Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC275; [1959]Supp1SCR237
S.K. Das, J.1. In this appeal, pursuant to special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras, the question for decision is whether the appellant who claims to be an agriculturist debtor is entitled to apply for scaling down of his decretal debt under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (Mad. IV of 1938), hereinafter called the Act, as amended by the Madras Agriculturists' Relief (Amendment) Act (Mad. XXIII of 1948), hereinafter called the amending Act. 2. The facts which have led to this appeal are that a partnership firm, briefly described as M. A. R. Firm, whose partners were Arunachalam Chetty, his two sisters and Subramaniam Chetty, was carrying on the business of money lending. On the death of Arunachalam Chetty on July 6, 1916, Subramaniam Chetty, one of the surviving partners, took over the assets of the dissolved partnership firm at a valuation of Rs. 25,000 and carried on the business under the name and style of P. L. S. Firm of which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC244; [1959]Supp1SCR213
Sarkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of an election petition filed by the respondent No. 1, Hira Singh Paul, whom we shall hereinafter refer to as the respondent. The other respondent to this appeal is the Election Commission, but it has not appeared presumably because it is not interested in the result of the appeal which involves no claim against it. The only question that it involves is whether the appellant was guilty of a corrupt practice, the details of which will be set out later, within the meaning of section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. In the 1957 General Elections, ten candidates filed their nomination papers to contest the election from the Mahasu double member constituency in Himachal Pradesh. One of the two seats for this constituency was reserved for a scheduled caste candidate. Two of the candidates withdrew from the contest and the remaining eight went to the poll. These eight included the appellant, the respondent and one Nek Ram. Nek Ram wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC389; (1959)ILLJ285SC; (1959)ILLJ285SC; [1959]Supp1SCR222
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the question for decision is the dismissal of some workmen. The appellant before us is the employer and the respondents are some of the workmen, 47 in number who might be divided into two sets, the first set Nos. 2 to 24 and second Nos. 25 to 48. Out of the latter No. 26 is dead. 2. The facts leading to the appeal are that on August 3, 1953, the Government of West Bengal referred under of the Industrial Disputes Act - Section 10 hereinafter called the Act, to the second Industrial Tribunal, an industrial dispute between the appellant and its workmen. During the pendency of this Reference the workmen acted in a manner subversive of discipline, wilful insubordination and disobedience inasmuch as they surrounded by forming a kind of cordon round E. L. D'Cruz, acting Works Manager of the company, illegally confined him in a small place in the factory premises and kept him so confined betwe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC219; [1959]35ITR400(SC); [1959]Supp1SCR204
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The facts, so far as they are material, are these : The appellant is a resident of what was once the independent State of Udaipur. There was in that State a Company called the Mewar Industries, Ltd., registered under the provisions of the law in force in that State, and the appellant held 266 shares in that Company. On January 18, 1950, the Company went into liquidation, and on April 22, 1950, the liquidator distributed a portion of the assets among the shareholders, and the appellant was paid a sum of Rs. 26,000 under this distribution. It is common ground that this sum represents the undistributed profits of the Company which had accrued during the six accounting years preceding the liquidation. It should be mentioned that there was in the State of Udaipur no law imposing tax on inco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1959]35ITR388(SC); 1959Supp(1)SCC189
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These four appeals arise from four petitions filed against the Income-tax Officer, Nellore Circle, Nellore, respondent 1, in respect of the proceedings taken by him against three firms under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the Act). The firm M/s. Bellapu Audeyya and Chilla Pitchayya was formed on April 20, 1936, and it was dissolved on March 31, 1948. It consisted of two partners, Chilla Pitchayya and Bellapu Audeyya. Chilla Pitchayya had started another firm in the name and style of G. Pitchayya &; Co. with another partner R. Subba Rao. This firm was formed on July 30, 1941, and it was dissolved on March 31, 1949. Bellapu Audeyya and Chilla Pitchayya had also formed another firm along with five other partners which carried on its business in the name and style of Prabhat Textiles. This firm was formed on December 1, 1941, and it was dissolved by a decree of the civil court passed on December 22, 1949, the dissolution having taken effect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC239; [1959]35ITR312(SC); 1959Supp(1)SCC176; [1959]Supp1SCR176
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa in a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the point for decision is whether income received by the respondent by the sale of trees groing in his forests is agricultural income exempt from taxation under section 4(3)(viii) of the Act. 2. The respondent is the proprietor of the impartible zamin of Jaipur in Koraput District. The estate is of the area of 12,000 sq. miles of which 1540 sq. miles are reserve forest and 100 sq. miles, protected forest. The respondent derives income from the forests by the sale of timber such as teak, salwood, lac, myrabolam, tamarind, cashewnuts and firewood. There is no dispute either as to the receipt of such income or as to its quantum. All that appears in the account books of the respondent. The point in controversy is as to whether this income is chargeable to tax. It is the contention of the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
B.P. Sinha, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is directed against certain orders passed by officers of the Bihar Government in the Education Department, in respect of the Parsa High English School, and prays for an appropriate writ, direction or order restraining them from taking possession of the school, or in any way, interfering with the internal management of the said school. The first petitioner, Shri Dwarka Nath Tewari, M.P., claims to be the President of the Managing Committee of the school, the second petitioner, Shri Murlidhar Pandey, to be the Secretary, and the petitioners 3 to 6, to be members of the Managing Committee of the school. The 7th and the last petitioner is the Parsa High English School through the Secretary, Managing Committee. The State of Bihar is the first respondent, and the Board of Education, Bihar, is the second respondent. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 are officers of the Government, who have been constituted an ad hoc Committees pending t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC223; [1959]Supp1SCR160
Das, C.J.1. By each of these 32 petitions under Article 32 of our Constitution, which have been heard together, the respective petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (Himachal 15 of 1954) which is said to have been passed by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Himachal Pradesh created by the Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New State) Act (32 of 1954). 2. On November 23, 1954, the President of India gave his assent to the Bill which on being so assented to became the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, (Himachal 15 of 1954) (hereinafter called the Abolition Act). On January 26, 1955, this Abolition Act was brought into force by a notification issued under section 1(3) thereof. It will be convenient at this stage of refer to some of the relevant sections of the Abolition Act. Section 11 confers a new right on the tenants to acquire the interests of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC265; [1959]35ITR168(SC); [1959]Supp1SCR142
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises from the assessment proceedings taken against the appellant, Rajputana Agencies Ltd., Lavanpur, for its income for the assessment year 1952-53, the accounting period being the corresponding Marwadi year ending in October, 1951. The appellant is a private limited company and it was assessed to income-tax and super-tax by the Income-tax Officer, Morvi Circle, Morvi, on a total income of Rs. 26,385. The appellant had declared dividend of Rs. 30,000. The Income-tax Officer held that out of the said amount of dividend, Rs. 15,159 was excess dividend. On this basis the Income-tax Officer determined the additional income-tax payable by the appellant at the rate of forty-four pies in a rupee on the said excess dividend. The additional income-tax payable by the appellant in that behalf was computed at Rs. 3,473-15-0. This order was passed on November 25, 1952. 2. The appellant filed an appeal against this order before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC79; 1959CriLJ248; 1959Supp(1)SCC153; [1959]Supp1SCR153
Kapur, J.1. These two appeals involve a common question of law and may be disposed of by one judgment. 2. In Criminal Appeal No. 115/56 the respondent Bansraj, driver of a public carrier, of which he was not an owner, was found carrying 23 passengers instead of 6 allowed under the conditions of permit No. 42-926-123 granted to the owner. The vehicle was checked by a Head Constable who on counting the number of passengers found them to be 23. Bansraj respondent was prosecuted under section 42 read with section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (IV of 1939), as it existed at the date of the offence; (to be called the Act in this judgment). Bansraj respondent pleaded not guilty and stated that only six passengers were being carried. He was tried summarily by a First Class Magistrate at Gorakhpur and found guilty under section 123 of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default three months' rigorous imprisonment. He went in revision to the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, and ther...
Tag this Judgment!