Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1043; [1964]6SCR461
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 182-186 of 1963. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 1961 of the Gujarat High Court in Second Appeals Nos. 105, 106, 107, 112 and 193 of 1960. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, R. Ganapathy Iyer, R. K. P. Shankardass and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant (in all the appeals). Purshottam Trikamdas, B. Parthasarathy, J. B. Dadachanji O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the resdondents (in all the appeals). January 30, 1964. Hidayatullah J., Shah J., and Mudholkar J. delivered separate Judgments allowing the appeal. Raghubar Dayal J. agreed with the order proposed by Hidayatullah J. The dissenting opinion of Sinha C.J. and Rajagopala Ayyangar J. was delivered by Ayyangar J. Subba Rao J. delivered a separate dissenting opinion. AYYANGAR J.-In this batch of five analogous appeals, by special leave, the main question for determination is whether the rights which were in controversy between the parties in the cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1128; (1964)66BOMLR453; 1964CriLJ222; 1965MhLJ78(SC); [1964]6SCR446
ORDER'Whereas the Government of Maharashtra is satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar of Bombay that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the public safety and the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make the following order : 'Now, therefore, is exercise of the powers conferred upon it by rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, the Government of Maharashtra does hereby direct that the said Shri Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar be detained. By order and in the name of the Governor of MaharashtraSd. Deputy Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, (Home Department) Sachivalaya, Bombay, this 10th day of November, 1962'. 7. The contention of the appellants is that the first part of the order does not say that it is necessary to detain the appellants. The words used in the first part of the order are 'it is necessary to make the following order' and then follows the second part which says t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC342; [1964]52ITR335(SC); [1964]6SCR411
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and decree dated March 17, 1959, of the Allahabad High Court in Misc. Writ Petition No. 280 of 1958. K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant Bishan Narain, G. C. Sharma, O.C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent. A. V. Vishwanatha Sastri, D. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghosh, for the intervener. January 29, 1964. 'Me Judgment of B. P. Sinha C.J., K.Subba Rao and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ., was delivered by Subba Rao J. The dissenting opinion of Raghubar Dayal and Mudholkar JJ., was delivered by Mudholkar J. SUBBA RAo J.-This appeal by special leave raises the question of the construction of the proviso to sub-s. (3) of s. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by Act 25 of 1933, hereinafter called the Act. The facts lie in a small compass and they are as follows: The respondent is a firm carrying on business in different lines. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1034; [1964]52ITR328(SC); 1964MhLJ431(SC); [1964]6SCR437
Mudholkar, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the BombayHigh Court in a writ petition challenging the notice issued under s. 34(1) ofthe Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 by the First Income-tax Officer, Bombay, who isthe appellant before us. In the writ petition various grounds were urged by therespondent in support of the contention that the notice was bad in law. TheHigh Court, however, dealt with only one of those contentions, accepted it, anddid not permit the respondents' counsel Mr. Mehta to put forward the othercontentions urged in the writ petition by the respondents. 2. The appellant had issued notice to the respondents under s. 34(1)(a) ofthe Income-tax Act in respect of an escaped income of Rs. 47,595 for theassessment year 1944-45. This notice was issued by him on March 27, 1957. Onbehalf of the respondents, it is contended that the notice was bad because,though it was in respect of an amount of less than Rs. 1 lakh it was issuedafter the expiry of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1823; (1964)2MysLJ(SC)11; [1964]6SCR368
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1056 and 1057 of 1963. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 30, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 1592 and 1522 of 1963. S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants (in both the appeals). C. K.. Daphtary, Attorney-General, B. R. L. lyengar and B. R. G. K. A char, for the respondents (in both the appeals) January 29, 1964. The Judgment of B. P. Sinha, C.J., K. Subba Rao, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and Raghubar Dayal JJ. was delivered by Subba Rao J. Mudholkar J. delivered a dissenting opinion. SUBBA RAO J.-These two appeals raise the question of the validity, of the orders made by the Government of Mysore in respect of admissions to Engineering and Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore. The facts may be briefly stated: in the State of Mysore there are a number of Engineering and Medical Colleges-most of them are Government Colleges and a few of them are Government a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1118
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Indra Deo Kumar and three others, Travelling Ticket Examiners of the North Eastern Railway, instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif, 1st Court, Muzaffarpur, for a declaration that they were entitled to promotion in the grade of Travelling Ticket Inspectors of the grade of Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- with effect from March 22, 1957 as per the recommendations of the competent authority, the then Regional Superintendent and that the order of the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, viz., the General Manager, N. E. Railway at Gorakhpur and the Chief Personnel Officer, N. E. Railway at Gorakhpur, respectively, rejecting their claim was illegal and without jurisdiction and for the issue of a permanent injunction against the defendants, which included the Union of India, restraining them from filling up the vacancies existing in January, 1951 by taking any other persons than the plaintiffs. The Union of India contested the suit on various, grounds. One of them was that the suit was b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1964)66BOMLR482; 1964MhLJ641(SC); [1965]3SCR854
Wanchoo, J.1. The two appeals by special leave arise out of the same criminal trial before a magistrate at Porbunder and will be dealt with together. The three appellants along with one more person, namely, Keshavlal Nagjibhai were prosecuted under s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. No. 8 of 1878, (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) The prosecution case briefly was that Vallabhdas Liladhar, who is now dead, came in contact with an Arab from whom he purchased smuggled gold weighing a little more than 84 tolas on December 1, 1956. Before this, Vallabhdas Liladhar had borrowed Rs. 3,600/- from the other two appellants and Keshavlal about November 28, 1956, in order to make the purchase. After making the purchase, Vallabhdas Liladhar came to Porbunder to the house of the other two appellants and Keshavlal and informed them of the purchase and wanted their help in the disposal of the gold. The other two appellants namely, Narandas Nagjibhai and Vallabhdas Nagjibhai are brothers. Keshavlal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1385; (1964)66PLR897; [1964]6SCR321
Mudholkar J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of his suit for specificperformance of a contract for the sale of 3/20th share of land in certainfields situate in Mauza Faizpur in Batala in the State of Punjab. He hadinstituted the suit in the court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Batala, whodismissed it in its entirety. Upon appeal the High Court of Punjab, whileupholding the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim for specific performance,modified the decree of the trial court in regard to one matter. By thatmodification the High Court ordered the defendants to repay to the plaintiffthe earnest money which he had paid when the contract of sale was entered intoby him with Pindidas. It may be mentioned that Pindidas died during thependency of the appeal before the High Court and his legal representativeswere, therefore, substituted in his place. Aggrieved by the dismissal of hisclaim for specific performance the plaintiff has come up to this Court by acertificate granted by the H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC962; [1964]6SCR330
Ayyangar J.1. This batch of 11 Appeals which have been consolidated for hearing aredirected against the common judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh andare before us on the grant of a certificate of fitness under Art. 133(1) of theConstitution by the said High Court. 2. The proceedings concerned in the appeals arise out of Writ Petitionsfiled before the High Court by the several appellants before us under Art. 226of the Constitution challenging the validity of three Schemes framed underChapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, nationalising motor transport incertain areas in the Kurnool District of the State of Andhra Pradesh which forconvenience we shall refer to as the impugned Schemes. The appellants whoimpugn the validity of the schemes are the previously existing motor transportoperators whose permits are liable to be modified or cancelled under the provisionsof the Schemes on their coming into force. The impugned schemes were publishedby Government as G.O.Ms. 292, 293 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1850; 1964CriLJ744; 1964MhLJ519; (1964)2MysLJ(SC)44; [1964]6SCR312
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Faddi appeals, by special leave, against the order of the High Court ofMadhya Pradesh confirming his conviction and sentence of death under s. 302I.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Morena. 2. Jaibai, widow of Buddhu, began to live with Faddi a few years after thedeath of her husband Buddhu. Faddi and Jaibai at first lived at Agra, but lateron shifted to Morena. Jaibai had a son named Gulab, by Buddhu. Gulab was aged11 years and lived in village Torkheda at the house of his phupa Ramle. He wasliving there from Sawan, 1961. 3. Gulab's corpse was recovered from a well of village Jarah on January 21,1963. It reached the mortuary at Morena at 5-15 P.M. that day. It is noted onthe post-mortem report that it had been despatched from the place of occurrenceat 1 P.M. Dr. Nigam, on examination, found an injury on the skull and hasexpressed the opinion that the boy died on account of that injury within two orthree days of the post-mortem examination. He stated in Court ...
Tag this Judgment!