Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC98; 29(1963)CLT115(SC); 1978(2)ELT311(SC); [1962]Supp3SCR481
Sinha, C.J.1. By this petition, under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act (1 of 1944) which will be referred in the course of this judgment as the Act, read with r. 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (1960) and the notifications thereunder, to be hereinafter set out. The first petitioner is the Orient Weaving Mills Private Ltd. (which will be termed hereinafter as the Company), and the second petitioner is a director of the Company. The respondents to the petition are (1) Union of India, through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi, (2) Secretary, Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, (3) Superintendent, Central Excise, Cuttack, (4) Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta, (5) Board of Directors, Madhunagar Powerloom Weavers' Co-operative Society Ltd., through its President (to be hereinafter referred to as the Society). 2. The petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1182; [1962]Supp3SCR476
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal with special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madras. 2. On February 18, 1948, S. Nanjalingiah Gowder - hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff - borrowed Rs. 1,500/- from K. Simrathmull - hereinafter called the defendant. On February 19, 1948 the plaintiff executed a sale deed conveying to the defendant certain land at Ootacamund together with a house standing thereon and belonging to him Rs. 700/-. Two other documents were executed on the same day : (1) a deed of reconveyance (Ext. A-1) (counterpart of the sale deed) in favour of the plaintiff which contained the following covenant : 'If you pay the sum of Rs. 1500/- within a period of two years I shall at your cost and your responsibility execute a sale in respect of the under-mentioned land and house. You shall pay the assessment for the house and the municipal tax, you shall if there is any arrears of rent pay the same, prior to the sale, as per the rental deed executed by you and your ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1281; [1962]Supp3SCR436
Subba Rao, J.1. These two appeals by certificates are filed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, by the two defendants in Civil Suit No. 1 of 1957, a suit filed by the Union of India, owing and representing the Central and Western Railways Administrations, New Delhi; against the said defendants for the recovery of coal cess amounting to Rs. 81-4-0 and costs. 2. The material facts may be briefly stated. Under Ordinance No. 39 of 1944, the Central Government was authorised to levy and collect as a cess on all coal and coke despatched from collieries in British India a duty of excise at such rate, not exceeding Rs. 1-4-0 per ton. In exercise of the power conferred on the Central Government under s. 5 of the Ordinance, the said Government made rules; and r. 3 thereof, the duty of excise imposed under the Ordinance on coal and coke shall, when such coal and coke is despatched by rail from collieries or coke plants, be collected by the Railway Admini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC493; [1962]45ITR271(SC); [1962]Supp3SCR455
Ayyangar, J.1. These four appeals are pursuant to certificates granted by the High Court of Bombay under article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution and raise identical questions for consideration. 2. The respondents in these four appeals are each of the four partners in a firm constituted under the name of Mafatlal Gagalbhai and Sons and which was composed of Navinchandra Mafatlal, Arvind N. Mafatlal, Yoginder N. Mafatlal and Hemant Mafatlal with shares of 5/16, 3/16, 3/16 and 5/16 respectively in that firm. (It has to be mentioned that Navinchandra died subsequent to the decision of the High Court and his legal representatives have been brought on record in Civil Appeal No. 502 of 1959, but this circumstance being irrelevant we are ignoring it for the purposes of these appeals). The firm was registered under the Indian Income-tax Act. There was a private limited company named Mafatlal Apte and Kantilal Limited registered under the Phaltan State Companies Act. Ten shares in this private com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC468; (1963)65BOMLR258; 1963MhLJ450(SC); [1962]Supp3SCR461
Hidayatullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit tried in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay, filed by the respondents, the Trustees of the Port of Bombay, for the ejectment of the appellant, Kanji Manji, and one Rupji Jeraji who had died even before the suit was filed, from a plot situated at Haji Bunder Mazgaon, Sewri Reclamation Estate, Bombay. and for possession of the land. There was a claim for Rs. 10,871-14-0 being the arrears of water charges and property taxes, with which we are not concerned. The suit was decreed by the Bombay City Civil Court, and the appellant was ordered to vacate the suit premises and to deliver vacant possession thereof. An appeal was filed against the decree in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, but it was dismissed summarily on September 24, 1959. The High Court also refused an application for a certificate, but the appellant applied for special leave, and having obtained it, filed the present appeal. 2. In 1924, the Trustees of the Port of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1493; [1962]Supp3SCR418
Shah, J. 1. This appeal with special leave is against the decree of the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirming the decree of the 1st Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 12-A of 1952. 2. The dispute between the parties arose in a suit for partition of joint family property. The parties are Digambar Jains of the Porwal Sect and are residents of Jabalpur which at the material time was in Madhya Pradesh, The following pedigree explains the relationship between the parties : Garibdas = Mst. Khilonabaid. 24.7.34 (Def. 3) d. 3.7.56|Gulzarilal|| d. 13.4.39|---------------------------------------------------------------| | |Munnalal Padamchand d. 10.1.36 Ramchand(Def. 1) (Def. 2)= = =Pyaribahu widow Bhuribai Chandranibahu(Def. 4) (Def. 11) (Def. 8)| | || Adopted son Rajkumar || (Def. 12) adopted 26.7.52 || |--------------------------------------------------- || | | | | |Saheblal Ballu Nand Kumar Hiralal Ishwari Prasad ||(Plaintiff) (dead) (Def. 5) (Def. 6) (Def. 7) ||-----------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC477; [1962]46ITR86(SC); [1962]Supp3SCR391
S.K. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal by special, leave granted by this Court on September 17, 1956. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, City I, is the appellant before us. The respondent is Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka, who will be referred to in this judgment as the assessee. 2. The assessee is a Parsi lady who held by way of investment a large number of shares of different companies. These shares were purchased before the end of and after 1939-40 at a cost-price which was much less than their market value on April 1, 1945. Her dividend income was assessed to income-tax for several year prior to April 1, 1945; but in the assessment year 1946-47, the relevant accounting year being financial year 1945-46, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had converted her shares into her stock-in-trade and carried on a trading activity, viz. a business in shares. Her income for the assessment year 1946-47 was therefore computed on the basis of the profits which she made by the sale of her share...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962]Supp3SCR386
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the order of the Financial Commissioner Punjab in respect of the application made by the appellant under s. 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, No. X of 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with s. 9(1) thereof, for ejectment of the respondent, on the ground that he was a small landowner. The appellant claimed that he was the landowner and the respondent was a tenant-at-will under him. He therefore claimed ejectment of the respondent on the ground that he had less than thirty standard acres and required the land for his own cultivation. The application was filed before the Assistant Collector who held that the respondent was liable to ejectment and allowed the application. Thereupon there was an appeal by the respondent to the Collector and it was urged there that only a landowner could dispossess a tenant-at-will under s. 14-A(i) and as the appellant was not a landowner but merely a landlord of the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1166; 1962(0)BLJR499; (1962)ILLJ294SC; [1962]Supp3SCR369
Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal comes before us by virtue of a certificate of fitness granted under Art. 132 of the Constitution by the High Court of Patna. The question involved in the appeal is a short one but is of considerable public importance and of great constitutional significance. It is concerned with the constitutional validity of r. 4-A, which was introduced into the Bihar Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956, by a notification of the Governor of Bihar dated August 16, 1957 and reads : '4-A. - Demonstrations and strikes. - No Government servant shall participate in any demonstration or resort to any form of strike in connection with any matter pertaining to his conditions of service.' 2. Very soon after this rule was notified the six appellants, the first of whom is the President of the Patna Secretariat Ministerial Officers' Association and the others are Assistants or Clerks under the Bihar State Government, filed on August 26, 1957, a petition before the High Court of Patn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962]Supp(3)SCR334
Das Gupta, J. 1. The appellant, Shambhoo, was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad for offences under sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act. Two other persons Altaf and Shaukat were also tried along with Shambhoo on charges under s. 394 of the Indian Penal Code read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that on November 3, 1959 Dulla and Ghasita, father and son and one Bhassu were on their way to Tahirpur Bazar for the purchases of bullocks. They had been to Chandarpur Bazar for this purpose but had not made any purchases, - all the three were carrying money. Dulla had Rs. 300/-, Ghasita had Rs. 100/- and Bhassu had Rs. 1051. Shortly before noon they reached Mauza Bhainsora. When they were near a tank about two or three furlongs from Bhainsora these four persons, Shambhoo, Altaf, Sibte and Shaukat, of whom Shambhoo and Sibte were armed with pistol and Shaukat and Altaf were armed with lathis, came out of...
Tag this Judgment!