Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC804; (1958)0PLR53
S.R. Das, C.J.1. The appellants have filed this appeal on a certificate of fitness granted on 25th May 1956, by the High Court of Punjab under Article 133 of the Constitution. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the said High Court pronounced on 18th October 1955. By that order the said High Court dismissed the application made by the appellants to the said High Court under Article 226 praying for a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and to quash the order of the Deputy Custodian General passed on 18th August 1953, whereby he cancelled the allotment of lands in the village of Ratauli, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Ambala, made to the appellants on 7th June 1950.2. The events which led up to the present. appeal may now be briefly stated. The appellants are refugees from Rawalpindi. On the partition of the country the appellants migrated to India abandoning 273 acres 6 kanals of first grade land irrigated by perennial canals situate in Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC1; [1958]1SCR257
Sinha, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the concurrent orders of the Courts below allowing the Official Receiver's application under s. 35 of Travancore Regulation VIII of 1090 (= 1915), to which we shall refer in the course of this judgment as the Insolvency Regulation, for annulling the usufructuary mortgage (Ex. I) for Rs. 75,000 dated August 18, 1924, executed by a number of persons who may now be conveniently described as the insolvents. The main question for determination in this appeal on behalf of the transferee is whether the transaction in his favour is within the third exception to s. 35 aforesaid. (In this judgment we shall use the dates with reference to the Gregorian Calendar equivalent to the dates maintained under the Malayalam Calendar). 2. In order to appreciate the arguments in this appeal it is necessary to state the following facts. Koya Kunju was a flourishing merchant at Quilon carrying on trade in piece goods, yarn, provisions etc. He died ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC743
Sarkar, J.1. The point involved in this appeal is a very short one. It is whether the appellants are entitled to relief under the Bengal Money Lenders Act (Bengal Act 10 of 1940). Section 30 of that Act provides as follows :'Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or in any agreement. (1) no borrower shall be liable to pay after the commencement of this Act- (a) any sum in respect of principal and interest which together with, any amount already paid or included in any decree in respect of a loan exceeds twice the principal of the original loan, (b) .................................................. (C) .................................................. Whether such loan was advanced or such amount was paid or such decree was passed or such interest accrued before or after the commencement of this Act;'The appellants contend that they are borrowers and are being made to pay in excess of the limit prescribed by this section in respect of a loan to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC815; (1958)IMLJ36(SC); [1958]1SCR214
Jagannadhadas, J.1. These two are appeals against two separate decrees of the High Court of Madras arising out of two suits as between the same contesting parties with reference to a connected set of facts. Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1954 is before us by virtue of special leave granted by this Court under Art. 136(1) of the Constitution. Civil Appeal No. 169 of 1956 has come up by reason of certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The parties to the litigation are Nattukottai Chetties, a wealthy banking community in South India who, at the time, were having large banking transactions in Burma and other places in South-East Asia. One AL. PR. Periakaruppan Chettiar (hereinafter referred to as Periakaruppa) owned and possessed considerable properties. He adopted one AL. PR. Alagappa Chettiar (hereinafter referred to as Alagappa) in or about the year 1914. There arose acute differences between them from about the year 1924 owing to the alleged wasteful h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC999
A.K. Sarkar, J.1. This case has had a somewhat curious course in as much as the two lower courts of appeal were under a clear misapprehension as to the finding of a fact by the trial court. It arises out of an application for adjudication of certain persons (hereinafter called the debtors) as insolvents.2. The petition in insolvency was by some of the respondents as the creditors of the joint family said to be constituted by the debtors. It was filed on or about 19-5-1950. The relationship between the debtors inter se will appear from the genealogical table set out below:BHOWANI ERSHAD (Appellant No. 4)___________|______________| | |Bhola Shankar Shiv Shankar Rama Shankaralias Nanna Mal (respondent (respondentdied in 1936 No. 16) No. 18)|_______________________________| | |Kaushal Kishore Brij Kanwar Kanwar Kishore(appellant (appellant (appellantNo. 1) No. 2) No. 3).The petition stated that the debtors constituted a joint family which carried on three separate businesses under the name...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC742; (1958)0PLR9
Jagannadhadas, J.1. We have heard the matter again at some length because the review application has been made to us on the ground that the Advocate was not fully heard and was denied adequate opportunity for saying what he wanted to say. After rehearing on the points on which the Advocate thought he was not fully heard, we ace not persuaded that we ought to have granted leave in this matter.2. It is not the practice of this Court to give reasons for the dismissal of an application for special leave and we do not want to depart from that practice and give our reasons here why we originally refused leave and why we still think that there are no grounds for our modifying that order.3. This application is accordingly dismissed with costs.4. We cannot, however, part from this matter without placing on record our very strong disapproval of the course that the Advocate--a very senior counsel of this Court--has adopted in making this application. In the review application he has referred in d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC747; (1958)60BOMLR691; 1957CriLJ1325; (1957)35MysLJ(SC)319; [1958]1SCR161
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. These are appeals by special leave by four persons, who along with one Ramniklal Keshavlal Jhaveri (since acquitted) were committed for trial in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Greater Bombay, on charges of conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust of the funds of the Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Jupiter) and in pursuance of the said conspiracy of having committed criminal breach of trust, some of them being directors and agents of the said company. They were alternatively charged for commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust by some of them as directors and the others for abetting the commission of the criminal breach of trust committed by the directors. The trial before the Sessions judge was with the aid of a jury. All of them except Jhaveri were found guilty, appellants in Criminal Appeals Nos. 53 and 54, Sardul Singh Caveeshar and Parmeshwar Nath Kaul, by a majority verdict and appellants in Criminal App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC768; [1957]32ITR466(SC)
Bhagwati, J. 1. This appeal with certificate of fitness under section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta on a reference under section 66(1) of the Act. 2. The respondent owns an area of 6,000 acres of forest land assessed to land revenue and grown with sal and piyasal trees. The forest was originally of spontaneous growth, 'not grown by the aid of human skill and labour' and it has been in existence for about 150 years. A considerable income is derived by the assessee from sales of trees from this forest. The assessment year in which this forest income was last taxed under the Indian Income-tax Act was 1923-24, but, thereafter and till 1944-45, which is the assessment year in question, it was first always left out of account. The assessment for 1944-45 also was first made without including therein any forest income, but the assessment was subsequently re-opened under section 34. In resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1957]32ITR688(SC); (1958)IMLJ26(SC)
Kapur, J. 1. This appeal brought on a certificate of the High Court raises a point of far-reaching consequence as to the interpretation of section 8, 10 and 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter termed the Act). 2. The assessee (who is the appellant before us) claims that in the computation of its profits for the assessment year under review (1945- 46), it is entitled to set off the carried over loss of the previous year against the profits of the year of assessment under section 24(2) of the Act. The assessee is a bank carrying on banking business. For the assessment year its assessable income was computed by the Income- tax Officer at Rs. 14,95,826 'by splitting up' its income into 2 heads 'interest on securities' and 'business income'. 'Interest on securities' in the year of assessment was Rs. 23,62,815 and under the head 'business income' there was a loss of Rs. 8,86,972. After making the necessary adjustments and deducting the business loss from 'Interest on securities',...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC918; [1958]1SCR79
Kapur, J. 1. This appeal brought on a certificate of the High Court raises a point of far-reaching consequence as to the interpretation of Sections 8, 10 and 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter termed the Act). 2. The assessee (who is the appellant before us) claims that in the computation of its profits for the assessment year under review (1945-46), it is entitled to set off the carried over loss of the previous year against the profits of the year of assessment under s. 24(2) of the Act. The assessee is a Bank carrying on banking business. For the assessment year its assessable income was computed by the Income Tax Officer at Rs. 14,95,826 'by splitting up' its income into 2 heads ......... 'interest on securities' and ........... 'business income'. 'Interest on securities' in the year of assessment was Rs. 23,62,815 and under the head 'business income' there was a loss of Rs. 8,86,972. After making the necessary adjustments and deducting the business loss from 'Interest...
Tag this Judgment!