Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]1SCR778; [1963]Supp2SCR778
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. The petitioner is a partner in a firm called Messrs. Mohan Lal Hargovind Das, which carries on business in the manufacture and sale of biris in number of States, and is dealer registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act 15 of 1948 with its head office at Allahabad. In the present petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner impugns the validity of a levy of sales tax made by the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad, by his order dated December 20, 1958. 2. On December 14, 1957, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under section 4(1)(b) of the Act exempting from tax, sales of certain goods including biris, provided that the additional Central Excise duties leviable thereon had been paid. In partial modification of this notification, the Government issued another notification on November 25, 1958, exempting from tax unconditionally sales of biris, both machinemade and handmade, with effect from July 1, 1958. The effect of the two notif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC71; [1962]2SCR535
Ayyangar, J. 1. These two appeals are by special leave of this Court and arise out of orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing two writ petitions filed before it by the respective appellants in the two appeals. 2. On January 14, 1953, the Government of Madras issued a notification reading, to quote only the material words, 'in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 1(4) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948), read with s. 2 of the Madras Scheduled Areas Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1951 : 'The Governor of Madras hereby appoints the 4th of February 1953, as the date on which the provisions of the said Act......... shall come into force in the Estates in the Scheduled Areas of the West Godavari District which are specified in the schedule below :-' and the schedule set out inter alia : '1. Agency Area of Gangole 'A' Estate, consisting of............... 2. .............................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1037; [1962]2SCR570; [1961]12STC476(SC)
S.K. Das, J.1. These are two appeals on certificates granted by the High Court of Madras and consolidated by its orders dated March 22, 1957. They are from the judgment and orders of the said High Court dated April 20, 1956 and July 30, 1956 in two Tax Revision Cases, by which the High Court dismissed two petitions filed by the appellants under s. 12-B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 - Section 12-B hereinafter called the principal Act, in the following circumstances. 2. Messrs. George Oakes (Private) Limited, appellants herein, are dealers in Ford motor cars, spare parts and accessories. For the two years 1951-52 and 1952-53 the appellants submitted their returns under the relevant provisions of the principal Act and claimed exemption from tax with regard to certain amount realised on transactions of sales which the appellants contended were inter-State sales and hence exempt from tax under Art. 286 of the Constitution of India - Article 286 as it stood at the relevant time. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC666; [1962]2SCR551
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal on certificate under Art. 59(3) of the Constitution, granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. 2. A suit for partition was filed against defendants 1 to 10 and 12, members of a joint family. Defendant no. 1 was father of the appellant, who was then a minor, defendant no. 12. Defendant no. 11 was an outsider, he being a partner in the partnership shop of the family. Parties other than defendant no. 11 referred the matters in difference to an arbitrator. The arbitrator filed the award in Court on February 18, 1948. On February 21, 1948, the Civil Judge adjourned the matter 'for parties' say to the arbitrator's report', to March 22, 1948. On March 16, 1948, an application was presented on behalf of defendant no. 1 praying that certain papers and documents be called for from the arbitrator. On March 22, 1948, an application was presented on behalf of defendant no. 1 praying for 15 days' time for going through the papers and documents which he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC83; 1962(0)BLJR153; [1962]2SCR558
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. These are appeals against the judgment of the High Court of Patna in Second Appeals Nos. 2155 and 2156 of 1948 on certificates granted by the High Court under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. The facts leading to this litigation lie in a narrow compass. One Prithi Dubey died on July 14, 1932, leaving him surviving, his widow Laung Kuer, who succeeded as heir to his estate. For the purpose of discharging debts due by the deceased Laung Kuer executed on June 21, 1935, a Zerpeshgi deed in favour of two persons, Rajdewan Dubey and Kailash Dubey, who were also the next reversioners, for a sum of Rs. 1,100. It is not in dispute that this deed is binding on the reversioners. On June 17, 1943, Laung Kuer sold to the appellant a portion of the properties which were the subject-matter of the Zerpeshgi deed dated June 21, 1935, for a consideration of Rs. 1,600. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 1,100 was reserved with the purchaser for redemption of the Zerpeshgi, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC36; (1970)IILLJ289SC; [1962]2SCR586
Gajendragadkar, J.1. On a writ petition filed by the respondent K. Rangachari in the Madras High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution a writ of mandamus has been issued by the said High Court restraining the appellants, the General Manager, Southern Railway, and the Personnel Officer (Reservation), Southern Railway, from giving effect to the directions of the Railway Board ordering reservation of selection posts in Class III of the railway service in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and in particular the reservation of selection posts among the Court Inspectors in Class III one of which is held by the respondent. After the writ was thus issued the appellant applied for and obtained a certificate from the said High Court under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution as it involved a substantial question of law, namely, the scope of Art. 16(4) of the Constitution. It is with this certificate that the appeal has been brought to this court, and the only questi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC630; [1961(3)FLR323]; (1961)IILLJ427SC
A.K. Sarkar, J.1. The respondent was employed as a mistry in a telephone workshop belonging to the appellant, the Union of India. There appears to have been a strike in the workshop and thereafter on July 9, 1949, for what reason it does not appear from the record, the respondent was put under detention under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act. On July 21, 1949, the manager of the workshop suspended the respondent from duty with effect from the date of his detention. The order of suspension stated that the respondent was not entitled to any subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. On March 29, 1950, the manager passed an order terminating the service of the respondent with effect from July 9, 1949, the date on which he was suspended. He was given one month's pay in lieu of notice. The respondent was released from detention on October 25, 1950, by an order made by the High Court at Bombay. He had been in detention from July 9, 1949, till October 25, 1950, during which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1743; [1961]31CompCas454(SC); [1962]2SCR433
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. There is a Bank in Ajmer known as the Commercial Co-operative Bank Limited, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), which is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, No. II of 1912 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Dharam Chand, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), along with certain other respondents were members of the managing committee of the Bank. One Nandlal Sharma was the paid manager of the Bank. This man disappeared in 1953 and thereafter defalcation to the extent of about Rs. 6,34,000 was detected. Consequently, the managing committee passed a resolution suspending the business of the Bank subject to the approval of the Registrar. The then Registrar Shri Nagar approved the resolution and appointed an Inspector of Co-operative Societies to hold an immediate inquiry. He also appointed a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1246; [1962]2SCR503
Das Gupta, J.1. The 51 appellants all of whom belong to village Simla, Tehsil, Narwana, filed in the Pepsu High Court at Patiala a petition under Art. 226 and Art. 227 of the Constitution for relief against an order made by the Divisional Canal Commissioner, Narwana, for payment of certain water rates and Tawan. It appears that on the night of September 1, 1951, there was a cut on the left bank of Sirsa Branch Canal. Certain persons were prosecuted on a charge for having damaged the Canal but they were acquitted. Thereafter, the Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana, on the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Canal, Narwana made an order levying special charges against these appellants. On appeal the Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana, ordered in partial modification of the order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the levy of six times the crop rates on cultivated area and six times the charges on uncultivated area and single bulk rate on water store of village Simla. This levy w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1795; [1962]2SCR452
Gajendragadkar, J.1. If the appellate decree passed by the High Court makes a variation in the decision of the trial Court under appeal in favour of a party who intends to prefer an appeal against the said appellate decree, can the said decree be said to affirm the decision of the trial court or not under Art. 133(1) of the Constitution That is the short question which arises for our decision in the present appeal. 2. The appellant Tirumalachetti Rajaram filed a suit in forma pauperis in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, for his half share in the properties which once belonged to the joint family consisting of himself and his father and to this suit he impleaded his father and several alienees from him. His case was that the alienations effected by him father as well as the sales held in execution proceedings against his father were not binding on him and so his share in the properties covered by the said alienations was not affected by them. It is on this basis that he cla...
Tag this Judgment!