Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC390; [1962]32CompCas1046(SC); [1962]46ITR640(SC); [1963]2SCR268
Shah, J. 1. This is a group of appeals against orders passed by the High Court of Bombay in Income Tax Reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act. 2. Chellsons Ltd. a Private Company was incorporated in April 1941. The shareholders of the company at the material time were Kishinchand Chellaram holding 6 shares and Shewakram Kishinchand, Lokumal Kishinchand and Murli Tahilram each holding three shares. Kishinchand, Shewakram and Lokumal were directors of the company. At a General meeting of the shareholders of the company held on July 10, 1943, it was resolved to declare dividend at '60 per cent on the shares' of the company and for the purpose of that of declaration the profits of the year 1941-43 were included in the profit of the year 1942-43. Pursuant to this resolution, Rs. 46,000/- were credited in the books of the company to the account of Kishinchand Chellaram on March 31, 1944 and Rs. 23,000/- were credited to each of the other three shareholders. Another meeting of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1764; [1963]33CompCas231(SC); [1963]2SCR297
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 319 of 1961, Shri S.P. Jain in the Chairman of the Board of Directors of a Company called Sahu Jain Ltd., which holds the managing agency of two companies, the Rohtas Industries Ltd. or more shortly the Rohtas, and the New Central Jute Mills Ltd. The Rohtas carry on business in the manufacture and sale of paper, and own a paper Mill at Dalmianagar in the State of Bihar. Shri Jain is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of that Company also. The New center Jute Mills Ltd. carry on business in the manufacture and sale of Jute, and own Mill at Calcutta. They also do business in the manufacture and sale of chemicals and fertilisers at Varanasi. On June 30, 1958, Shri S.P. Jain left India on a tour to the continent of Europe and on his return to this country he was searched at the Palam Airport on October 1, 1958, and the following document was found in his leather attache case :- 'Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft. Page 2 to our ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1402; [1963]2SCR248; [1962]13STC738(SC)
Hidayatullah, J.1. These two appeals with special leave have been filed by Messrs. G. Gilda Textile Agency, Vijayawada, against the State of Andhra Pradesh. They are directed against a common order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in two revisions filed under s. 12-B(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (9 of 1939). 2. The matter relates to the levy of sales tax from the appellant on its turn-over for the years, 1954-55 and 1955-56. The appellant was an agent of several non-resident principals, on whose behalf it booked orders and dealt with the indents. There were agreements between the non-resident principals and the appellant, and three such agreements contained in letters have been produced as instances, and are marked Exs. A-3, A-3(a) and A-3(b). Under these agreements, the appellant was appointed as indenting agent in Andhra Pradesh for cloth merchants, who, admittedly, resided and carried on business outside Andhra Pradesh. It was required to book orders and to forwar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1319; [1963]2SCR277
Ayyangar, J. 1. The point involved in this appeal which comes before us on a certificate of fitness under Art. 133(1)(c) granted by the High Court of Madras is a very short one and relates to the nature and extent of the jurisdiction possessed by the High Court in considering the validity of an order of the Customs Authorities interpreting the provisions of the entries in the Tariff Schedule as regards the imposition of duties. 2. The respondent imported from Australia a quantity of oats which was described in the indent, contract and shipping documents as 'standard feed-oats'. The commodity imported consisted of oats in whole grain. The question raised related to the proper classification of the goods imported under the Import Trade Control Schedules current during the period July to December 1952 when the consignment reached India. The controversy centered round the point whether the 'feed-oats' fell within item 42 or within item 32 of the Circular. Item 42 ran : 'Fodder, bran and po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962]46ITR149(SC)
Hidayatullah, J.1. One T.M. Khadir Mohideen, who owned rice mills and other wholesale business, died on August 11, 1948, after the end of the previous year for the assessment year, 1948-49. A notice under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act was served on his two sons, and the assessment was made on a total assessable income of Rs. 63,982. The tax due was found to be Rs. 23,648-9-0 which, after deducting the tax paid under sections 18A and 23B, came to Rs. 19,903-3-0. Notices demanding the tax served on T.M. Abdul Kassim, the respondent, and on this brother, Syed Mohammad. The tax was not paid on the due date, and a penalty of Rs. 1,000 was imposed. The Income-tax Officer then issued a certificate under section 46(2) of the Act to the Collector of Ramanathapuram, who forwarded it to the Special Deputy Tahsildar for Income-tax Collection to take action under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act. A notice was then issued by the Deputy Tahsildar on July 17, 1956 requesting payment of Rs. 20,930...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC385; (1963)65BOMLR321; [1963]2SCR285
Das Gupta, J.1. This appeal arises out of a reference under s. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act as regards the apportionment of Rs. 35,102-10-0, the compensation awarded for two plots of land numbered, Survey No. 37 Kambhapur and Survey No. 137 Narendra. It is no longer disputed that these form part of a Watan. The dispute as regards the apportionment has arisen between the Watandar and the person in actual possession of the land, the appellant before us. 2. The Land Acquisition Judge made an order that the compensation be apportioned in the ratio of 10, 6, the 10/15th to be given to the landlord and the remainder to the tenant. The correctness of this was challenged in appeal. It was urged that the rent was fixed in perpetuity and the landlord had no right to increase the rent, and so, the landlord should get only the capitalised value of the rent payable for the acquired lands and the remainder should go to the tenant. The High Court held that the landlord had the right to claim that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1060; [1963]2SCR242
Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab High Court holding that s. 7A of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), was unconstitutional as violative of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Constitution. 2. The first respondent Ram Nath owns a building in Delhi of which, among others, the appellant-company was a tenant. The appellant moved the Rent Controller, Delhi, under s. 7A of the Act for fixation of the fair rent of the portion in its occupation. These proceedings have had a chequered history which it is not material to set out, but suffice it to say that the Rent Controller, Delhi, computed the fair rent for the entire building at Rs. 565/- p.m. and the fair rent payable by the appellant at Rs. 146/- per month. It is necessary to mention that under the Act the Rent Controller would have had jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's application for the fixation of fair...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1172; [1963]2SCR226
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises from a writ petition filed by the appellant, Raghutilaka Tirtha Sripadangalavaru Swamiji, in the Mysore High Court challenging the validity of s. 6(2) of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952 (XIII of 1952) hereafter called the Act, and the notification issued under the said section on March 31, 1952. 2. The appellant's case as set out in his writ petition before the High Court was that the impugned section as well as the notification issued under it infringed his fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 19(1)(f), 26, 31 and 31A of the Constitution. This contention has been rejected by the High Court and it has been held that the section and the notification under challenge are valid and constitutional. The appellant then applied for a certificate from the High Court, both under Art. 132 and Art. 133 of the Constitution. The High Court granted him certificate under Art. 133, but refused to certify the case under Art. 132. There after the appellant ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC408; [1963]2SCR145
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, on a Certificate granted by that Court under Art. 133(1) of the Constitution. The respondent carries on the business of exhibiting films in premises called the Royal Talkies at Beawar under licences granted by the appropriate authorities under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) hereinafter referred to me 'the Act'. Acting in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 12(4) of the Act, the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer issued on November 23, 1954, a notification which, omitting what is not material, is as follows :- '(1) The licensee shall so regulate the exhibition of cinematograph films that at every performances open to the public, approved films are exhibited, the approved films to be exhibited in relation to other films at every such performance being in the same proportion as one is to five or the nearest lower or higher approximation thereto. (2) Only such films produced in India as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]2SCR163
Shah, J. 1. Messrs. Surajmull Nagarmull - who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellants - were tenants of three warehouses and vacant land appurtenant there - topopularly known as the Shamnagar Jute Godown - belonging to Sri Hanuman Seva Trust. The warehouses were used for storage of jute belonging to the appellants. By an order dated August 17, 1943 and issued under Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, the warehouses were requisitioned and possession thereof was taken on September 21, 1943. As the amount of compensation payable to the owner of the warehouses could not be fixed by agreement an Arbitrator was appointed under s. 19(1)(b) of the Defence of India Act, 1939. Before the Arbitrator, Sri Hanuman Seva Trust claimed compensation as owners of the warehouses. The appellant claimed compensation for loss of earnings, 'damage to business' and cost of removal of 18,000 maunds of jute and some iron implements, which the appellants claimed had to be removed in consequen...
Tag this Judgment!