Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC394; 1963MhLJ609(SC); [1964]1SCR793
Subba Rao, J. 1. These two appeals by special leave are filed against the common judgmentof a Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur in writ petitionsNos. 22 of 1955 and 274 of 1955 filed by respondents 1, 3 to 6 herein in thesaid court. 2. The facts in Appeal No. 370 of 1960 may be stated first. Respondent 1,Seth Balkishan Nathani, was the proprietor and lambardar of Mouza Sonpairi inTahsil and District Raipur. On January 14, 1947, he executed perpetual pattasin favour of his wife, Vashodabai, since deceased, and respondents 4, 5 and 6in respect of khudkasht and grass lands of Mouza Sonpairi. In Tabdili Jamabandiof the year 1946-47 the said lands were recorded as the Occupancy TenancyHoldings of the said respondents 4 to 6 and respondent 2, Govindlal Nathani,the legal representative of Vashodabai. The same entry was found in theJamabandis of the subsequent years. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of ProprietaryRights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (1 of 1951), h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1964CriLJ573; [1964]1SCR775
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court ofPatna altering the conviction of the appellants under s. 304, Part II read withs. 149 of the Indian Penal Code into convictions under s. 326 read with s. 149,I.P.C. but maintaining the sentences and affirming the convictions under s. 147and s. 426, I.P.C. as well as the sentences awarded ink respect of thoseoffences. 2. The prosecution case was that there was a dispute between Ram Bilas Singhof Shahpore and his two sons Ram Naresh Singh and Dinesh Singh on the one hand(appellants before us) and Deva Singh (P.W. 2) and his brothers on the otherwith respect to a Dochara in a village Dihara. On April 22, 1957, at about 9.00a.m. while Deva Singh, along with his brother Laldeo Singh, the deceased andtwo other persons Dhunmun Singh (P.W. 4) and Dasain Hajam were sitting in theDochara the appellant No. 1 Ram Bilas Singh arrived there in a truck with a mobof 40 to 50 persons which included the other two appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC307; 1965CriLJ347; 1963MhLJ624(SC); [1964]1SCR765
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench), by which a criminal revision filed by the three appellants was dismissed. The three appellants with five others were tried for offences under s. 4 of 'The United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat), Gambling Act, Samvat 2006', (Madhya Bharat Act No. 51 of 1949) (Samvat 2006). Krishnachandra, the first appellant, was also tried under s. 3 of the Act. All the original accused except one were convicted under s. 4 of the Act and sentenced to one months' simple imprisonment. Krishnachandra was convicted in addition under s. 3 of the Act and sentenced to one months' simple imprisonment. The sentences in Krishnachandra's case were ordered to run concurrently. 2. All these persons appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Session. The three appellants then filed a petition for revision in the High Court. The High Court also issued a notice under s. 439 of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC322; [1963]50ITR93(SC); [1964]1SCR752; [1963]14STC680(SC)
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the suitinstituted by the appellant, Firm of Illury Subbayya Chetty & Sons, in thecourt of the Subordinates Judge at Kurnool, seeking to recover Rs. 8,349/- fromthe respondent, the State of Andhra Pradesh, on the ground that the said amounthad been illegally recovered from it under the Madras General Sales Tax Act,1939 (Mad. IX of 1939) (hereinafter called the Act) for the years 1952-54 iscompetent or not; and this question has to be determined in the light of thescope and effect of section 18-A of the Act. 2. The appellant is a firm of merchants carrying on commission agency andother business at Kurnool and as such, it purchases and sells ground-nuts andother goods on behalf of principles for commission. For the year 1952-53, theSales-tax authorities included in the appellant's taxable turnover an amount ofRs. 3,45,488/12/10 representing groundnut sales and collected the tax on thetotal turnover from it in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1323; 1963CriLJ347; (1963)ILLJ285SC; [1964]1SCR742
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the RajasthanHigh Court. The respondent was in the service of the State of Rajasthan and atthe material time was a circle inspector. He was compulsorily retired fromservice on September 3, 1960 under r. 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules,(hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules). The order for his retirementwas communicated to him by the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, on April11, 1960. The respondent however made representations to the Government and theorder was kept in abeyance and was finally put into effect from September 3,1960, after the Government had rejected the representation. The Governmentordered on September 2, 1960 that the order of April 11, 1960 regardingcompulsory retirement should be put into immediate effect. The respondentthereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court and contended inter alia thatthe Inspector General of Police has no authority to order his compulsoryretire...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC507; [1965]35CompCas1(SC); [1964]1SCR717
Ayyangar, J. 1. The principal point raised for consideration in this appeal by specialleave relates to the correctness and legality of an order by a Division Benchof the Calcutta High Court refusing to confirm a sale by the liquidators of theassets of a company which is being wound up. The company in question - theLuxmi Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. - a company incorporated under the IndianCompanies Act - was carrying on business at Calcutta. On a petition of the 1strespondent - Shankarlal Poddar - made to the High Court of Calcutta, thiscompany was ordered to be would up compulsorily by order dated August 22, 1955.But before this order was passed, certain matters had transpired to which it isnecessary to advert. The appellants claiming that they had advanced loans tothe company under two registered deeds of mortgage and alleging that there hadbeen default on the part of the company in performing its obligations as topayment of interest etc. under the said deeds instituted a mortgage...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963(6)FLR361]; (1963)ILLJ291SC; [1964]1SCR709
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. The brief facts necessary for presentpurposes are these. A dispute was referred by the Central Government under s.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, (hereinafter referred to asthe Act) with reference to the thirteen workmen involved in this appeal in thefollowing terms :- 'Whether the dismissal of the following thirteenworkmen of Bhatdee Colliery was justified If not, to what relief are theyentitled and from which date ?' 2. It appears that the thirteen workmen had physically obstructed thesurface trammers working in the colliery on different dates, namely, October,20, October 27, and November 3, 1959. Some of them had also incited the otherworkmen to join in this act of obstructing the loyal and willing trammers sothat they may be prevented from working. This happened during a strike whichwas begun on October 20, 1959 by the Colliery Mazdoor Sangh ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1963CriLJ341; [1964]1SCR697
Gajendragadkar, J.1. Mr. P., who is an advocate-on-record of this Court and who will hereafterbe called the 'Advocate', acted for the Board of Trustees of the Dakhina ParswaNath of Puri through its Executive Officer respondent No. 2 (b) in Civil AppealNo. 232/1954. As such Advocate he entered appearance on November 9, 1957. Thesaid appeal was heard on May, 2 and 6, 1958, and by the Judgment pronounced bythis Court on May, 20, 1958, it was dismissed with costs in favour ofrespondent No. 2 (b). The Advocate had briefed Mr. J. as a senior Advocate tolead him at the hearing of the appeal. It appears that the client had paid theAdvocate Rs. 500/- on the eve of the hearing of the appeal and the seniorAdvocate was paid Rs. 1,000/- direct by the client. The Bill of Costs andvouchers had to be filed by the Advocate on behalf of his client within sixweeks from the date of judgment under O. XL r. 12 of the Supreme Court Rules(hereinafter called the 'Rules'). The said period expired during the sum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]49ITR130(SC)
S. K. DAS J. - This is an appeal by special leave. The appellant is the widow of one Kanji Jadhavji. Kanji Jadhavji had extensive business such as stevedoring, coal hauling, freight brokerage, clearing and forwarding of goods, loading and unloading of steamers, chartering of steamers, etc. These business the widow inherited on the death of her husband. For the assessment year 1947-48, the relevant accounting year being the calendar year 1946, the appellant was assessed on a total Income of Rs. 3,69,371 which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 2,99,471 by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. While assessing the appellant, the Income-tax Officer concerned added a sum of Rs. 1,38,000 being the amount of certain high denomination notes encashed by the appellant, as income from undisclosed source. Being aggrieved by this addition, the appellant appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner asked the Income-tax officer to prepare from the records in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1413; (1963)65BOMLR789; 1963MhLJ721(SC); [1964]1SCR678
Subba Rao, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of adivision Bench of the Bombay High Court setting aside the order of acquittalmade by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolaba, and convicting the appellantunder s. 302, read with s. 34, of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him toimprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution may be briefly stated. In the year 1959, twopersons by name Ramachandra Budhya and Govind Dhaya were murdered by somepeople. In all 11 accused, including one Deoram Maruti Patil, were brought totrial; and out of them 8 accused, including the said Deoram Maruti Patil, wereacquitted. During that trial Deoram Maruti Patil's uncle, by name Vishwanath,actively helped Deoram Maruti Patil in the conduct of his defence. Accused 1and 2 in the present case are the sons of Govind Dhaya and accused 3 and 4 arethe nephews of Ramachandra Budhya. They bore a grudge against Vishwanath forhelping Deoram Maruti Patil and bringing about his acqui...
Tag this Judgment!