Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1687; [1963]1SCR155
Wanchoo, J. 1. This appeal on a certificate granted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court raises a question of the constitutionally of the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, No. XXX of 1947, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and a notification issued thereunder. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. The respondent was the sole inamdar of village Chinnavenkatapuram in the Parlakimidi Zamindari in the district of Srikakulam. The legislature the composite State of Madras passed the Act, which came into force from January 7, 1948, to provide for the reduction of rents payable by ryots in estates governed by the Madras Estates Land Act, No. 1 of 1908, approximately to the level of the assessments levied on lands in ryotwari areas in the neighbourhood and for the collection of such rents exclusively by the State Government. The Act applied to all estates as defined in section 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act. Section 2 provided for the appointment o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC932; [1963]1SCR166; [1962]13STC472(SC)
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. The sole point for determination in this appeal, which is directed against the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay is whether the appellant is not liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Central Provinces & Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act 21 of 1947), on the ground alleged that it had not been validly registered as a dealer under section 8 of the Act. The facts bearing on this contention are that the Central Provinces & Berar Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', received the assent of the Governor-General on May 23, 1947 and came into force on June 1, 1947. On May 27, 1947 a notification No. 601 was issued by the Provincial Government publishing draft rules which it 'proposed to make, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 28 of the Act' and on August 15, 1947, the rules as finally adopted were published. In the meantime two other notifications Nos. 597 and 599 had been issued on May 27, 1947, No. 597 under section 8 of the Act fixi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC445; 1962(0)BLJR709; (1963)IMLJ104(SC); [1963]1SCR148
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court at Patna raises the question whether - to use neutral terms - the keeping or using of a radio set by the person without a licence would be an offence under section 20 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), hereinafter called the Act. 2. The respondent is a businessman, having a shop in the city of Patna. In November, 1955 an Inspector of Wireless Telegraph visited his shop and found a radio set being played therein. As he was using the radio without a licence, he was prosecuted, under sections 3 and 6 of the India Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (17 of 1933) and section 20 of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, convicted the respondent under the said sections and sentenced him only under section 20 of the Act to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Patna, confirmed both the conviction and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1694; 1962(0)BLJR863; [1963]1SCR98
Ayyangar, J.1. These three batches of appeals are before us by virtue of special leave and have been heard together because of the common point raised in them which relates to the proper construction of section 5A of the Bihar Private Irrigation Works Act, 1922 (Bihar and Orissa Act, 5 of 1922), which will be hereafter referred to as the Act. The State of Bihar which is the appellant in these appeals questions the correctness of the orders of the High Court by which a number of writ petitions filed by landlords challenging the legality of demands for contribution made on them under section 11 of the Act were allowed by the High Court of Patna. 2. For the purposes of the decision of these appeals it is not necessary to state the detailed facts of any of the cases but it is sufficient if a reference were made to any one of the orders passed under section 5A of the Act which was the basis of the demand for contribution which was successfully impugned, since it is common ground that every ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1573; [1963]1SCR121
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The appellant R. R. Chari was a permanent employee in a gazetted postunder the Government of Assam. In 1941, his services were lent to theGovernment of India. The first appointment which the appellant held under thegovernment of India was that of the Deputy Director of Metals in the MunitionsProduction Department at Calcutta. Then he came to Delhi on similar work in theoffice of the Master-General of Ordnance which was the Steel Priority Authorityduring the War period. He was subsequently transferred to Kanpur as AssistantIron & Steel Collector in 1945. Sometime thereafter, he became the Deputyfrom Iran & Steel Controller, Kanpur Circle; which post he held for onemonth in September, 1945. From January, 1946, he was appointed to the said postand he held that post until September 20, 1946. The period covered by thecharges which were eventually formed against the appellant and others is fromJanuary 1, 1946 to September 20, 1946. On the latter date, the appellantproce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1962)64BOMLR770; 1963MhLJ789(SC); [1963]1SCR63
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, raises the question whether a sum of money paid ostensibly as a donation by a person to the person acting on behalf of the landlord, which was a charitable trust, in respect of the grant of a lease of the premises, came within the expression 'fine, premium or other like sum or deposit or any consideration other than the standard rent' in sub-section (1) of s. 18 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bom. Act LVII of 1947), hereinafter called the Act. 2. The question arises in these circumstances. The appellant was the President, Trustee and Secretary of the Tillori Kunbi Samajonnati Sangh (hereinafter called the Sangh), Bombay, in 1958. The Sangh was a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The first respondent approached him for taking on rent one of the residential blocks of Waghe Hall at St. Xavier Road, Parel Bombay, which was owned by the aforesaid Sangh. The appellant ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962]46ITR144(SC)
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate of fitness under section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the High Court of Bombay, against its judgment dated October 1, 1958. The appellant is the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, and the respondent, Messrs. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. (referred to hereinafter as the assessee firm). 2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1948-49, corresponding to the previous year ending March 31, 1948. The assessee firm consisted of three partners, Shoorji Vallabhdas and his two sons, Pratapsinh and Vikramsinh. The assessee firm was the managing agents of several shipping companies including the Malabar Steamship Co. Ltd., and the New Dholera Steamships Ltd. With the Malabar Steamship Co. Ltd. the assessee firm had entered into an agreement on September 16, 1938 (modified on December 7, 1943), and with the New Dholera Steamships Ltd. on June 8, 1946. Under these agreements, the assessee firm was entitled to receive as its commission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962]45ITR427(SC)
Shah, J.1. In the proceedings for assessment of income-tax for the year 1950-51, the assessees, who are a public limited company carrying on the business of banking, claimed that an amount of Rs. 4,22,582 due in the account of Messrs. Nandlal Inderchand, having been actually written off as irrecoverable in the year of account 1949, they were entitled in the assessment of the profits of that year to be allowed the amount as a bad and doubtful debt under section 10(2) (xi) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The amount of Rs. 4,22,582 consisted of three items as follows : (a) Rs. 2,11,089 due from the firm styled Messrs. Nandlal Inderchand under an account which commenced in the year 1943. In this account the debtor had pledged shares of the value of Rs. 28,000 odd. (b) Rs. 1,02,325 originally due from a firm carrying on business in the name of B. I. G. Co., Calcutta. (c) Rs. 1,09,168 originally due from a firm carrying on business in the name of Fulchand Srinarain, Calcutta. 2. For the amou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1716; 1962(0)BLJR832; [1963]1SCR70
Wanchoo, J.1. This appeal on a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court raises a question as to the interpretation of Art. 31 of the Limitation Act. The appellant had brought a suit in forma pauperis for recovery of a sum of over Rs. 24,000/- from the Union of India (UOI) in connection with non-delivery of certain goods booked with the railway. The appellant was trading in Gujranwala, which is now in Pakistan, under the name and style of G. M. Bootamal and Company and also under the name and style of Gopal Metal Rolling Mills and Company he being the sole proprietor of both. On August 5, 1947, just before the partition the appellant handed over two consignments to the North Western Railway at Gujranwala for carriage to Jagadhari and these consignments were booked on the same day by two railway receipts. The consignments however did not reach Jagadhari. The appellant made inquiries and when no delivery was made he made a claim on the railway on November 30, 1947, for the price of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1017; [1963]1SCR85
Kapur, J. 1. This is an appeal against the Judgment and decree of the High Court of Travancore Cochin modifying the decree of the District Judge, Trichur. The appellant was defendant No. 1 in his personal capacity and defendant No. 2 in the capacity of a trustee of a trust. Defendant No. 5 was a tenant of the building which is the subject matter of dispute between the parties, defendant No. 10 was its successor-in-interest and the present respondent was the plaintiff in the suit. 2. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Trichur, on October 31, 1945. The suit was for possession of properties described in schedules A & B and for damages and mesne profits with interest. The defence was that the appellant was not liable to restore possession on the basis of a document Exhibit X which was a deed of trust executed by the appellant creating a trust and constituting himself the trustee of the trust. The 5th defendant claimed Rs. 20,000 and R...
Tag this Judgment!