Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1037; [1964]1SCR481; [1963]14STC410(SC)
Shah, J.1. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. (the first petitioner) is a public limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and the second petitioner is a shareholder and a Director of the Company. The Company is a manufacturer of sugar and owns a fleet of motor trucks and other motor vehicles. The Company also carries on the business of selling motor spirit, high speed diesel oil, and lubricants and maintains a petroleum pump at Sehore in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Between April 1, 1959, and March 31, 1960, the Company used, for its motor vehicles 8908 gallons of petroleum, 40719 gallons of high speed diesel oil and lubricants of the value of Rs. 2,453-47 nP. The first respondent who is the assessing authority under the Madhya Pradesh Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 4 of 1958, assessed the Company to pay sales tax in respect of motor-spirit and lubricants used by the Company out of the stock held by it for its own vehicles, because in his view su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1241; [1964]1SCR371
Sinha, C.J.1. This is a suit by the State of West Bengal against the Union of India for a declaration that Parliament is not competent to make a law authorising the Union Government to acquire land and rights in or over land, which are vested in a State, and that the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act (XX of 1957) - which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act - enacted by the Parliament, and particularly Sections 4 and 7 thereof, were ultra vires the legislative competence of Parliament, as also for an injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding under the provisions of these sections of the Act in respect of the coal bearing lands vested in the plaintiff. As will presently appear, the suit raises questions of great public importance, bearing on the interpretation of quite a large number of the Articles of the Constitution. In view of the importance of the questions raised in this litigation, notices were issued by this Court to all the Advocates-General ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1963MhLJ493(SC); [1964]1SCR488; [1963]14STC406(SC)
Shah, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing a petition field by the Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. - hereinafter called 'the Company' - for a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution quashing the order of the Sales Tax Officer dated May 1, 1960, which imposed liability upon the Company for payment of sales-tax under the Madhya Bharat Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 20 of 1953 in respect of motor spirit and lubricants used for its own vehicles. 2. The Company carries on the business of manufacturing sugar, and maintains for the purpose of that business a fleet of motor trucks and other motor-vehicles. The Company is also registered under the Act as a retail dealer of motor spirit and lubricants. During the period April 1, 1957, and March 31, 1958, the Company consumed a part of its stock-in-trade of motor spirits and lubricants for its own vehicles. The Sales Tax Officer, Bhopal Region, by order dated May 1, 1960, assessed the Company ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1322; [1963]33CompCas625(SC); [1964]1SCR475
Shah, J.1. The Banaras Bank Ltd. - hereinafter called 'the Bank' was directed to be wound up by order of the Allahabad High Court. A committee of inspection was appointed under s. 178-A of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 to act with the Official Liquidator, and one of the members of the Committee was Durga Prasad the first appellant in this appeal. The Official Liquidator advertised for sale two houses which formed part of the assets of the Bank. Roshan Lal the second appellant made an offer to purchase the two houses for Rs. 18,000/-. This offer was accepted by the Official Liquidator and with the sanction of the Court the two houses were sold to Roshan Lal on August 2, 1941. Roshan Lal thereafter transferred the houses to Durga Prasad reciting in the deed that the latter was 'the real owner' of the houses and that the sale deed from the Official Liquidator was obtained by him 'benami' for Durga Prasad. On coming to learn about this conveyance the Official Liquidator moved the High Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC489; [1964]1SCR362
Sinha, C.J.1. When we had finished the hearing of the case of December 13, 1962, we intimated to the parties that the appeal was allowed and that our reasons would follow. 2. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether under the provisions of the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act (U.P. XXIV of 1954) - which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act - a first appeal in a suit decided prior to the enactment of the Act, involving a valuation of less than ten thousand rupees could be transferred for hearing and disposal to a District Judge or Additional District Judge. The First Additional District Judge, Allahabad, is the first respondent in this appeal and appeared through counsel at the hearing. The other respondents, who were the respondents in the main appeal, have not entered appearance and apparently are not interested in the result of this appeal. 3. In order to bring out the points in controvery between the parties it is necessary to state the followin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1295; 1963CriLJ329; [1964]1SCR332
Ayyangar, J. 1. This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the constitutional validity of Ch. XX of the U.P. Police Regulations and the powers conferred upon police officials by its several provisions on the ground that they violate the right guaranteed to citizens by Arts. 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution. 2. To appreciate the contention raised it is necessary to set out the facts averred on the basis of which the fundamental right of the petitioner is said to be violated, as well as the answers by the respondent-State to these allegations. The petitioner - Kharak Singh - was challaned in a case of dacoity in 1941 but was released under s. 169, Criminals Procedure Code as there was no evidence against him. On the basis of the accusation made against him he states that the police have opened a 'history-sheet' in regard to him. Regulation 228 which occurs in Ch. XX of the Police Regulations defines 'history-sheets' as 'the personal records of criminals under surveilla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1963)65PLR543; [1964]1SCR259
Sinha, C.J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the Punjab High Court summarily dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, by his order dated May 31, 1962, from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated March 7, 1962, confirming that of the Additional Rent Control, Delhi, dated July 27, 1961, whereby he had directed the appellant to be evicted from the premises in question. 2. It appears that the respondents are admittedly the landlords of the premises, No. 24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The appellant claims to have been in occupation of the premises since prior to 1950, at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. In 1955, the respondent had instituted a suit for the eviction of the All India Postal & R.M.S. Union, and the appellant was also impleaded as a party to the suit. The respondents, in 1958, made an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that they had come to know that the last owner, the father o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1279; [1963]33CompCas593(SC); [1964]1SCR270
Shah, J.1. One Kishori Lal Jaiswal started a 'distillery business' in the name of Kishori Lal & Sons and set up a factory at Karnal in the Punjab for manufacturing liquor. Kishori Lal died in 1928 leaving him surviving three sons, Durga Prasad, Ladli Prasad and Shanti Prasad. Durga Prasad who was the eldest surviving member became karta of the Joint Hindu family, and continued the family business. On the death of Durga Prasad in 1934 leaving him surviving two sons Sajjan Lal and Madan Lal and his wife Suraj Mukhi, Ladli Prasad became the 'karta' of the family and continued the business. By mutual arrangement on November 5, 1940 the Joint Hindu Family of three branches was disrupted and the business of Kishori Lal & Sons was thereafter conducted as a partnership concern each branch having a third share therein. On March 23, 1941 a private limited company called the Karnal Distillery Company Ltd. was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and the business of Kishori Lal & Son...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1165; [1964]1SCR316
Mudholkar, J.1. These are appeals by certificates granted by the High Court of Allahabad under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution from its judgments dated March 15, 1956. The relevant facts are briefly as follows : The plaintiff Kundanlal and the defendants 1 to 5 Banarsi Das, Kanshi Ram, Kundan Lal, Munnalal, Devi Chand and Sheo Prasad are brothers and formed a Joint Hindu Family till the year 1936. Amongst other properties the family owned a sugar mill at Bijnor in Uttar Pradesh called 'Sheo Prasad Banarsi Das Sugar Mills'. After the disruption of the family the brothers decided to carry on the business of the said sugar mill as partners instead of as members of a Joint Hindu Family. The partnership was to be at will and each of the brothers was to share all the profits and losses equally. The mill was to be managed by one of the brothers who was to be designated as the managing partner and the agreement arrived at amongst the brothers provided that for the year 1936-37, which began ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1332; [1963(6)FLR313]; (1963)ILLJ108SC; [1964]1SCR234
Das Gupta, J. 1. These two appeals by special leave, one by the employer and the other by the workmen, arise out of an industrial dispute that was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal Delhi, by an order made on January 23, 1958 by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi. The Tribunal made its award on March 16, 1959. Out of the numerous matters that were included in the terms of reference, we are concerned in these appeals only with a few. The employer challenges the award as regards : (1) Scales of pay, (2) Dearness allowance, (3) Adjustments, (4) Leave Rules, (5) Gratuity and (6) Retrospective effect of the award. The workmen also attacked the award as regards the scales of pay and dearness allowance. In addition, they have attacked the award as regards the working hours, leave rules, night shift allowance, retirement age and procedure for taking disciplinary action. At the time of the hearing before us however the learned Attorney General, appearing for the workmen, did not pr...
Tag this Judgment!