Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1633; [1964]2SCR673
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a second appeal preferred before it by the respondent. There is no doubt that under Art. 133(3) of the Constitution, no appeal lies to this court from the judgment, decree, or final order of one Judge of a High Court, and it has been the consistent practice of this Court not to encourage applications for special leave against the decisions of the High Courts rendered in second appeals; but in cases where the petitioners for special leave against the second appellate judgments delivered by a single Judge of the High Court are able to satisfy this Court that in allowing a second appeal, the High Court has interfered with questions of fact and has thus contravened the limits prescribed by section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not easy to reject their claim for special leave. As early as 1890 in the case of Mussummat Durga Choudhra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1526; [1964]2SCR686
Shah, J.1. The appellant instituted Suit No. 250 of 1950 in the Court of the CivilJudge (Senior Division), Junagadh for a decree for Rs. 72693/11/- alleging thatthe appellant had a personal account with the respondent in respect of drafts,cheques, hundis and cash, and at the foot of that account Rs. 58,000/- asprincipal amount and Rs. 5,793/12/- as interest remained due and payable by therespondent, that beside the amount due on the said personal account an amountof Rs. 8,899/15/3 was due to him in respect of a transaction of sale of 1300bags of groundnut sent by him between January 16 to January 28, 1950, and theprice of gunny bags and groundnut oil cakes delivered to the respondent. Theappellant further alleged that forward contracts were prohibited with effectfrom November 19, 1949 by the Saurashtra Groundnut and Groundnut Products(forward Contracts Prohibition) order, and that the said contracts beingillegal the appellant was not subject to any liability arising from adjustmentsof ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1964]2SCR647
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit instituted by the respondents in the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (O.S. No. 2. of 1947). The respondents claimed to represent the Sunni Muslim population of the Civil and Military Station at Bangalore, and as such they prayed in their plaint that a scheme should be settled for the proper administration of the Jumma Masjid which is situated on Old Poor House Road, C & M Station, Bangalore. Their case was that the Masjid in question along with its adjuncts such as Idgah, Makkhan, Madrassa, Kutubkhana and Musafarkhana as well as large movable and immovable properties, constitutes a Trust created for public purposes of a religious nature coupled with charity, and that the Dakkhani Muslims as well as the Cutchi Memons residing in Bangalore are the beneficiaries of the Trust and have an abiding interest in its proper management, control and direction. 2. It appears...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1742; (1964)66BOMLR68; (1963)GLR973(SC); [1964]2SCR608
Wanchoo, J.1. This appeal on a certificate granted by the Bombay High Court arises outof a suit brought by the appellants to challenge the imposition of a rate bythe respondent Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad on vacant lands situatewithin the municipal limits. The rate was levied under s. 73 of the BombayMunicipal Boroughs Act, No. XVIII of 1925, (hereinafter referred to as the Act)read with the explanation to s. 75 of the Act. The Municipality framed r. 350-Afor rating open lands which provides that the rate on the area of open landsshall be levied at 1 per centum on the valuation based upon capital.'Valuation based upon capital' was defined in r. 243 as the capitalvalue of lands and buildings as may be determined from time to time by thevaluers of the municipality, who shall take into consideration such reliabledate as the owners or the occupiers thereof may furnish either of their ownaccord or on being called upon to do so. The contention of the appellants wasthat reading the two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]50ITR731(SC)
Sarkar, J. 1. The appellant before us was the proprietor of the well- known Balarampur Estate in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He was subjected to agricultural income-tax under the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1949, for the years 1355, 1356 and 1357F. Various proceedings arose out of the assessment orders, but it is unnecessary to burden this judgment by referring to them. The appellant appealed from the original orders of assessment and those appeals having failed, filed revision petitions against the appellate orders, but those were also unsuccessful. He then got a large number of questions of law referred to the High Court under section 24 of the Act. The present appeals arise out of the High Court's answer of those questions. There are three appeals now before us one in respect of each of the said three years. 2. In these appeals only five questions have been canvassed. They related to different matters and their nature can be understood only when they are stated. But s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC688; (1964)66PLR247; [1964]2SCR599
Shah, J.1. The Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. - hereinafter called'the Company' - supplied to the Union of India goods of the value of Rs.1,06,670.89 nP. under a contract dated January 30, 1956 and received Rs.93,727/- as part payment of the price. The Union declined to pay the balance ofRs. 12,943.89 nP. The Company then commenced Suit No. 386 of 1958 in the Courtof the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, against the Union of India for a decreefor Rs. 10,625/- and Rs. 2,762.50 nP. as interest from October 12, 1956 tilldate of suit and interest pendente lite and costs of the suit. The Companyalleged that the Union had withheld payment of the balance of Rs. 12,943.89 nP.on the plea that an amount of Rs. 10,625/- was due to the Union under anothercontract between the parties for a bulk purchase order No. PBI/7028-705 datedDecember 16, 1949. The Company submitted that there was no such contract andthe dispute raised in that behalf by the Union had been referred to thearbitratio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC697; [1963]49ITR112(SC); [1964]2SCR552
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an assessee's appeal by special leave of this Court against anorder of the High Court of Patna, answering in favour of the Department thequestion 'whether in the circumstances of the case the amount of Rs.51,000 being the value of high denomination notes encashed by the assessee, hasbeen validly taxed as profits from some undisclosed business'. Theoriginal assessee, Rai Bahadur H. P. Banerjee, is dead. His son, who wassubstituted in his place, also died during the pendency of the proceedings inthe High Court. The present appeal has been filed by the widow of the son andother legal representatives. 2. Banerjee was the owner of several collieries in the Jharia Coal fields inthe State of Bihar and was also a contractor for raising coal. This matterrelates to the assessment year 1946-47. For that year, Banerjee was assessed onan income of Rs. 1,28,738. The assessment was then re-opened under s. 34 of theIndian Income-Tax Act, and was enhanced, but subsequently on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC11; [1964]2SCR567
Ayyangar, J. 1. The principal point that is raised for consideration in this appeal byspecial leave is as regards the legality and propriety of an order by thelearned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat directing a counter-claimfiled by the respondents to be treated as a plaint in a cross-suit andremanding the case for trial on that basis. 2. The facts necessary to appreciate the points raised before us are brieflyas follows : The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, and one JamnadasGhelabhai were partners in a business commenced in October 1913 and carried onunder the name and style of Bharat Medical Stores at Broach, the two partnershaving equal shares. During the subsistence of the partnership and from and outof the assets thereof an immovable property - a house was purchased at Broachin July 1932. Jamnadas Ghelabhai died on August 12, 1943 but the partnershipbusiness was continued thereafter by the plaintiff-appellant taking in BaiItcha - the widow of the deceased partn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC331; [1963]49ITR107(SC); [1964]2SCR531
Hidayatullah, J. 1. The High Court of Madras in a Reference under s. 66(1) of the IndianIncome Tax Act, answered in the negative the following question :- 16(3)(a)(iii)2. In our opinion, these appeals by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras,must be allowed. 3. Messrs Kothari and Sons is a firm of stock brokers. In 1947, the firmconsisted of C. M. Kothari and his two sons, D. C. Kothari and H. C. Kothari.Their respective shares were 6 : 5 : 5. On October 7, 1947, the firm enteredinto an agreement for the purchase of a house in Sterling Road, Madras, for Rs.90,000, and the same day paid an advance of Rs. 5,000. This sum was debited inthe books of the firm to the accounts of the three partners as follows :- C. M. Kothari Rs. 1,800D. C. Kothari Rs. 1,600H. C. Kothari Rs. 1,600 --------- Total. Rs. 5,0004. The transaction was completed on October 24, 1947. The sale deed,however, was taken in the names of Mrs. C. M. Kothari Mrs. D. C. Kothari and H.C. Kothari. The balance of the considerat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1583; [1963]49ITR122(SC); [1964]2SCR519
S.K. Das, J.1. V.D. Talwar, who was assessee before the taxing authorities and whoselegal representatives on his death are appellants before us, was employed asthe General Manager of Messrs J. K. Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Kanpur. Theterms of his employment as agreed upon by the assessee and the Company wereincorporated in an appointment letter dated February 7, 1946. A formalmemorandum of agreement was also executed between the parties on February 9,1946. The assessee actually joined the service of the company on May 1, 1946.According to the service agreement the pay of the assessee was fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month with an increment of Rs. 100/- p.a. subject to certaindeductions for income-tax, absence of duty etc., which need not be set out indetail for the purpose of this case. According to the agreement the period ofservice was for five years. Clause (5) and (6) of the appointment letter read -'(5) Period of agreement ofservice to be five years. (6) Termination of service ifwith...
Tag this Judgment!