Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1449; [1964(8)FLR125]; (1964)ILLJ386SC; [1964]5SCR568
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The industrial dispute between the appellant, Mcleod & Company Ltd., and the respondents, its workmen, which has given rise to the present appeal centered round two items of claim made by the respondents. The respondents claimed that they should be given cash allowance in lieu of the tiffin arrangements at present made by the appellant, and they urged that the practice started by the appellant of re-employing retired persons should be discontinued. The Tribunal has granted the first claim and has directed that the clerical staff should paid As. -/8/- per day and the subordinate staff As. -/6/- per day on all working days in lieu of the tiffin arrangements which are at present made by the appellant. In regard to the second claim, the Tribunal has ordered that the appellant should stop the re-employment of retired workmen in the category of clerks above 'C' grade. In respect of the subordinate staff as also in regard to the lowest grade clerks, the Tribunal thought ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1533; 1964CriLJ465; [1964]5SCR574
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short question of law which arises in this appeal relates to the construction of clause 3(2) of the Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958. This question arises in this way. 2. The respondent was charged with having committed an offence punishable under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in that on February 9, 1960, he was found storing 178 Mds. of paddy in his godown without any licence in violation of clause 3 of the said Order. The case against the respondent was that on February 9, 1960, his godown was searched and 178 Mds. of paddy was found stored in it. This fact was not denied by the respondent though he pleaded that the paddy which was found in his godown was meant for the consumption of the members of his family who numbered fifteen. He also pleaded that out of the stock found in his godown 40 Mds. of paddy belonged to Lalito Singh, his relation. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bishanpur, who tried the case of the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC784; [1964]5SCR582
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The appellant, Dr. Yash Pal Sahi, and his wife Dr. Susheela Sahi, are the proprietors of a homoeopathic hospital at Jangpura in New Delhi. They also run a journal called the 'Homoeopathic Doctor'. It appears that on May 15, 1958 Misri Singh wrote to the appellant that the medicines manufactured by him were proving effective, and he therefore requested the appellant to send him his magazine 'Homoeopathic Doctor' from January 15, 1958 up to the date of the letter. In this letter, Misri Singh also requested the doctor to send him a list of medicines that might have been printed by him and he promised to pay the requisite prices and suggested that the same should be sent by V.P.P. Thereupon, a packet containing Exhibits P-1 to P-6 which are copies of the 'Homoeopathic Doctor' and Ex. P-7, which is a list of medicines was sent to Misri Singh on May 24, 1958. Misri Singh had written of the appellant under the instructions of Mr. Seth, who is an officer in the Delhi Admin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1964]52ITR23(SC)
Sarkar, J. 1. We think this appeal must be allowed. It is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab refusing the appellant's application under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for an order directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question to the High Court for its decision : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 94,253 or any part of it accrued or arose or could be deemed to accrue or arise, or was received or could be deemed to be received by the assessee as income, profits and gains during the previous year.' 2. The facts are few. The assessee entered into a contract for the forward sale of certain quantity of mustard on February 5, 1952, at Rs. 27-8-0 per maund. The price fell soon thereafter, and the purchaser purported to cancel the contract before the due date which was June 7, 1952, but the assessee refused to accept the cancellation. On February 28, 1952, the assessee sent a telegram to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1458; [1964(8)FLR167]; (1964)ILLJ358SC; [1964]5SCR548
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises from an industrial dispute between the respondent, the Management of 11 Tea Estates and the appellants, their workmen. It appears that the appellants raised a dispute against the respondent in regard to the lay-off declared by them in the 11 estates in question in February, 1959. The said lay-off lasted for 45 days the appellants' contention was that the lay-off was not justified, and so, they were entitled to their full wages for the period of the lay-off. The respondent's Managing Agents for the nine Companies that run the 11 tea estates in question, resisted this claim on the ground that the lay-off was justified and they alleged that the appellants were not entitled to anything more than the compensation prescribed by section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). This dispute was referred to the adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal by the Governor of Assam under s. 10(1)(d) of the Act. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1807; [1964]51ITR295(SC); [1964]5SCR560
Sarkar, J. 1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court at Bombay given on a case stated to it under the Income-tax Act and answering in the affirmative the following question : 'Whether the levy of Rs. 68,501/- as penalty for concealment in the original return for the assessment year 1951-52 is legal ?' 2. The question arose in the assessment of the appellant, a firm, for the year 1951-52 in respect of which the accounting year was the calendar year 1950. The assessee carried on business at Surat. It had a branch at Bangkok to which it exported cloth from India. The branch also made purchases locally and sold them. During the last world war the business at Bangkok had been abeyance but it was re-started after the termination of the hostilities. 3. In its return for the assessment year 1949-50 the assessee did not include any profit of the Bangkok branch but stated that the books of account of the Bangkok branch were not available and that therefore its profit might now be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1964]51ITR876(SC)
Sarkar, J.1. The respondent, the assessee, entered into financing agreements with one Krishna Ayyar and from those agreements an income of Rs. 1,24,004 became due and receivable by him in the accounting year ending January 31, 1946, which was the previous year for the assessment year 1946-47. These financing agreements were in respect of certain works of construction to be carried out by Krishna Ayyar under contracts with the Government of India in certain places within the Indian State of Mysore as it was then constituted. The assessee, who ordinarily, resided in British India, contended in his assessment for the year 1946-47 that the aforesaid income accrued and arose to him in the Indian State of Mysore but had not been remitted into British India and, accordingly, that it was exempt from income-tax under section 14 (2) (c) of the Income-tax Act as it then stood. The taxing authorities and the Tribunal held that the income had accrued in British India and was not, therefore, exempt....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC685
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short question of law which arises in these two appeals is whether the High Court of Orissa was justified in issuing a writ directing the appellant State of Orissa not to dispossess the two respondents in the two appeals respectively of the 'Maliahs' without their consent otherwisethan in due course of law. This question arises in this way. In the High Court, six petitions were filed by six ex-Zamindars of Ganjam District respectively under Article 226 of the Constitution against the appellant. Each one of them alleged that he apprehended danger to his property situated in portions of Ganjam Agency tracts known as Maliahs by threat of executive action. The case set out by these Zamindars was that the Ganjam plains which are partly situated in Orissa and partly in the Andhra State, had been permanently settled with them under the provisions of the Madras Regulation No. XXV of 1802. The Zamindaris thus permanently settled on them have been acquired by the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC825; [1964]5ITR285(SC); [1964]5SCR508
Shah, J. 1. Baba Gowd, P. V. Rajareddy and Rajareddy Mallaram formed an association of persons called 'Nizamabad Group Liquor Shops' - called for the sake of brevity 'the Group'. For the Fasli year 1358 i.e. October 1, 1948 to September 30, 1949 the Group carried on business in liquor contracts obtained from the former State of Hyderabad. With the end of Fasli year 1358 the contracts came to an end. The business was then discontinued, and the Group was dissolved. The Group did not make a return of its income pursuant to the general notice under s. 22(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer, Nizamabad Circle, issued a notice under s. 34 of the Income-tax Act calling upon Baba Gowd - one of the members of the Group - to file a return of the income of the Group, but Baba Gowd failed to file the return on the due date. The Income-tax Officer then assessed the taxable income of the Group under s. 23(4) at Rs. 51,000, and determined Rs. 8,826-14-0 as the tax payable. Attempts...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1873; [1964]5SCR517; [1964]15STC144(SC)
Hidayatullah, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeals Nos. 494 to 496 of 1962. The State of Andhra Pradesh which now stands substituted for the Provincial Government of Madras is the appellant. The respondent is one J.S. Basappa, a groundnut-oil merchant of Kurnool who was selling oil within the Province and also exported it to extra-Provincial points. These three appeals concern sales-tax for the years 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47. They arise out of three suits filed by Basappa against the Provincial Government of Madras now represented by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the details of which are given below. 2. For the year 1944-45, Basappa was assessed to sales-tax amounting to Rs. 12,983-2-2 of which, according to him, a sum of Rs. 1,594-1-5 only represented sales within the Province. He claimed that the remaining sales took place outside the Province of Madras. He submitted that property in the goods remained with him till the export of the goods to an extra-Provincial p...
Tag this Judgment!