Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1265; [1961]42ITR123(SC); [1961]3SCR923
Shah, J.1. M/s. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co. - hereinafter called the assessees - owned an oil mill at Khammamath in the area of the former State of Hyderabad. For the year of assessment Fasli 1357 (October 1, 1946, to September 30, 1947), the assessees returned an income of Rs. 50,384/-. The Income-tax Officer found that the books of account maintained by the assessees were unreliable and by his order dated February 10, 1950, he assessed their total income at Rs. 1,63,131/-. The Income-tax Officer had, before finalising the assessment, issued on December 22, 1949, a notice to the assessees under s. 40 of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act requiring them to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon them and by order dated October 31, 1951, directed the assessees to pay by way of penalty Rs. 42,000/- in addition to the tax. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal observed that by virtue of the provisions of s. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1204; [1961]3SCR907
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner of Vindhya Pradesh. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these : The appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Panna, issued on December 29, 1953, to the effect that the appellant's rights in certain villages would be resumed from January 1, 1954, in pursuance of the notification of the Government of Vindhya Pradesh dated December 20, 1953, under s. 5 of the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, No. XI of 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) resuming all jagirs with a gross annual income of Rs. 1,000/- or above, be quashed. The appellant's case was that she was granted as a special case a Lambardari lease in certain villages by His Highness the Maharaja of Panna on December 7, 1945, for a period of thirty years and had been in possession thereof in accordance with the terms of the lease. The appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1134; [1961]42ITR163(SC); [1961]3SCR893
Kapur, J. 1. This is an appeal pursuant to a certificate of the High Court of Bombay under section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'). For the year of assessment 1949-50 the respondent was assessed to a sum of Rs. 1,80,646-14-0 as income-tax and super-tax on June 2, 1954. A notice of demand under section 29 of the Act was served on the respondent to pay that amount on or before July 17, 1954. On his application the respondent was allowed to pay by installments. The last instalment of Rs. 30,646-14-0 was payable on or before March 20, 1955. As there was a default in the payment of this instalment the Income-tax Officer on March 31, 1955, imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,000 under section 46(1) of the Act. On April 20, 1955, the respondent filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but by that date the last instalment had not been paid and it was paid on May 16, 1955. The Income-tax Officer raised a preliminary objection before the Appellate Assista...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1277; (1962)64BOMLR82; [1961]3SCR896
Shah, J. 1. The genealogy which sets out the relationship between some of the principal parties in this litigation is as follows : Mallappa | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | | |Balappa Shivappa Basavanappa Chanamalappa | | | | ----------------- | Basalingappa Balappa | | | (ParvatewaRachappa Basalingappa | respdt. 12)deft. 9 (adopted by | | | Basavanappa) | -----------------------Chanamalappa | | | | Shrishailappa Shivappa | (plaintiff 1) (plaintiff 2) |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | |Malappa Chanabasappa Balappa Basavanappa Shrishailappa(deft. 5) (deft. 6) (adopted by (deft. 7) (deft. 8) Chanamalappa)2. Mallappa had four sons Balappa, Shivappa, Basavanappa and Chanamalappa. These four sons formed a joint Hindu family. Chanamalappa separated himself from the joint family sometimes in the year 1909 and his other three brothers continued to remain joint. Shivappa was the Managers of the joint family after t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1419; [1961]3SCR880
Shah, J.1. To secure repayment of Rs. 2,500/- Anath Nath Mittra - hereinafter referred to as Mittra - mortgaged four parcels of land to Haridas Mondal - hereinafter referred to as Mondal - by deed dated April 25, 1930. Mondal filed suit No. 18 of 1937 on June 11, 1937, for enforcement of the mortgage in the Court of the 2nd Subordinate Judge, Midnapore, and obtained a preliminary mortgage-decree for Rs. 5,000/- and interest and costs. This decree was made absolute and in execution of the decree, the mortgaged property was sold for Rs. 4,160/- and an amount of Rs. 2,176-6-6 out of the decretal amount remained due and payable under the mortgage decree. Out of the four parcels of land sold, three were purchased by Mondal and the remaining was purchased by Mittra's wife. Mondal then applied for a personal decree under O. 34, r. 6 of the Civil Procedure Code and obtained on September 7, 1940, a decree for payment of Rs. 2,338-15-0 against Mittra. Mondal then applied for executing the person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1074; (1963)IMLJ11(SC); [1961]3SCR875
Das Gupta, J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation in execution proceedings. The decree sought to be executed was made by the Civil Judge, Kanpur, on September 2, 1938, in a suit for partition brought by two brothers Jumna Prasad and Devi Prasad and two minor sons of Jumna Prasad, against Gajju Lal, his son Jawala Prasad, the four minor sons of Jawala Prasad - Sharda Prasad, Dharam Pal, Ram Pal and Krishna Pal, and one Smt. Sundari. By the decree one of the properties, a house formerly bearing No. 36/22 and now 36/58, Etawa Bazar, Kanpur, was awarded along with other properties to the defendants in the suit. The present application for execution was made by the four brothers, Sharda Prasad, Dharam Pal, Ram Pal and Krishna Pal on November 23, 1949. The prayer was that these applicants may be delivered possession over this Etawa Bazar house along with Gajju Lal, Jawala Prasad and Smt. Sundari on dispossession of Jumna Prasad and Devi Prasad. It is stated in the application that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1087; [1961]3SCR855
Wanchoo, J.1. These are four appeals on certificates granted by the Mysore High Court. They will be disposed of together as the points raised in them are common. The facts of these cases are complicated and may be mentioned in some detail. On July 7, 1949, the then State of Mysore passed The Mysore Administration of Evacuee Property (Emergency) Act, No. XLVII of 1949 (hereinafter called the first Mysore Act). It provided for the appointment of a Custodian of Evacuee Property for the State of Mysore and other officers subordinate to him for the purpose of administering evacuee property in that State. Section 2(c) defined an 'evacuee' and s. 2(d) 'evacuee property'. Section 5 laid down that all evacuee property situate in Mysore would vest in the Custodian. Section 6 provided for a notification by the Custodian in the Mysore Gazette of evacuee property vested in him. Section 8 provided that any person claiming any right to or interest in any property notified under s. 6 as evacuee proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1214; [1962]32CompCas845(SC); [1961]3SCR820
Wanchoo, J.1. These four appeals on certificates granted by the High Court at Calcutta arise out of one judgment and will be dealt with together. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these : In September 1946 there was food shortage in the country. In order to relieve this shortage, the Government of India entered into an agreement with the President of Argentine Institute for Promotion of Trade by which it undertook to freeze, requisition and take over and sell to the Argentine Institute and Ship to Argentine 30,000 tons of hessian and in return the Institute guaranteed to obtain licences for shipment from Argentine of maize and wheat offals already purchased by the Government of India in Argentine. This agreement was arrived at on September 27, 1946. In anticipation of this agreement, the Government of India on September 20, 1946, addressed letters to the managing agents of various jute mills in Bengal demanding from them information as to stocks of hessian of certain d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1295; (1961)63BOMLR962; [1961]3SCR845
Das Gupta, J.1. This appeal is from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Bombay High Court confirming the decision of a single judge of that Court in a suit for damages for breach of a contract of sale. By a contract in writing dated August 9, 1950, entered into at Bombay, the appellants who carry on business at Bombay as import and export merchants agreed to sell to the respondent, a company carrying on business also at Bombay as a Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mill, and the respondent agreed to purchase 50,000 lbs. of Italian Staple Fibre Cotton of the quality mentioned therein, at Rs. 1,350/- per Candy Ex docks, Shipment October/November 1950. Of this quantity 10,000 lbs. was delivered to and accepted by the respondent company on October 31, 1950. The balance amount of 40,000 lbs. not having been delivered in terms of the contract the respondent company brought the present suit for damages on the allegation that the appellant firm had wrongfully failed and neglected to deliver thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC785; 1961CriLJ857; (1961)IILLJ402SC; [1962]1SCR129
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore confirming the appellant's conviction for an offence under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947), by the Special Judge, Dharwar. 2. The appellant is alleged to have committed the offence while he was a Municipal Councillor and Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Navalgund Municipality. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the appellant was a 'public servant' contemplated by s. 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The contention for the appellant is that he was not such a 'public servant'. 3. Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads : 'For the purposes of this Act, 'public servant' means a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code'. 4. Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code defines the persons coming within the expression 'public servant' and its Tenth Clause reads : 'Every offic...
Tag this Judgment!