Rajkot in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1953 arising out of the judgment and order dated the 5th March 1953 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Halar Division in Sessions Case -No. 26 of 1952. V. N. Sethi, for the appellant. R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 1955. December 22. BOSE J.-The only question in this appeal is whether the High Court bad in mind the principles we have enunciated about interference under section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code when it allowed the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the appellant. It is, in our opinion, well settled that it is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence; there must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial Court was wrong: Amar Singh v. State of Punjab(1) and if th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC197; 1956CriLJ421; [1955]2SCR1101
Sinha, J. 1. This application for a writ of habeas corpus is directed against the State of Jammu and Kashmir which has by its order dated the 4th October, 1955, directed the detention of the petitioner under section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, (Jammu and Kashmir Act IV of 2011), hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'. Originally the sole respondent, impleaded was the State of Jammu and Kashmir. After a rule nisi was issued to the respondent, the Union of India intervened because the petitioner had challenged the validity of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954. 2. The petitioner, P.L. Lakhanpal, aged approximately 28 years, describing himself as the Chairman, End Kashmir Dispute Committee, has moved this Court against the order of the State detaining him in Kothi Bagh sub-jail in Srinagar. The application is based on the following allegations. The petitioner is normally a resident of 9821, Nawabganj, Delhi 6. He went to Kashmir on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC269; [1956]29ITR390(SC); [1955]2SCR1247
ORDER59. BY THE COURT : In accordance with the Judgment of the majority the petition is allowed and it is ordered that a writ of certiorari do issue quashing the report of the Income-tax Investigation Commission dated the 26th August, 1952 and the assessment orders of the Income-tax Officer for the year 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1943-44 to 1948-49, and that a writ of prohibition do issue against the respondents restraining them from implementing the findings of the Investigation Commission with regard to the year 1942-43. The respondents do pay the petitioners' costs of their petition. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC246; [1956]29ITR349(SC); [1955]2SCR1196
Bhagwati, J. 1. These two appeals with certificates under article 3 of the Constitution are directed against a judgment of the High Court of Travancore-Cochin in a writ petition filed by one A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar, hereinafter called the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a native of Quilon within the Travancore State which was originally under the sovereignty of the Maharaja of Travancore. He is the Managing Director of Messrs A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar & Sons Ltd., Quilon, and had been assessed to income-tax for the years 1942 and 1943 and the final orders in his assessment for the said years were passed by the Chief Revenue Authority of Travancore on the 6th December, 1946 and 30th November, 1946 respectively. 3. On the 7th March 1949, the Travancore Legislature passed Act XIV of 1124 (M.E.) modelled on our Act XXX of 1947, styled the Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124 to provide for an investigation into matters relating to taxation on income. Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC202; [1955]2SCR1076; [1956]7STC113(SC)
Das Acting C.J.1. The only question canvassed before us in the above appeals, which have been heard together, is whether certain sales of goods made by Shri Ganesh Jute Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Mills) to the Government of India, Ministry of Industry and Supplies are to be deducted from the taxable turnover of the Mills so as to be exempt from sales tax demanded by the Commercial Tax officer of the State of West Bengal. The relevant facts are stated below. 2. On the first of September 1948 the Government of India, Ministry of Industry and Supplies, in Calcutta, placed with the Mills a confirmatory order in writing bearing No. Cal/J - 1/2001/103 for the supply to the Government of India of a large quantity of hessian cloth of different descriptions at different prices therein mentioned. It was stipulated that the contract would be governed by the conditions of contract specified in Form WSB 133 as amended up-to-date. It was specifically mentioned that the goods ordered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC213; [1956]26CompCas91(SC); (1956)IMLJ95(SC); [1955]2SCR1066
Venkatarama Ayyar, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an application filed by the first respondent under section 162, clauses (v) and (vi), of the Indian Companies Act for an order that the Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., be wound up. The grounds on which the relief was claimed were that the affairs of the Company were being grossly mismanaged, that large amounts were owing to the Government for charges for electric energy supplied by them, that the directors had misappropriated the funds of the Company, and that the directorate which had the majority in voting strength was 'riding roughshod' over the rights of the shareholders. In the alternative, it was prayed that action might be taken under section 153-C and appropriate orders passed to protect the rights of the shareholders. The only effective opposition to the application came from the Chairman of the Company, Appanna Ranga Rao, who contested it on the ground that it was the Vice-Chairman, Devata Ramamohanrao, who was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC241; 1956CriLJ444; (1956)IMLJ130(SC); [1955]2SCR1057
Bose, J. 1. This is a case of rioting in which two police constables were killed. Thirty one persons were put up for trial. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted twenty one of them on all the charges and acquitted the remaining ten of the most serious charge of all, namely the offence falling under the sections of the Travancore Penal Code which correspond to section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 149. But she convicted them on several of the lesser charges and imposed sentences ranging from two to five years on each count and directed that the sentences should run consecutively except in the cases of accused 5 to 8 and 18. She sentenced each of them on only one count and so there was only one sentence. 2. The convicts appealed to the High Court and the State of Travancore-Cochin also appealed against the acquittals on the murder-cum-rioting count. 3. The High Court dismissed the appeals made by the ten accused and allowed the appeals against the acquittals and imposed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1956]30ITR84(SC); [1956]30ITR84a(SC)
1. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by VISCOUNT SIMONDS. This appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, which dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the President of the Exchequer Court of Canada, raises a question of novelty and importance. The appellant is the Minister of National Revenue, the respondent a limited company, Anaconda American Brass Ltd. 2. The Minister, on the assessment of the respondent company to income- tax and excess profits tax for the year 1947, increased the amount of taxable income declared by the company by the sum of $1,611,756.43, with the result that its excess profit tax for that year was increased by about $241,000 and its income-tax by about $483,000. Against this assessment the company appealed to the Exchequer Court : the President of the court allowed the appeal and, as already said, the Supreme Court dismissed the Minister's appeal from his judgment. It is only the excess profits tax with which this appeal is concerned. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!