Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC617; [1964]51ITR849(SC); [1964]6SCR91
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals, Nos. 275-276 of 1963. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 2, 1960 of the Kerala High Court in Income-tax Referred case No. 98 of 1955(M). S. T. Desai, C. V. Mahalingam, B. Parthasarathi and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant (in both the appeals). K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and R. N. Sachthey, for the res- pondent (in both the appeals). December 20, 1963. The Judgment of A. K. Sarkar and J. C. Shah, JJ. was delivered by Sarkar, J. M. Hidayatullah, J. delivered a Dissenting opinion. SARKAR J.-These two appeals arise out of assessments of the appellant to income-tax for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50. The question in these appeals is whether on the facts to be presently stated, the appellant was entitled to relief under s. 25(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The appellant claimed relief under s. 25(4) contending that it had transferred its business to a limited company with effect either from November 13. 1947 or February...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1099; [1964]6SCR129
Ayyangar, J. 1. On behalf of the Chief Justice and himself. We have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of our brother Subba Rao J. and we agree with him that the appeal should be dismissed. 2. The justification for this separate judgment, however, is because of our inability to agree with him in his construction of the relative scope of the two limbs of s. 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act. 3. The facts of the case have been set out in detail in the judgment of Subba Rao J. and it is therefore unnecessary to repeat them. There were three principal points that were urged before us on either side which require to be considered and all of them turn on the proper construction of s. 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act which we shall for convenience set out here : '29(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefore by the first schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply, as i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1200; 1964MPLJ801(SC); [1964]6SCR54
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The question of law which this appeal has raised for our decision is in relation to the nature and scope of the enquiry contemplated by sections 97, 100 and 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (No. 43 of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act). The appellant Jabar Singh and the respondent Genda Lal, besides five others, had contested the election to the Madhya Pradesh Assembly on behalf of the Morena Constituency No. 5. This election took place on the 21st February, 1962. In due course, the scrutiny of recorded votes took place and counting followed on the 27th February, 1962. As a result of the counting, the appellant was shown to have secured 5,671 votes, whereas the respondent 5,703 votes. It is not necessary to refer to the votes secured by the other candidates. After the result of the counting was thus ascertained, the appellant applied for recounting of the votes and thereupon, recounting followed as a result of which the appellant was declared elected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1654; [1964(8)FLR244]; (1964)ILLJ29SC; [1964]3SCR280
Das Gupta, J.1. This application for review of a judgment given by us on April 22 this year is by the Bank, which was the respondent in the appeal. 2. The appellant who had been appointed a clerk in the Bank on December 14, 1953, made an application under s. 33(b)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court, Delhi. He complained that in applying to him the award of the Sastry Tribunal in the dispute between certain banks and their workmen as modified by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, the Bank had proceeded on the basis that under it the appellant was entitled to get his annual increment in each year on April 1. According to the appellant, he was entitled under the award to have his annual increment in December each year. Accordingly, he prayed that the benefit of which he was being deprived by the Bank should be computed and directed to be paid to him. At the hearing of the appeal it was contended before us on behalf of the appellant that on a proper interpretation of pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC124; [1964]6SCR35
Ayyangar, J.1. These five appeals which have been consolidated for hearing, raise for consideration principally two points : (1) the constitutional validity of the Bhopal Reclamation and Development of Lands (Eradication of Kans) Act, 1954 (Act XIII of 1954) which will be hereafter referred to as the Act, and (2) whether the provisions of the Act, even if constitutionally valid, were complied with in the case before us. 2. The Act the provisions of which we shall set out and examine later, empowered the State Government to notify areas of the State as 'Kans infested areas' and on such notification officers of the State were enabled to enter on the lands within the notified areas and conduct deep ploughing tractorisation operation with a view to eradicate the kans. We might mention even here that Kans are a species of weeds which infest large areas of land in and around the former State of Bhopal now forming part of Madhya Pradesh. The weeds are hardy, quick growing, rapidly expanding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1040; [1964(8)FLR285]; (1964)ILLJ746SC; [1964]6SCR15
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal arises from an Industrial dispute between the appellant, Mr. Podar Plastics (P) Ltd. and the respondents, its workmen, and it has reference to the claim made by the respondents for bonus for the year 1959. The respondents claim that for the relevant year they should get bonus equivalent to three months' salary including dearness allowance. On hearing the parties the parties and on considering the evidence adduced by them, the Tribunal has directed that the appellant shall pay to the respondents bonus at the rate of half month's basic wages excluding allowances and overtime for the said year. It is against this award that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave. 2. The appellant is a private company and its registered office is situated at Mr. Podar Chambers, Parsee Bazar Street, Fort, Bombay. It owns a factory at Supari Baug Road where it manufactures plastic products. The appellant's case before the Tribunal was that if proper accounts a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1617; [1964(8)FLR236]; (1964)ILLJ351SC; [1964]6SCR22
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The principal point of law which this appeal raises for our decision relates to the construction of section 25F(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). The Bombay Union of Journalists which is the Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, Mrs. Aruna Mukherji, and Mr. M. T. Thomas are appellants 1 to 3; and the State of Bombay, and the Indian National Press, Bombay, which is a Private Ltd. Co. are respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the present appeal. Appellant No. 2 was appointed on the staff of the second respondent on a salary of Rs. 500 p.m. with effect from 1st January, 1955. On the 30th November, 1957, she was served with a notice of termination of her services with effect from 1st December, 1957. The notice recited the fact that the management in consultation with the Editor had decided to retrench her services. Appellant No. 3 Mr. Thomas who was employed as a Sub-Editor in the 'Free Press Journa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC806; [1964(8)FLR289]
Das Gupta, J.1. The industrial dispute out of which this appeal has arisen was referred by the Government of Madras in these terms: --'Whether the discharge of Sri Brian Bobb and Sri C. Sampath is justified and to what relief they are entitled ?'In this appeal we are concerned only with the case of Brian Bobb. This gentleman appears to have been a working journalist for many years. He was employed formerly as News Editor of the Morning News, Dacca, in Pakistan. He had to give up that post on the refusal of the Pakistan Government to renew his visa. He then requested Shri R. N. Goenka, Chairman of the Express News-papers Ltd., Madras, for an appointment on the editorial staff on any of the group of newspapers under his control and ultimately was appointed as Chief Sub-Editor pf the Indian Express at Madurai. Mr. Brian Bobb joined the post on February 28, 1957. The appointment was on probation, the term being thus expressed in the appointment letter dated February 11, 1957:'Your appointm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC271; [1964]6SCR1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 528 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated October 10, 1956 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. 171 of 1951-52. K. P. Bhatt and R. Thiagarajan, for the appellant. S. T. Desai, K. Jayaram and R. Ganapathy Iyer for the respondents. December, 18, 1963 The Judgment of P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. Subba Rao, K. N. Wanchoo and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ. was delivered by Gajendragadkar, J. J. R. Mudholkar J. delivered a dissenting opinion. GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-This appeal arises from a suit filed by the appellant Kanakarathanammal in the Court of the IInd Additional District Judge, Bangalore (O.S. No. 39 of 1947- 48) in which she claimed to recover possession of the properties described in the Schedules attached to the plaint. Schedules 1 and 2 consist of movable and immovable properties, while Schedule 3 refers to jewels and silver- ware. The appellant laid a claim to these properties as the sole heir of her moth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1317; (1964)66PLR690
Das Gupta, J.1. In a suit for ejectment instituted on September 8, 1958 the plaintiff who is the respondent before us now made an application under Section 13(5) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act No. XXXVIII of 1952). He prayed for an order to be made on defendant-tenant to deposit all the arrears of rent and future monthly rent in accordance with law by the 15th of the following month. The arrears of rent were claimed to be Rs. 722/7/-upto the 30th June 1960. The original rent was stated to be Rs. 64/8/- and with effect from August 1, 1959 the rent was claimed at Rs. 70.95 np.2. This application was resisted by the tenant who in his reply dated August 1, 1960 stated that the rate of rent had continued to be at Rs. 64-8-0 and only Rs. 516/- was due at the rate of Rs. 64/8/- as arrears upto June 30, 1960. He added that he was prepared to deposit it.3. The Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, passed orders on the application on August 1, 1960. The relevant portion of the ...
Tag this Judgment!