Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1103; [1963(6)FLR240]; (1963)ILLJ543SC; [1963]Supp2SCR627
Gajendragadkar, J.1. Two items of dispute between the appellant Pfizer Private Ltd., and the respondents, its employees, were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, by the Government of Maharashtra under Sections 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 on the 22nd of January, 1962. Both these items arose out of the proposed changes which the appellant wanted to make in the terms of employment governing the service of the respondents. The appellant proposed to reduce the existing paid holidays to 8 instead of 27 to which the respondents were entitled because so long, the appellant has been giving to its employees the benefit of public holidays as declared under the Negotiable Instruments Act. This was the first item of dispute between the parties. The second item of dispute was in regard to re-fixation of the hours of work. The appellant desired to introduce three shifts in most of its departments and accordingly it had given a notice of change unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC569; 1963(0)KLT1064(SC); [1963]Supp2SCR608; [1963]14STC363(SC)
Kapur, J. 1. This appeal by certificate of the High Court of Kerala raises the question of the taxability of sales of tea under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter termed the Act, and the Rules made thereunder. The assessment period is 1952-53 and the turnover was of a sum of Rs. 3,77,644/- on which a tax of Rs. 5900/11/- was levied. The appellant before us is the assessee company and the respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax. 2. Mr. A.V. Viswanatha Sastri on behalf of Outcherloney Valley Estates (1938) Ltd. has applied for intervention on the ground that in case of that company also the State of Kerala has, on similar facts, levied sales tax on certain transaction, that the High Court of Kerala has upheld the taxability of the transactions relying on the judgment which is under appeal in the present case, and that the intervener has obtained Special leave to appeal against that judgment and the records are under print. In v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC992; [1963]Supp2SCR616
Mudholkar, J.1. Only one question arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave and that is the meaning to be given to the expression 'final decision' occurring in the first proviso to s. 28A of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (Act No. 5 of 1920), introduced by Act No. 25 of 1948. 2. For appreciating the argument advanced before us a few facts have to be stated. Venkata Reddy, the father of the appellants, was adjudicated an insolvent by the Sub-Court, Salem in I. P. No. 73 of 1935. At that time only the appellants 1 and 2 were born while the third appellant was born later. The father's one third share was put up for auction by the Official Receiver and was purchased by one Karuppan Pillai for Rs. 80/-. The Official Receiver then put up for auction the two-third share belonging to appellants 1 and 2 on July 27, 1936, which was purchased by the same person for Rs. 341/-. He sold the entire property to the respondent Pethi Reddy on May 25, 1939, for Rs. 300/-. 3. The appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC897; 1963MhLJ425(SC); [1963]Supp2SCR600
Sarkar, J.1. This appeal is against an order of the High Court of Bombay issuing a writ whereby the Municipal Corporation of Nagpur, the appellant before us, was restrained from carrying out a resolution proposing to send two of its members as delegates to a Health Congress at Harrogate in U.K. and sanctioning certain expenses in connection with the delegation. 2. There is no doubt that if what a Corporation proposes to do is what it had been authorised by its incorporating statute to do, it is not the business of a court to interfere with the mode in which the Corporation decides to act : see Mayor, etc. of Westminster v. London and North Western Railway Company [1905] A.C. 426. If, therefore, the appellant Corporation had power under its incorporating statute, the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, to send delegates to the Congress at Harrogate, it would appear prima facie that writ was erroneously issued by the High Court. Now, s. 58(s) of the Act provides, 'The Corporation may i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1572; 1963CriLJ434; [1963]Supp2SCR585
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by Special leave raises the question as to the true meaning of the expression 'fraudulently' in s. 464 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts either admitted or found by the courts below may be briefly stated. The appellant is the wife of Siri Chand Kaviraj. On January 20, 1953, she purchased an Austin 10 Horse Power Car with the registration No. DLA. 4796 from Dewan Ram Swarup in the name of her minor daughter Nalini aged about six months at that time. The price for the car was paid by Dr. Vimla. The transfer of the car was notified in the name of Nalini to the Motor Registration Authority. The car at that time was insured against a policy issued by the Bharat Fire & General Insurance Co., Ltd., and the policy was due to expire sometime in April, 1953. On a request made by Dewan Ram Swarup, the said policy was transferred in the name of Nalini. In that connection, Dr. Vimla visited the Insurance Company's Office and signed the proposal form as Nalini. Subse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1895; [1963]Supp2SCR570
Ayyangar, J.1. These two appeals by special leave arise out of a single judgment of the High Court at Calcutta. That judgment was rendered in a petition under Art. 227 filed by the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1960. 2. The proceeding out of which the appeals arise was an application made by Mahendra Nath Ghughu (whom we shall refer to as the respondent) before the Assistant Settlement Officer, 24, parganas, objecting to certain entries in a draft Record-of-rights prepared and published under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (W.B.I of 1954) relating to Nibaran Chandra Bag (to be referred to as the appellant). Section 44(1) of that Act enacts :- 44. (1) When a record-of-rights has been prepared or revised, the Revenue Officer shall publish a draft of the record so prepared or revised in the prescribed manner and for the prescribed period and shall receive and consider any objections which may be made to any entry therein or to any omission therefrom during the period...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1035; [1963]Supp2SCR560
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Punjab High Court dismissing the Revision petition filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. 2. The appellant entered India on May 9, 1956, on a Pakistan passport dated February 11, 1956. He had a visa endorsed on the said passport permitting him to stay in India for three months. Under that visa he had to leave India on or before August 8, 1956. As he failed to do so, a notice under s. 3(2) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, as amended in 1957, hereinafter called the Act, was served on him on November 19, 1959, by the Delhi Administration. By that notice he was asked to report his presence personally to the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Taj Barracks, Janpath, New Delhi, between 11 A.M. to 12 noon daily and enter into a personal bond in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 10,000/- each for the due observance of the restriction imposed on his moveme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC953; [1963]48ITR186(SC); [1963]Supp2SCR515
S.K. Das, J.1. These two appeals on certificates granted by the High Court of Rajasthan have been heard together, because they raise common questions of law and fact, and this judgment will govern them both. 2. Shortly put, the main question in C.A. No. 399 of 1960 is whether the appellant, the Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd., is liable to pay excise duty on the cloth and yarn manufactured and produced by it, in accordance with the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 which provisions were extended to the territory of the State of Rajasthan on April 1, 1950. The main question in C.A. No. 214/1956 is whether the same appellant is liable to pay income-tax in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 from the date on which those provisions were extended to the territory of the State of Rajasthan. C.A. No. 399 of 1960 arises out of a suit which the appellant had filed in the court of the District Judge, Jodhpur. That suit was dismissed by the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]49ITR92(SC)
S. K. DAS J. - This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Rajasthan under article 132(1) of the Constitution. This appeal was heard along with two other appeals, Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, in which we have delivered judgment today.The short facts are these. The Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd., appellant before us, was incorporated in 1945 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, as applied to the erstwhile Kotah State. It has its registered office at Ramganjmandi in the District of Kotah. His Highness the Maharajah of Kotah who was the Sovereign Ruler of the Kotah State at the time granted a lease in favour State of the appellant to work the limestone mines in two tahsils of the Kotah State for a period of fifteen years from October 1, 1944, to September 30, 1959. The grant was in writing and clause 18 of the grant was in these terms :In consideration of the concessions and privileges granted by the grantor and in lieu of income-tax su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1061; 1966CriLJ805; [1963]Supp2SCR542
Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave preferred by the State of West Bengal against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 9.5.1958 in Criminal Revision Case No. 1128 of 1957. 2. The three respondents are alleged to have committed the offences with which they are charged in September 1950 and though 12 years have passed by since then no step has been taken beyond the issue of notices to them. This delay has been caused by conflicting views which have been entertained from time to time about the Court having jurisdiction to try the respondents - whether it is the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, or the Judge of the Special Court constituted under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949. The judgment of the High Court now under appeal has held that the judge of the Special Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial but that the Chief Presidency Magistrate before whom a charge-sheet in respect of the offences alle...
Tag this Judgment!