Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1373; [1961]1SCR445
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Patna High Court. The appellant is a Public Limited Company with its registered office at Calcutta. A mining lease was granted to it by the Raja of Ramgarh on December 29, 1947, for a period of 999 years in respect of 3026 villages situate within the Ramgarh Estate and the appellant was put in possession thereof. On February 1, 1950, the appellant granted a sub-lease of two of the villages comprised in its grant to one Bhagat Singh for a term of 15 years. In the meantime the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (LIII of 1948), (hereinafter called the Act), had come into force along with the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 (hereinafter called the Rules), in the area in which the two villages lay. Bhagat Singh then applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, for the grant of a certificate of approval under the Rules. Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner, taking the view that the sub-lease granted was in contravention of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC56; [1960]40ITR490(SC); [1961]1SCR453
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal with the special leave of this Court against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan dated April 22, 1954. The appellant is a private limited company, which was incorporated in 1945 in the former Kotah State. The income-tax authorities sought to tax its profits and income for the assessment year 1950-51, corresponding to the previous year, 1949-50. The appellant claimed exemption under section 14(2) (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as it stood before the amendment in 1953, contending that the exemption stood good even after the amendment. This claim was rejected by the High Court, which was moved under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Hence this appeal. 2. Prior to the integration of the Kotah State into the United State of Rajasthan in 1949, there was no income-tax law in force in Kotah State. Till the formation of the State of Rajasthan, there was no such law in force in any part of Rajasthan, except Bundi State. The Indian Finance Act of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC29; (1961)63BOMLR251; [1960]30CompCas644(SC); [1961]1SCR417
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The appellant Raja Narayanlal Bansilal of Bombay is the managing Agent of a Limited Company named the Harinagar Sugar Mills Limited. By virtue of the power conferred on him by s. 137 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (VII of 1913), the Registrar wrote to the mills on November 15, 1954, that it had been represented to him under s. 137(6) that the business of the company was carried on in fraud, and so he called upon the company to furnish the information which he required as set out in a part of his letter (Ex. A). On April 15, 1955, the Registrar made a report (Ex. AA) to the Central Government under s. 137(5) of the said Act. This report showed that according to the Registrar the affairs of the company were carried on in fraud of contributories and they disclosed an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The report pointed out that the appellant was the Managing Agent of the company as well as its promoter, and that it was suspected that under a fictitious name of Bans...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1; (1961)63BOMLR265; (1961)63PLR439; [1961]1SCR458
Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal by special leave of this Court raises a very short point regarding the construction of s. 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954). 2. The respondent owned a milk shop within the Municipal limits of the city of Baroda. The Food Inspector of the Municipality visited the shop on July 9, 1956 and purchased milk for analysis. This was sent to the Public Analyst and when his report was to the effect that the sample was adulterated the Inspector applied to the Chief Officer, Borough Municipality, Baroda, for the latter's consent, for instituting criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to hereafter as the Act), against the respondent. A consent in writing to the initiation of this prosecution was given by the Chief Officer and thereafter the complaint out of which this appeal arises was instituted charging the respondent with an offence under s. 16 read with s. 7 of the Act for selling adulterated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC65; [1961]1SCR379; [1960]11STC655(SC)
Shah, J.1. By this petition for writs of certiorari and mandamus, the Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the company, challenges the authority of the Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range, Calcutta, to demand payment of Rs. 41,14,718.12 nP. to the West Bengal Government as tax leviable under the Central Sales Tax Act No. 74 of 1956 in respect of certain sales of steel goods. 2. The company has its registered office in Bombay, its Head Sales office in Calcutta in the State of West Bengal and its factories in Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar. The company is registered as a 'dealer' under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, and is also registered as a 'dealer' in the State of West Bengal under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the period of assessment July 1, 1957, to March 31, 1958, the company submitted its return of taxable sales to the Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range, Calcutta, disclosing a gross taxable turnover of Rs. 9,561-71 nP. in respect of sales liable to Centr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC16; [1961]1SCR368
Sinha, C.J.1. The only substantial question that arises for determination in this appeal, on a certificated granted by the Calcutta High Court under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, is whether the Government of West Bengal was bound to frame a development scheme under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 21 of 1948, which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act, when it exercised its power of emergency under s. 7 of the Act.2. The facts of this case lie within a very narrow compass and are as follows : The respondent was the owner of about 18 bighas of land in a certain village in the district of 24 Parganas. By a notification dated January 6, 1950, and published in the Calcutta Gazette dated January 12, 1950, under s. 4 of the Act the Government declared that the cadastral survey plots, particulars where of were given in the notification, were likely to be needed for the settlement of immigrants and for creation of better living conditions in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC14; [1961]1SCR362
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad on a certificate granted under Arts. 132 and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. The respondent herein was the petitioner in the High Court in one of the petitions which were filed in that Court covering the question which has been raised before us. The appellants before us were the respondents in the High Court. 2. The respondent was the Ruler of the State of Bharatpur, now a part of Rajasthan, and is the owner of the property in dispute known as 'Kothi Kandhari Jadid' in Agra. On January 28, 1950, the Agra Improvement Trust - hereinafter called the Trust - passed a resolution under s. 5 of the U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948, (U. P. XXVI of 1948) - hereinafter called the Act - for the acquisition of the property in dispute and expressed its willingness to act as 'builder' within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. The Government declared the Trust as the 'builder...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC4; (1961)63BOMLR138; 1978CriLJ1281; [1961]1SCR341
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The appellants in these two appeals had filed two separate petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court in which they had challenged the vires of s. 6 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (LXVII of 1948) (hereafter called the Act) and the validity of the notification issued by the Government on October 17, 1952, under the provisions of the said s. 6 (2). It appears that on June 23, 1949, in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 6 (2) of the Act, the Government had issued a notification fixing 'in the case of an irrigated land 1/5 and in the case of any other land 1/4 of the crops of such land or its value as determined in the prescribed manner as the maximum rent payable by the tenants of the lands situate in the areas specified in the schedule appended thereto'. Amongst the areas thus specified was the area in which the appellants' lands are situated. Subsequently, on October 17, 1952, by virtue of the same powers a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC41; [1961]1SCR305
Subba rao, J.1. These four petitions are filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution forquashing the orders of the Assistant Controller of Imports and Exports, theCollector of Customs and Central Excise, Pondicherry, the Board of Revenue, andthe Government of India, and for an appropriate direction requiring therespondents to refund the amount realised from the petitioners. 2. Messrs. Universal Imports Agency and the proprietor of the agency are thepetitioners in the first three petitions and Messrs. Victory Traders are thepetitioners in the last one. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports,Pondicherry, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Pondicherry, theCentral Board of Revenue and the Government of India are the respondents in allthe petitions. 3. Messrs. French India Importing Corporation and Messrs. B. S. & Co.intervened in the Writ Petitions. 4. Pondicherry was a French possession in India. On October 21, 1954, theGovernment of India and the Government of France entered i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC156; [1961]1SCR259
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The Associated Hotels of India Ltd., and its Managing Director Mohan Singh Oberoi (hereafter called appellants 1 and 2 respectively) had filed an application in the High Court of Punjab under O. 45, r. 15 of the Civil Procedure Code for executing a decree passed by the Federal Court of Pakistan in favour of appellant 2 and against Jodha Mal Kuthalia (hereafter called the respondent). The said application was dismissed but, on an application made by the appellants under Art. 133(1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution, the said High Court granted a certificate to the appellants and it is with the said certificate that they have preferred the present appeal before this Court. 2. It is necessary at the outset to state the material facts leading to the appellants' application before the High Court under O. 45, r. 15. It appears that by an agreement dated October 2, 1947, the respondent had agreed to sell to the appellants certain property known as Nedous Hotel at Lahore for...
Tag this Judgment!