Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC977; [1962]44ITR720(SC); [1962]Supp2SCR596
Hidayatullah, J.1. The appellant is a firm at Gudur (Andhra Pradesh), which was doing business in mica under the name and style of the Continental Export and Import Company. During the year of account, 1948-49 and 1949-50 (corresponding to the assessment years, 1949-50 and 1950-51), the assessee firm exported mica to Japan. Micas was not directly exportable to Japanese buyers during these years, as Japan was under military occupation, but to a state organisation called Boeki-Cho (Board of Trade). To negotiate for orders and to handle its other affairs in Japan in connection therewith, the assessee firm engaged San-Ei Trading Co. Ltd., Tokyo, as its agents. The Japanese company was admittedly a 'non-resident' company. Two agreements were entered into by the assessee firm and Japanese company, the first for the quarter, July to September, 1948, during which period a commission of 4 per cent. on the gross sale proceeds was payable to the Japanese company, and the second, for an indefinite...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC415; [1962]44ITR710(SC)
S.K. Das, J.1. These two consolidated appeals raise a common question of law and have been heard together. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, is the appellant in both the appeals. P.M. Muthuraman Chettiar, manager of a Hindu undivided family, is the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 429 of 1960 and S. Abdul Shakoor is the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 430 of 1960. We shall refer to the respondent in each of these two appeals as the assessee. 2. The short facts giving rise to the two appeals are these. The assessee in Civil Appeal No. 429 of 1960 is a Hindu undivided family consisting of a father and his minor son. The assessee carried on business as a money lender and a dealer in shares win what was then known as British India. The assessee was also a partner in three non-resident firms carrying on notification at Penang, Kuantan and Raub. By reason of the residence of the manager in the year of assessment which was 1946-47, the assessee was treated as resident and ordinarily reside...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC974; [1962]44ITR714(SC); [1962]Supp2SCR605
Hidayatullah, J. 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala and Coimbatore, has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala dated October 31, 1958, by which the High Court answered in favour of the respondent (Helen Rubber Industries, Ltd., Kottayam) the following question : 'Whether under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act the petitioner is entitled to carry forward the loss for a period of six years notwithstanding the fact that during the period when the loss had occurred, the law applicable was the Travancore Income-tax Act ?' 2. The High Court has granted a certificate under s. 66A(2) of the Income-tax Act. Two questions were referred to the High Court in compliance with an earlier order of the High Court under s. 66(2); but with the other question, we are not concerned in this appeal. 3. Messrs. Helen Rubber Industries, Ltd. is a Company, which was incorporated in the former State of Travancore with its registered office at Kottayam. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC814; [1962]32CompCas177(SC); [1962]Supp2SCR571
S.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The appellant is Mithoolal Nayak, who took an assignment on October 18, 1945 of a life insurance policy on the life of one Mahajan Deolal for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in circumstances which we shall presently state. Mahajan Deolal died on November 12, 1946. Thereafter, the appellant made a demand against the respondent company for a sum of Rs. 26,000/- and odd on the basis of the life insurance policy which had been assigned to him. This claim or demand of the appellant was repudiated by the respondent company by a letter dated October 10, 1947, which in substance stated that the insured Mahajan Deolal had been guilty of deliberate mis-statements and fraudulent suppression of material information in answers to questions in the proposal from and the personal statement, which formed the basis of the contract between the insurer and the insured. On the repud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC847; [1962]Supp2SCR554
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Madras, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant, as Muthavalli of the Jumma Masjid, Mercara for possession of a half-share in the properties specified in the plaint. The facts are not in dispute. There was a joint family consisting of three brothers, Santhappa, Nanjundappa and Basappa. Of these, Santhappa died unmarried, Basappa died in 1901, leaving behind a widow Gangamma, and Najundappa died in 1907 leaving him surviving his widow Ammakka, who succeeded to all the family properties as his heir. On the death of Ammakka, which took place in 1910, the estate devolved on Basappa, Mallappa and Santhappa, the sister's grandsons of Nanjundappa as his next reversioners. The relationship of the parties is shown in the following genealogical table. Basappa|__________________________________________________________| | | |Santhappa Nanjundappa Basappa Mallammald. 1907 d. 1901 |= Ammakka = Gangamma |d. 1910 |...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC853; [1962]Supp(2)SCR496
Sinha, C.J.1. By this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner, whois the 51st Dai-ul-Mutlaq and head of the Dawoodi Bohra Community, challengesthe constitutionality of the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949(Bombay Act XLII of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the groundthat the provisions of the Act infringe Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution.The sole respondent in this case is the State of Bombay. 2. The petition is founded on the following allegations. The Dawoodi BohraCommunity consists of Muslims of the Shia sect, holding in common with allmembers of that sect the belief that there is one God, that Mohammad is HisProphet to whom he revealed the Holy Koran; that Ali, the son-in-law ofMohammad, was the Wasi (executor) of the Prophet, and that the said Alisucceeded the Prophet by Nas-e-Jali. The Dawoodi Bohras believe that the saidAli was succeeded by a line of Imams, each of whom in turn was appointed byNas-e-Jali by his immediate predecess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC903; [1962]Supp(2)SCR477
Hidayatullah, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been filed by one Munshi Ram, a Judgment - debtor, against whom a decree based on a compromise, following an award by an arbitrator, is sought to be executed. The respondents are the decree-holders. The appeal is directed against a common judgment and decrees of the Punjab High Court dated November 26, 1952, in two appeals under the Letters Patent (Nos. 5 and 11 of 1952) by which the orders of a learned single Judge of the High Court in Execution First Appeals Nos. 56 and 121 of 1951 were confirmed. The present appeal is, however, confined to the decision in L.P.A. No. 11 of 1952. To understand what these orders were, and also the point involved in this appeal, a somewhat long narration of facts is necessary. 2. The following genealogy gives the relationship of the parties : X|----------------------------------------------------------| |Kanhaiyalal Mangalsain| |---------------------------- Munshi Ram| | (adopted)Faqirchand Banwarilal(...
Tag this Judgment!