Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1125; 1960CriLJ1504; [1961]1SCR14
Shah, J.1. The Civil and Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, convicted Deoman Upadhyaya - respondent to this appeal - of intentionally causing the death of one Sukhdei in the early hours of June 19, 1958, at village Anandadih, District Varanasi, and sentenced him to death subject to confirmation by the High Court. The order of conviction and sentence was set aside by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Against that order of acquittal, the State of Uttar Pradesh has appealed to this court with a certificate granted by the High Court. 2. Deoman was married to one Dulari. Dulari's parents had died in her infancy and she was brought up by Sukhdei, her cousin. Sukhdei gifted certain agricultural lands inherited by her from her father to Dulari. The lands gifted to Dulari and the lands of Sukhdei were cultivated by Mahabir, uncle of Deoman. Mahabir and Deoman entered into negotiations for the sale of some of these lands situated at village Anandadih, but Sukhdei refused to agree to the proposed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1113; (1960)62BOMLR915; [1961]1SCR1
S.K. Das, J.1. This is an unfortunate case in which a complaint filed in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, on October 31, 1956, by one Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar, respondent herein, has to be finally disposed of in the year 1960 in circumstances which we shall state at once. On June 3, 1956, in the evening, a public meeting was held at a place called Chowpatty in Bombay which was to be addressed by the Prime Minister of India. The meeting was called in connection with an agitation which was then going on for the reorganisation of the State of Bombay. There was considerable disturbance at the meeting as a result whereof it had to be dispersed, and large crowds of people began to wander about in various localities around Chowpatty including an area round Charni Road Station. The case of the complaining respondent was that at about 8 p.m. his younger brother Sitaram was crossing Queen's Road near a building called Laud Mansion. At that time there was a large crowd on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1344
J.C. Shah, J. 1. Major U.R. Bhatt, who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant was appointed Senior Inspector, (Fruit Products) in the Central Agricultural Marketing Department of the Government of India on April 9, 1946. The appellant was initially employed on probation for six months and his appointment was liable to be terminated without notice during probation and thereafter by notice of three months' duration on either side. The appellant continued to work as Senior Inspector till March 17, 1947. He was then served with a charge-sheet and called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed or removed from service or otherwise punished. The appellant submitted his written statement on March 22, 1947. On March 25, 1947, he appeared before the Joint Secretary of the Agricultural Department and he was heard in person. The Joint Secretary made a report recommending that the appellant's employment be terminated according to the terms of the contract by giving him notice. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1118; [1960]3SCR975
Das Gupta, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the respondents 1 and 2, Sher Singh and Labh Singh, for a declaration that a deed of gift executed by the first appellant, Jai Kaur, in respect of 8 (1-10) Bighas of land which she had inherited from her husband, Dev Singh, in favour of her two daughters, the 2nd & 3rd appellants before us, 'shall be null and void against the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs', and defendant Nos. 4 to 6 after the death of defendant No. 1 (i.e., Jai Kaur) and shall not be binding upon them. The plaintiffs' case was that these lands left by Dev Singh were all ancestral lands qua the plaintiffs and according to the customary law which governs the Jats belonging to Grewal got to which these parties belong daughters do not succeed to property left by sonless fathers and so the gift by Dev Singh's widow in favour of her daughters would be null and void as against the plaintiffs and others who would be entitled on Jai Kaur's de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1232; [1960]40ITR307(SC); [1960]3SCR988
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay passed in Income-Tax Reference No. 31 of 1956. The appellant is the Commissioner of Income-tax and the respondent is a firm carrying on business in Bombay and the question for decision arises under the Business Profits Tax Act (Act 21 of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The assessment relates to the year of assessment 1949-50 and the chargeable accounting period was from November 13, 1947, to October 31, 1948. On January 12, 1953, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice on the respondent under s. 11(1) of the Act in respect of the above-mentioned chargeable accounting period which was served on the respondent on January 21, 1953. The respondent filed a return under protest. The assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer on November 31, 1953. Against this order the respondent took an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the respondent was not liable t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1012; [1960(1)FLR411]; (1961)ILLJ244SC; [1960]3SCR968
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal by special leave raises a short question about the construction and effect of the provisions of s. 22(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947, (hereinafter called the Act). The appellant, Ramnagar Cane & Sugar Co. Ltd., Calcutta, is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and carries on the business of manufacturing sugar which is an essential commodity in its factory at Plassey in the District of Nadia. The appellant was declared a public utility concern or service by a notification duly issued in that behalf on October 8, 1953. The appellant employs in its business about 545 permanent men and 703 seasonal men excluding casual labourers. A majority of the workmen employed by the appellant belong to the Ramnagar Cane & Sugar Co. Employees' Union (hereinafter called the Employees' Union), whereas a minority of workmen belong to the rival Union called Ramnagar Sugar Mill Workers' Union (hereinafter called the Workers' Union). It ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1182; (1961)63BOMLR549; [1960]40ITR184(SC); [1960]3SCR880
Hidayatullah, J.1. This appeal is with a certificate granted by the High Court against its judgment and order dated September 9, 1955, in a reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Tribunal had referred the following questions for the decision of the High Court : '(1) Whether there was any excess dividend declared by the assessee Company (2) Whether the assessee Company is liable to pay additional income-tax in respect of the excess dividend paid by the assessee Company ?' 2. The High Court answered the first question in the affirmative and the second, in the negative. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay is the appellant before us, and the Jalgaon Electric Supply Co., Ltd. (the assessee Company) is the respondent. 3. The facts of the case are simple. For the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51, the book profits of the assessee Company were respectively Rs. 1,22,469 and Rs. 76,886. After adjustment of depreciation allowance and other deductions, the income of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1080; [1960]3SCR887
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 443 of 1955 and 40-41 of 1956. Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P.L. Vohra, for the petitioners (In all the petitions). R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the State of Madras. K. V. Suryanarayana Iyer, Advocate-General for the State of Kerala and T. M. Sen, for the State of Kerala. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. R. Krishna Pillai, for respondents Nos. 2 to 9. Purshottam Trikamdas and M. B. Krishna Pillai, for respondent No. 12 (In Petn. Nos. 40-41 of 56). A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. R. Krishnaswami, for respondents Nos. 13 and 15-17 (In Petn. No. 443 of 55). K. B. Krishnaswami for respondents Nos. 11 and 14 (In all the petitions). Purshottam Trikamdas and K. R. Krishnaswami, for respondent No. 12 (In Petn. No. 443 of 55). A.V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. R. Krishna Pillai, for Intervener No. 1. Sar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC971; [1960]3SCR857
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Madras High Court. The appellant company had been carrying on various classes of insurance business other than life insurance after its incorporation in September, 1941. On the October 15, 1956, an extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders of the Company passed a resolution by which all its insurance business was to cease forthwith and no further policies of insurance of any kind were to be issued thereafter. It was also resolved that no application should be made for renewal of the certificate granted under s. 3 of the Insurance Act, No. IV of 1938 (hereinafter called the Act), and that thence-forward the Company should only carry on the business of money-lending as a loan-Company and also to do investment business. In consequence of these resolutions, the Company informed the Controller of Insurance in December, 1956, that it was not applying for renewal of its registration for carrying on the business of insuran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1328; [1960(1)FLR587]; (1960)IILLJ37SC
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.1. The appellant, Newspapers Ltd., Allahabad, publishes three newpapers viz., the Leader, the Bharat and the Sangam. The Sangam was an unprofitable publication, and due to financial stringency caused by the loss incurred on it the appellant had to close its publication. In consequence the appellant retrenched thereof its employees who are respondents 3 to 5. On behalf of the said employees an industrial dispute was raised and it was referred by the State Government for adjudication under its notification issued on January 15, 1953, under Sections 3, 4 and 8 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and in pursuance of Clause 10 of the Government Order of March 15, 1951. The industrial tribunal held that the appellant was not guilty of victimisation, but nevertheless it found that in retrenching respondents 3 to 5 the appellant had not followed the industrial principle of 'first come last go'. According to the tribunal respondents 6 to 8 who were junior to respo...
Tag this Judgment!