Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC703; [1964]2SCR363
S.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave, and it presents some unusualfeatures. The short facts are these. The Additional Sessions Judge of Hardoi inthe State of Uttar Pradesh tried Zafar Ali Khan and three other persons oncharges under Sections 452 and 307 read with s. 34, Indian Penal Code. The caseagainst the aforesaid accused persons started on a first information reportlodged at a police station called Shahabad, purporting to have been so lodgedat about 3.30 A.M. by one Farasat Ali Khan on the night between the 7th and 8thNovember, 1958. The case was investigated by one Mohammad Naim who was then theStation Officer of Shahabad police station. The learned Additional SessionsJudge convicted the accused persons though he found, on the evidence given inthe case, that it was more probable that the first information was lodged atthe police station at about 7 or 8 A.M. rather than at 3.30 A.M. From theconviction and sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge there was ana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1607; (1964)66PLR392; [1964]2SCR324
Ayyangar, J. 1. These three appeals, which are before us on certificates of fitnessgranted by the High Court of Punjab, arise out of two suits for the recovery ofamounts due on mortgages executed by one Mohinder Singh who was a contractor inDelhi. Mohinder Singh is now deceased and is now represented in theseproceedings by his widow and son. Mohinder Singh owned as many as eightproperties in Delhi and over one or other of these he created successively 24mortgages between September 1943 and July 1944 and also executed a sale inrespect of one item of these properties. The contentions urged in these appealsarise out of conflicts between the rights of some these mortgagees inter se,between some of them and the purchaser of one of the properties. It is howeverunnecessary for the purpose of deciding these points to set out the details ofevery one of these several mortgages or their history. 2. Appeals 77 and 78 may first be considered. The facts necessary toappreciate the sole point raised b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1; 1964CriLJ1; [1964]2SCR336
Subba Rao, J.1. I have perused the judgment prepared by my learned brother Mudholkar J. Iagree that the appeal should be dismissed. But I would prefer to give my ownreasons for doing so. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are simple. The appellant is amedical practitioner and during the year 1959 he was acting as DeputySuperintendent. Jahanabad Sub-Divisional Hospital and Superintendent, Sub Jail,Jahanabad. A criminal case was pending before the Court of theMunsif-Magistrate, First Class, Jahanabad, and the two accused therein filed apetition in that Court for releasing them on bail. On October 3, 1959, thelearned Munsif-Magistrate called for a report from the said medical officer ofhis opinion on the health of the said accused. The said officer examined theaccused and sent the following report to the Munsif-Magistrate : 'Examined accused Ramsewak Dusadh and Ramdeo Dusadhof village Havellipur, P. S. Ghosi, district Gaya and found that both of themare suffering from Hookworm infect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1379; [1964]2SCR293
Ayyangar, J. 1. The facts necessary to appreciate the points involved in this appeal by special leave against the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab are briefly these. By a registered deed of mortgage dated March 6, 1933 Sham Singh who is respondent No. 2 before us effected an usufructuary mortgage of land measuring 7530 Kanals and 19 Marlas situate in village Mohanpur in the District of Multan (now in Pakistan) to the father of appellants 1 to 3 and to Topan Das - the father of the 4th appellant. The sum secured by the mortgage was Rs. 30,000/-. The stipulation in the mortgage was that the income derived from the properties transferred to the possession of the mortgagees was to be treated as interest on Rs. 10,000/- out of the principal sum and that the balance of Rs. 20,000/- was to carry a sum of Rs. 1,650/- per annum as interest. The deed further fixed a term of 10 years beyond which the mortgagee could sue for the recovery of the mortgage-money. Subsequent to the deed of mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC591; [1964]2SCR310
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This appeal on certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, is directed against its judgment dated April 6, 1955, dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. 656 of 1950. The High Court held that the respondents were agriculturists within the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 (called for brevity 'the Act') and were entitled to a scaling down of the decree in O.S. No. 52 of 1941, dated August 27, 1945. The decree-holders are the appellants before us. We will now give the facts relevant to the present appeal. 2. The respondents were members of an undivided Hindu family and the following geneology is useful in following the facts :- Valluri Jagannadha Rao I|_______________________________________________| |Srivatsankara Rao Narasimha Rao|_____________________________________________| |Jagannadha Rao II Satyanarayanamurthi(Ist respondent) (2nd respondent)|| Srivatsankara Rao| (5th respondent)|______________________________________| |Narasimha Rao Subba Rao(3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1581; 1963MhLJ786(SC); [1964]2SCR286; [1963]14STC675(SC)
Sarkar, J.1. The appellant had been assessed to sales tax for the year 1957-58 under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950. This Act was repealed on April 1, 1959, by the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. On December 31, 1960, a notice was issued to the appellant by an Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax under the 1958 Act wherein it was stated, 'I am satisfied that your sale during the period from 1-4-1957 to 31-3-58...... has escaped assessment and thereby rendered yourself liable to be reassessed under s. 19(1) of the Act.' Pursuant to this notice fresh assessment proceedings were started by the Assistant Commissioner in respect of the sales in the year 1957-58 and on March 31, 1961, he made an order imposing an additional tax on the appellant of Rs. 31,250/- for that year and a penalty of Rs. 15,000/-. The appellant moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for a writ of certiorari to quash the order but was unsuccessful. It has now appealed to this Court against the judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1964]2SCR259
S.K. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of theMadras High Court dated December 2, 1955 by which the said Court set aside theorder of the learned District Judge of East Tanjore dated August 30, 1950passed on an application made by the 1st respondent herein, under s. 19 of theMadras Agriculturists Relief Act (Act IV of 1938), hereinafter called theprincipal Act, as amended by the Madras Agriculturists Relief (Amendment) Actof 1948 (Act XXIII of 1948). By the said order the learned District Judgedismissed the application as unsustainable in law. The High Court set asidethat order on the ground that the respondent's application for the scaling downof the decree passed against him should not have been dismissed in limine andthe learned District Judge should have gone into the question whether therespondent was an agriculturist entitled to the benefit of the principal Act asamended in 1948. 2. The material facts are not very much in controversy, but thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC227; [1964]2SCR241
Mudholkar, J.1. This appeal and civil appeals Nos. 104, 106 and 107 of 1961 arise out ofexecution proceedings in four different suits but as they involve a commonquestion they were heard together by the High Court and by us. That question iswhether the execution applications out of which these appeals arise are withintime. 2. We propose to treat C.A. No. 105 of 1961 as a typical case. The relevantfacts thereof are briefly these : In O.S. 46 of 1943 one RamanathanChettiar instituted a suit against one Venkatachalam Chettiar in the court ofthe Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,285/-due on promisory note dated November 20, 1942 with interest thereon. Heeventually obtained a decree for the full claim. In so far as the seconddefendant is concerned, he was made liable for the decretal amount to theextent of this interest in the joint family property of himself and his father.The plaintiff assigned the decree in favour of Chidambaram Chettiar, who is theappe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1547; (1963)65PLR912; [1964]2SCR273
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises the question whether a suit would lie in a civil Courtclaiming refund of the terminal tax collected by a municipality under theprovisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (Punjab Act III of 1911),hereinafter called the Act. 2. The appellant is alleged to be a firm registered under the IndianPartnership Act. It carries on business within the limits of the LudhianaMunicipality. It imported Sambhar salt into the octroi limits of the LudhianaMunicipality. The Municipality Committee, Ludhiana, imposed terminal tax on thesaid salt and the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 5,893/7/0 towards the said taxbetween October 24, 1947 and December 8, 1947. Under the Punjab GovernmentNotification No. 26463, dated July 21, 1932, terminal tax was payable underitem 68 of the Schedule attached to the said Notification at the rate of 3 piesper maund in respect of salt common, and under item 69 at the rate of As. /10/-per maund in respect of salt of all kinds other than common ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]50ITR187(SC)
SUBBA RAO J. - This appeal raises the question whether a suit would lie in a civil court claiming refund of the terminal tax collected by a municipality under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (Punjab Act III of 1911), hereinafter called the Act.The appellant is alleged to be a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It carries on business within the limits of the Ludhiana municipality. It imported Sambhar salt into the octroi limits of the Ludhiana municipality. The Municipal Committee, Ludhiana, imposed terminal tax on the said salt and the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 5,893-7-0 towards the said tax between October 24, 1947, and December 8, 1947. Under the Punjab Government Notification No. 26463, dated July 21, 1932, terminal tax was payable under item 68 of the Schedule attached to the said notification at the rate of three pies per maund in respect of salt common, and under item 69 at the rate of annas 10 per maund in respect of salt of all kinds other than...
Tag this Judgment!