Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC754
Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal with special leave is limited to the question of sentence only.2 The appellant along with one Inder Singh and 4 others was charged under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code with having committed the murder of one Sohan Singh. The four others were acquitted but the appellant and Inder Singh were convicted of the offence with which they had been charged. The learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, while convicting them as above, sentenced each of them to death subject to confirmation by the High Court. The High Court, on hearing the death reference, confirmed the convictions and the sentence of death passed on the appellant though it reduced the sentence imposed upon Inder Singh to one of transportation for life.3. Both the appellant and Inder Singh were armed with rifles and both of them were alleged to have fired the rifles at Bishan Singh, who was the target of the attack. Both the Courts found that the appellant and Inder Singh entertained the common i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC554; (1956)58BOMLR1015; [1956]30ITR181b(SC); [1956]1SCR626b
Bhagawati, J. 1. Two questions were referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to the High Court of Bombay under section 66 (i) of the Indian Income-tax Act : (1) Whether there is any material to justify the assessment of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) from out of the sum of Rs. 61,000 Rupees sixty-one thousand) (for income-tax and excess profits tax and business profits tax purposes) representing the value of high denomination notes which were encashed on the eighteenth day of January one thousand nine hundred and forty-six and (2) Whether in any event by reason of the orders of the Revenue Authorities not having found that the alleged item was from alleged item was from alleged undisclosed business profits the assessment of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) is in law justified for excess profits tax and business profits tax purposes 2. The High Court answered the first question in the affirmative but refused to answer the second question, being of the opinion that even tho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC738; 1956CriLJ1372
Jagannadhadas, J.1. The appellant was the Acting Station Master of Ghatera railway station on the Bina-Katni section of the G. I. P. Railway. He has been convicted under Section 101, Indian Railways Act, in connection with a head-on collision, at his station, of two goods trains on 31-5-1950. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Along with him an Assistant Station Master, M. S. Sharma, a pointsman, Budhu Singh, of the station, as well as a Guard, Badriprasad, were also prosecuted. They were acquitted by the trial Court. The conviction of the appellant was confirmed on appeal to the Sessions Judge and on revision to the High Court. This is an appeal therefrom by special leave.2. The facts which lead to the prosecution were as follows. Ghatera is a non-interlocked station in the Bina-Kanti section. The outlaying stations on each side are Sagoni and Bandakpur. Up trains are being received from Sagoni and down trains from Bandakpur. The station has one main line a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC604; [1956]30ITR163(SC); [1956]1SCR577
Venkatarama Ayyar, J. 1. The appellant is a firm which was constituted under a deed of partnership dated 10-2-1941, and consists of two partners, Subba Rao and Hariprasada Rao. On 21-3-1942 it was registered under section 26-A of the Indian Income-Tax Act No. XI of 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the assessment year 1942. Sometime thereafter, one of the partners, Subba Rao, is stated to have left on a along pilgrimage, and the affairs of the partnership were then managed by Hariprasada Rao as his agent under a general power-of-attorney dated 1-7-1940. Hariprasada Rao then applied under rules 2 and 6 of the rules framed under section 59 of the Act, for renewal of the registration certificate for the year 1942-43, and the application was signed by him for himself and again as the attorney of Subba Rao. Those rules provide that an application for registration of a firm under section 26-A and for renewal of registration certificate 'shall be signed personally by all the partn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC747; [1956]1SCR591
Das C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated the 30th July, 1951 reversing the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Allahabad dated the 8th March, 1943 passed in Suit No. 27 of 1940. The relevant facts are as follows : One Cawashaw Dadabhoy Motishaw, a Parsi, (hereinafter referred to as the testator) died at Allahabad on the 10th November, 1937 leaving him surviving a step-brother (Plaintiff No. 1) now represented by his widow and children, being Respondents Nos. 1 to 8, a step-sister's son (originally Defendant No. 4, subsequently transposed as Plaintiff No. 2) now represented by Respondents Nos. 9 to 12, a step-brother's son (Defendant No. 2) now represented by Respondents Nos. 13 and 14, a step-sister (Defendant No. 3) now Respondent Nos. 15 and a step-sister's daughter (Defendant No. 5) now Respondent No. 16. He is said to have left considerable properties which he acquired in or near Allahabad. Prior t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC713
Bose, J.1. This appeal marks the culmination of a series of acrimonious disputes that have been going on between a section of the Mahommedan community at Jabalpur and one Gulabshah and his son the defendant since the year 1880 about portions of land that adjoin a mosque in Jabalpur known as the Kotwali Masjid. It is now admitted that the masjid proper and the ground on which it is built is wakf property.At one time Gulabshah had claimed even the masjid as his own property but that was decided against him in the year 1881 and since then he, and after him, the present defendant, have admitted that the masjid proper is wakf; but the dispute about the rest continues.2. The suit is supposed to be a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C. although it would be impossible to gather that from the plaint and the subsequent pleadings; and even now it is difficult to know exactly who the plaintiff's are supposed to represent; nor is there any order on record evidencing the permissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC727
Imam, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court of Mysore on a Certificate granted by that Court to the appellant, who was defendant 3 in the suit,2. The plaintiff had purchased the property in suit from one Gangamma, daughter of Grurushanthamma, under a registered sale-deed dated 28-4-43. The property was already mortgaged. The plaintiff accordingly brought a suit for red emption and possession. The appellant had previously purchased the property from the father of defendants 1 and 2 on 31-8-42. His contention was that he was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the mortgage and had effected improvements on the property.3. A preliminary decree for redemption and possession was passed by the Munsiff on 30-6-45. The Munsiff found that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser and had in fact effected improvements on the property. He was entitled to compensation under Section 51, Transfer of Property Act. The preliminary decree accordingly directed the plaintiff to choo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC731; 1956CriLJ1365; 1957(0)KLT25(SC)
S.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a decision of the High Court of Mysore, dated 22-7-1954, by which the convictions and sentences of the appellants were confirmed and their appeals dismissed by the said High Court.2. The Appellants are four in number, (1), Chikkarange Gowda (accused 1), (2) Govindaraju (accused 3), (3) Govinda Gowda (accused 14), (4) Mathi Kulla (accused 19). The appellants, along with several others, were, tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Mysore, who convicted them of the offences under Sections 148, 302, and 302 read with Sections 34 and 149, Penal Code. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 148, Penal Code, and to transportation for life for the offences under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 149, Penal Code.Either during the trial or at the time of recording the convictions, the learned Sessions Judge did not make any distinction, nor did he clearly state which of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC614; [1956]26CompCas280(SC); [1956]1SCR603
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court of Punjab dated the 12th May, 1955, in the following circumstances. 2. The appellant was a resident of Lahore who came over to India in or about November, 1947, and took up residence at Banaras as a displaced person. He had, prior to the 15th August, 1947, a fixed deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 in the Lahore Branch of the Simla Banking and Industrial Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) which had its head-office at Simla. He had also at the time a cash-credit account in the bank. The fixed deposit matured in 1948. The Bank did not pay the amount to the appellant in spite of repeated demands but seems to have adjusted it towards parts payment of a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 which is alleged to have been due from the appellant to the Bank in his cash-credit account and which the appellant disputed and denied. On the 7th November, 1951, the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 (LXX of 1951) was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC628; (1956)ILLJ749SC; [1956]1SCR560
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, and owns a factory called Modi Oil Mills in the district of Meerut. The respondents are workmen employed in the Mills. The business of the Mills consists in the manufacture of oils and paints. On 12-7-1954 the management put up the following notice : 'Notice is hereby given that due to non-availability of groundnut seed and neem seed at the parity with the ruling prices of the groundnut oil and neem oil, the Management is reluctantly compelled to close the Groundnut Crushing Section and Neem Section till the next groundnut season and thus the workers in the attached list are surplus and their services are laid off with effect from 14th July, 1954. Workers, thus affected, shall be paid compensation according to Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1953, subject to conditions laid therein. It is further notified that the time of the attendance as provided in Section 25(D) and (E) shall be 10 a....
Tag this Judgment!