Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC911; [1962]Supp2SCR918
ORDER OF DETENTION UNDER SECTION 3(1)(a)(ii) OF THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT, 1950. 3. Whereas I am satisfied that it is necessary to prevent Shri Harikisan Kishorilal Agarwal of Nagpur from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that therefore, it is necessary to detain him. 4. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, I Dinkarrao Hanjantrao Deshmukh, I.A.S., District Magistrate, Nagpur hereby direct that the said Shri Harikisan Kishorilal Agarwal be so detained. 5. Given this 10th day of April 1961 under my signature and seal. Seal of theD.M. Nagpur Sd/D.H. Deshmukh District Magistrate, Nagpur'6. He also directed that the appellant should be detained in the Distract Prison, Thana, and that for the purpose of the Bombay Condition of Detention Order, 1951, be treated as a Class II Prisoner. The ground of detention were served on the same day. The substance of the grounds is that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC433; [1962]44ITR876(SC); [1962]Supp(2)SCR902
S.K. Das, J. 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I, has preferred this appeal to this Court on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Bombay under s. 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The assessee, who is the respondent before us, was assessed to income-tax as an individual in respect of his income for the assessment year 1954-55. The taxing authorities included in the assessee's total income for the year to sums, namely, a sum of Rs. 410/- and a sum of Rs. 14,170/-. It was stated that these two sums accrued in the relevant account year in the following circumstances. On January 12, 1953 the assessee created a trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, the trustees whereof were the Central Bank Executor & Trustee Co., the assessee himself his wife and brother. The scheme of the trust-deed was that the said sum of Rs. 25,000/- was set apart by the assessee and it was provided that the interest on that amount should be accumulated and added to the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1962(0)BLJR600; [1962(4)FLR250]; (1962)ILLJ378SC; [1966]Supp3SCR883
Sarkar, J. 1. The appellants, the Bhowra Kankanee Coal Co. Ltd., own the Bhowra and other collieries. On the Bhowra Colliery there are a number of residential bungalows belonging to the appellants occupied by their officers employed in the colliery. The appellants employ certain malis for working as such in these bungalows and their duty is to look after and maintain the gardens there. A dispute arose between the appellants and their workmen as to whether these malis, who were fourteen in number, were entitled to bonus. By an order made on June 23, 1959, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of India referred this dispute along with another with which we are not concerned in this case, for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. The Points referred concerning the dispute abovementioned were in these terms : (1) Whether the withdrawal of the benefit of bonus provided in the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme by the management of the Bhowra Colliery from the following ga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962(4)FLR253]; (1962)ILLJ369SC; [1962]Supp3SCR890
Wanchoo, J. 1. This appeal by special leave against the order of the Bombay High Court summarily dismissing the petition of the appellants under Art. 227 of the Constitution raises an important question with regard to the right of a Representative Union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, No. XI of 1947, (hereinafter called the Act) to appear in proceeding under the Act to the exclusion of an employee desiring a change under s. 42(4) of the Act. The question arises in this way. The Gujarat Spinning and Weaving Company Limited (hereinafter called the old Company) closed its business on May 14, 1953 and sold its assets to the Tarun Commercial Mills Company Limited (hereinafter called the new Company). The old Company had discharged all its workmen when it closed its business which happened before s. 25F relating to retrenchment was introduced in the Industrial Disputes Act, (No. XIV of 1947). The new Company re-started the business after a week and took in its service the workmen ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC411; (1962)ILLJ374SC; [1962]Supp2SCR822
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial matter. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. The appellant in a saw-mill carrying on business in Kozihkode in the State of Kerala. One Sankaran was in the employ of the appellant as a crosscutter. It is said that on June 21, 1958, Sankaran came drunk to the mill and abused the Engineer, the Secretary and others and threatened them with physical violence. He was caught hold of by other workmen and taken outside. It is said that he came again a short time later at 4-30 p.m. and abused the same persons again. Thereupon the appellant served a charge-sheet on Sankaran on June 24, 1958 acting out the above facts and asked him to shows cause why his services should not be terminated on account of his grave indiscipline and misconduct. Sankaran gave an explanation the same day denying the allegations of fact made against him, though he admitted that he had come to the mill at the relevant time for taking hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1116; [1962]Supp2SCR830
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing the revision application of the appellant against the conviction under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. On October 13, 1956, at about 8 p.m. the complainant locked his shop and went out for a short while. On his return after about three-fourths of an hour he found his shop broken open and a box containing Rs. 2,000 and clothes and another box containing Rs. 200 stolen. He was told by prosecution witnesses Liladhar and Harnam Singh and two others that they had seen the appellant and Narain carrying away the boxes. On the following day at about 10 a.m. a report was lodged with the police and on October 15, 1956, the appellant was arrested by Sub-Inspector Virendrapal Singh. According to the prosecution, on being interrogated the appellant produced a box from a pond and handed over the same to the Sub-Inspector. He also produced a key from out of a bunch of keys before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1172; (1963)IMLJ55(SC); [1962]Supp2SCR838
S.K. Das, J.1. These are two appeals on certificates granted by the Punjab High Court under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. They have been heard together and this judgment will govern them both. 2. The appeals are from the judgment and order of the said High Court dated November 5, 1958, by which it found the two appellants guilty of an offence punishable under s. 3 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1952 (XXXII of 1952) and directed them, by way of punishment, to abandon the departmental proceedings which had been taken against the respondent Gurbaksh Singh for an alleged contravention of the instruction contained in a circular letter dated January 25, 1953, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Punjab Government and warned them against complying with the said instructions. 3. The relevant facts are these. Gurbaksh Singh respondent in the two appeals, was a Forester in the Punjab Forest Department. Pratap Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal no. 128 of 1959, was, at the relevant tim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC835; [1962]44ITR788(SC); [1962]Supp2SCR865
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, dated May 1/14, 1957, by which the tribunal, reversing the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, held that a loss arising from the sale of certain shares by the respondent Company was a capital loss. Subsequent to the order of the Tribunal impugned here, the Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi, who is the appellant before us, had moved the Tribunal for a reference to the High Court on certain questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. That application was found to be barred by one day, and since, under the law, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to extend the time, the application was dismissed. Against the decision of the Tribunal, an application was filed in the High Court under s. 66(3) of the Income-tax Act; but the High Court dismissed the application, agreeing with the Tribunal that the application to the Tribunal for a reference was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962]45ITR266(SC)
S.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated July 16, 1956, by which the said High Court decided a question referred to it under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, against the assessee. The question was in these terms : 'Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was legally justified in issuing a notice under section 28 of the Income-tax Act in circumstances of the case of the applicant in respect of the item of Rs. 76,836 ?' 2. We may first state the relevant facts. The assessee, appellant before us, is a partnership firm which ran a sugar mill at Cawnpore and assessee for the manufacture of sugar involved the conversion of gur into sugar. In the relevant assessment year 1942-43, the account year being October 1, 1940, to September 30, 1941, the assessee submitted a return of income and on the basis of that return the Income-tax Officer concerned made an assessment on November 30, 1944. When making...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1363; [1962(4)FLR298]; (1962)1LLJ213
A.K. Sarkar, J. 1. The appellants are the workmen of the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co., Ltd. and this Company is the respondent in this appeal.2. In or about 1951, certain disputes had cropped up between the parties which had been referred to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereafter called the principal Act. One of the disputes so referred concerned 'payment of bonus at the rate of one month's pay for every year to all workers with long service but discharged as being no longer required.' On December 4, 1952, the Tribunal made its award deciding this question against the workmen and holding that the demand was not justified in view of the amenities provided by the management. The workmen went up in appeal against this decision to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. While the appeal was pending there, Ordinance No. 5 of 1953 was promulgated by the President and by this Ordinance the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was amended by th...
Tag this Judgment!