Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC397; [1957]1SCR233
Bhagwati, J.1. These petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution raise a common question of law whether s. 5(7A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, hereinafter called the Act, is ultra vires the Constitution as infringing the fundamental rights enshrined in Art. 14 and Art. 19(1)(g). 2. The facts which led to the filing of the petitions may be shortly stated. 3. Petitions Nos. 97 & 97-A of 1956 : The petitioners are M/s. Pannalal Binjraj, Oilmill owners, merchants and commission agents, carrying on business at Sahibganj in the district of Santhal Parganas, having their branch at 94, Lower Chitpur Road, Calcutta, petitioner No. 1, and R. B. Jamuna Das Chowdhury, resident of the same place and erstwhile karta of the Hindu undivided family, which carried on business in the name and style of M/s. Pannalal Binjraj, petitioner No. 2. Before September 28, 1954, they were being assessed by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Patna. On September 28, 1954, the Central Board of Revenue made an ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1957]31ITR565(SC)
BHAGWATI, J. - These petitions under article 32 of the Constitution raise a common question of law whether section 5 (7A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, hereinafter called the Act, is ultra vires the Constitution as infringing the fundamental rights enshrined in article 14 and article 19 (1) (g).The facts which led to the filing of the petitions may be shortly stated.Petitions Nos. 97 and 97A of 1956 : The petitioners and Messrs. Pannalal Binjraj, oil mill owners, merchants and commission agents, carrying on business at Sahibganj in the district of Santhal Parganas, having their branch at 94, Lower Chitpur Road, Calcutta, petitioner No. 1, and R. B. Jamuna Das Chowdhury, resident of the same place and erstwhile Karta of the Hindu undivided family, which carried on business in the name and style of Messrs. Pannalal Binjraj, Petitioner No. 2. Before 28th September, 1954, they were being assessed by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Patna. On 28th September, 1954, the Central Board o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC444; [1957]1SCR370
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Election Tribunal, Faizabad, declaring the election of the appellants to the Legislative Assembly, Uttar Pradesh from the Lucknow Central Constituency, void under s. 100(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act No. XLIII of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Constituency is a double-member Constituency, one of the seats being reserved for a member of the Scheduled Castes. The polling took palace on 31-1-1952, and the two appellants were declared elected, they having secured the largest number of votes. On June 10, 1952, the respondent herein filed a petition under s. 81 of the Act alleging that the appellants had committed a number of corrupt practices, and prayed that the election might be declared wholly void. 2. The appellants filed written statements denying these allegations, and on the pleadings, issues were framed on January 17, 1953. Then followed quite a spate of proceedings, co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC227; (1957)ILLJ472SC; [1957]1SCR359
Bhagwati, J. 1. These two appeals with certificates under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution are directed against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature in Assam dismissing the appellants' application under Art. 226 challenging the orders of the first respondent Shri B. L. Sen, Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, whereby he allowed the applications filed on behalf of the labourers employed in the Teok Tea Estate and the Dalim Tea Estate under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act XI of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. On March 11, 1952, the Government of Assam, in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 3 read with sub-s. (2) of s. 5 of the Act issued the following notification : 'No. GLR. 325/51/56. - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 read with sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (XI of 1948), as amended, the Governor of Assam, having considered the advice of the committee appointed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC271; [1957]1SCR208
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. The appellant was one of the candidates who stood for election to the Legislative Assembly of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union from the Faridkot Constituency in the General Elections held in 1954. He secured the largest number of votes, and was declared duly elected. The result was notified in the Official Gazette on February 27, 1954, and the return of the election expenses was published therein on May, 2, 1954. On May 18, 1954, the first respondent filed a petition under s. 81 of the Representation of the People Act No. XLIII of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and therein he prayed that the election of the appellant might be declared void on the ground that he and his agents had committed various corrupt and illegal practices, of which particulars were given. The appellant filed a written statement denying these allegations. He therein raised the further contention that the election petition had not been presented within the time limited by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC276; (1957)ILLJ455SC; [1957]1SCR220
S.K. Das, J. 1. The Punjab National Bank Ltd. is the appellant before us. Shorn of all details not necessary for our purpose, the facts are these. By its Order No. LR-100(98) dated September 2, 1953, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, appointed Shri Ram Kanwar, respondent No. 1, as the Industrial Tribunal for the adjudication of a dispute which had arisen between the appellant and its workmen in respect of the following matter : 'Absorption of Bharat Bank employees in the Punjab National Bank Ltd., and their service conditions.' 2. On April 17, 1954, in the course of certain preliminary proceedings before respondent No. 1, an application was made on behalf of the All India Punjab National Bank Employees' Federation, in which it was stated that a number of other Unions were involved in the dispute in question, because the appellant had branches all over India and there were several Unions of its employees at those branches. It was further stated in the application that some of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC465; 1957CriLJ581
Govinda Menon, J. 1. Zabar Singh, the appellant, has been convicted of an offence Under Section 302, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code, for having participated in the murder of one Sahib Singh and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Special leave having been granted by this Court, his appeal now comes before us.2. On the findings arrived at by the learned Judges of the High Court of Allahabad, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal, and our reasons for that conclusion may be shortly stated as under: --3. The appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Mainpuri, along with two others--Lalman and Poti Ram, for having murdered Sahib Singh by shooting him on the 22nd of May, 1953,. at the bus-stand in Kuraoli Town Area while Sahib Singh was alighting from a motor-bus.4. The prosecution case was that on account of factions in that area due to rivalry in politics, the enemies of Sahib Singh procured the appellant and others to commit the murder. The case was based on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC314; [1957]1SCR195
Jagannadhadas, J.1. The plaintiff in the action out of which this appeal arises brought a suit for declaration of his title to a one-third share in the suit properties and for partition and recovery of that share. The suit was dismissed as having been barred by limitation and adverse possession. On appeal the District Judge reversed the decision and decreed the suit. The High Court maintained the decree of the District Judge on second appeal. Hence this appeal before us on special leave by the first defendant in the action, who is the appellant before us. The main question that arises in the appeal is whether the plaintiff has lost his right to a one-third share in the suit property by adverse possession. 2. The property in suit belonged to one Venkata Reddy. He died an infant on August 25, 1927. At that time, the properties were in the possession of the maternal uncles of the father of the deceased Venkata Reddy. One Hanimi Reddy, an agnatic relation of Venkata Reddy, filed a suit O.S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC466; 1957(0)BLJR191; 1957CriLJ583
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the revisional judgment of the High Court of Patna, by which the conviction of the appellant of offences Under Section 420 and 193, Penal Code had been confirmed and a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment passed on him Under Section 120-B, read with Section 420, Penal Code, by the trial Court and confirmed in appeal, had been transposed for the offence Under Section 420, Penal Code. The sentence Under Section 193, Penal Code was also confirmed but was directed to run concurrently with the other sentence. The circumstances relating to the above appeal may be shortly stated as follows: -One Ramjiwan Himat Singka, who was the Director and Managing Agent of the Express Auto Service, Ltd., was prosecuted, along with the appellant, for an offence Under Section 120-B, read with Section 420, Penal Code, before the First Class Magistrate of Patna, who convicted both of them of that offence, which conviction having been confi...
Tag this Judgment!