Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1691; [1963]1SCR47
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta passed in revision against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Howrah, who had modified the order of conviction of the respondents under section 488 read with section 386(1)(b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act (Act III of 1923) as extended to the Municipality of Howrah, hereinafter called the 'Act'. The appellant before us is the Chairman of the Municipal Committee of Howrah who is the complainant and the respondent is a company with its premises at No. 1 Swarnamoyee Road, where it was carrying on the manufacture of bobbins, card pine, shuttles etc. They were also storing their wood and timber in those premises. 2. The charge against the respondent was that it was using the premises with the municipality of Howrah without a license as required under section 386 of the Act and was therefore guilty under section 488 of the Act. The defence of the respondent was that the premises had been licen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC946; [1962]45ITR414(SC); [1963]1SCR1
Subba Rao, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of a division Bench of the Allahabad High Court confirming those of a single Judge of that court dismissing the application filed by the appellant to review the order of the High Court dated November 22, 1958. 2. The facts leading up to the filing of this appeal may be briefly stated. The respondent held certain zamindari and agricultural properties in different districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh. On December 22, 1952, the Additional Collector, Banaras, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under the provisions of the U.P. Agricultural Income-Tax Act (Act III of 1949), assessed the respondent to an agricultural income-tax of Rs. 99,964-12-0 for the year 1359 fasli. On September 30, 1955, the respondent filed a petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the said order on the ground that the Additional Collector, Banaras, had no jurisdiction to make th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC430; [1963]1SCR55
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. One Ram Narain was ordered by the High Court of Allahabad, on June 9, 1958, to furnish a personal bond for a lakh of rupees and three sureties, two in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- each and one in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- in respect of the case against him for having committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the funds of the Pikaura Co-operative Society. He was to furnish the personal bond and the sureties within three weeks from the date of the order. It was further ordered : 'The applicant should furnish the personal bond and sureties as directed above within three weeks from today and during that period he will not be arrested. If he does not furnish the bonds and sureties within this period he will be liable to be re-arrested and detained till the necessary bonds and sureties are furnished.' 2. It may be mentioned that Ram Narain had previously furnished a personal bond and sureties in connection with the embezzlement alleged to have been committed by him and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1722; [1963]1SCR20
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court. The suit was brought by Thakur Sabir Ali plaintiff respondent for possession. The following pedigree table (omitting the unnecessary names) which is not in dispute, may be set out to appreciate the case of plaintiff :- Amir Baksh(died in 1857)||-----------------------------------------------------------| |Nabi Baksh Fateh Mohd.(died in 1899) (died in 1890)|----------------------------|----|First Wife = Asghar Ali = Second wife| (died in 1937) |------------------ -------------- ----------|-----------| | | | | | |Fatima Nasirali Aeysha Mohd. Mohd. Mohd. BibiBibi | Bibi Umar Ali Ismail ZainabD-3 Sabirali D-2 D-1 D-5 D-6 D-7(nowappellant)2. The case of the plaintiff was that Thakur Amir Baksh owned considerable property known as Tipraha Estate in the district of Bahraich at the time of the annexation of Oudh. He died in 1857 and was succeeded by his son Thakur Fateh Mohd., who was subsequently...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962]Supp(3)SCR960
Hidayatullah, J. 1. In this appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, filed with certificate of the High Court of Kerala, an important question of law was raised before the High Court, which was answered against the Department. It arose in the following circumstances. The respondent, the West Coast Chemicals and Industries, Ltd. (referred to as the assessee Company) was incorporated in 1937 primarily with the object of acquiring and working the rights, title and interest in a match factory belonging to one A. V. Thomas at Mudical. The Memorandum of Association of the assessee Company, however, empowered the Company to manufacture and deal in acids, alkalis and other chemicals. The assessee Company carried on its business of manufacturing matches till the account year ending on April 30, 1941. Thereafter, the profits from the business became less and less due to War conditions, and the assessee Company began to manufacture plywood chests for tea, paints and lemongrass oil. These...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1543; (1963)65BOMLR162; [1962]32CompCas604(SC); [1962(5)FLR35]; [1962]Supp3SCR973
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The principal question which arises in this appeal relates to the construction of s. 76(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) (hereinafter called the Act) before the amendment of sub-s. (2) in 1960. That question arises in this way. The appellant, Madanlal Fakirchand Dudhediya, and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the farther of respondents Nos. 7 to 10 were the promoters of the Ist respondent Co., Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd. The said Co. was incorporated in 1939 as a Private Limited Company. It was, however, converted into a Public Ltd. Co. in 1944. At the time of the original incorporation of the Co., a Promoter's Agreement was arrived at whereby the Co. agreed during its existence to pay a sum equal to 3-1/8% every year out of its net profits to each of the four promoters. As a result of this agreement, the aggregate consideration payable every year to the promoters came to 12-1/2% of the net profits of the Co. Article 3 of the Articles of Associatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1963)65PLR452; [1962]Supp(3)SCR952
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the Punjab High Court dated May 21, 1958, in Civil Revision application No. 27 of 1958 of that Court. By that order the learned single Judge dismissed an application in revision made by the appellant herein in the following circumstances. 2. The appellant, Maharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh is the owner of the premises known as Ranzor Hall in Simla. The respondent, Badri Prasad Seth, is in occupation of the premises as a tenant and is running a cinema therein which is known as Revoli theatre or Revoli cinema. The correspondence between the parties shows that on or about April 12, 1956 the Executive Engineer, Simla Provincial Division, inspected the cinema building on behalf of the Licensing Authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Simla, and noted six defects, one of which was, to use the words of the Executive Engineer, 'the right hand pillar of the screen has cracked and has gone out of plum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962]46ITR135(SC)
HIDAYATULLAH J. - In this appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, filed with certificate of the High Court of Kerala, an important question of law was raised before the High Court, which was answered against the department. It arose in the following circumstances. The respondent, the West Coast Chemicals and Industries Ltd. (referred to as the assessee company) was incorporated in 1937 primarily with the object of acquiring and working the rights, title and interest in a match factory belonging to one A.V. Thomas at Mudical. The memorandum of association of the assessee company, however, empowered the company to manufacture and deal in acids, alkalis and other chemicals. The assessee company carried on its business of manufacturing matches till the account year ending on April 30, 1941. Thereafter, the profits from the business became less and less due to war conditions, and the assessee company began to manufacture plywood chests for tea, paints and lemongrass oil. These wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC921; [1962(4)FLR466]; (1962)ILLJ450SC; [1962]Supp(3)SCR934
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises a very short question about the construction of a part of section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). That question arises in this way. On the 14th March, 1960, the Government of West Bengal referred for adjudication to the Fourth Industrial Tribunal six items of dispute between four employers and their respective employees. Amongst the employers was the appellant M/s. Serajuddin & Co., p-16, Bentinck Street, Calcutta-1, and the items of dispute covered claims made by the employees for grade and scale, Dearness Allowance, House rent, leave and holidays, Provident Fund and Gratuity, and condition of service. It appears that all the workmen employed in the three other industrial concerns filed affidavits before the Tribunal intimating to it that they did not want to proceed with the case because the dispute between them and their respective employers had been settled. That is how the only ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1530; 1962(0)BLJR770; [1962]Supp3SCR943
Das Gupta, J. 1. Can an application for revision under s. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code be entertained by the High Court after the death of the accused person against whom the order was made That is the important question raised in this appeal. Gobindankutty Nair, a Cashier of the Trivandrum Branch of the State Bank of India was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trivandrum, of an offence under section 381 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of theft of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- belonging to the Bank. A Fiat Car which has been purchased by the accused was seized by the police during the investigation of the case and it was alleged that this had been purchased with the money stolen by the accused. The car was sold under the orders of the Court and the sale proceeds deposited in Court. The Magistrate sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for one year and also ordered that the sale proceeds of the car would be withdrawn by the Head Cashier of the Bank for appropria...
Tag this Judgment!