Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1343; [1965]56ITR42(SC); [1965]1SCR758
Shah J.1. The respondent was a Hindu undivided family consisting of Ashokbhai-the manager-his wife Shobhana and his minor son Chirag. Ashokbhai was a partner in a firm styled Messrs Amrit Chemicals with a share of five annas in every rupee in the profit and loss. It is common ground that the beneficial interest in the profits of the firm falling to the share of Ashokbhai belonged to the undivided family. The year of account of the Hindu undivided family was the Samvat year-1st of Kartika to 30th Ashwin. The year of account of Messrs Amrit Chemicals was the calendar year according to the Gregorian calendar. 2. By deed dated November 12, 1955, the Hindu undivided family was disrupted, and the property of the family was divided. The following are the material clauses of the deed of partition :- '4. There is joint family property of the joint family of Seth Ashokbhai Chimanbhai of the First part. Out of that we are making a partial partition of the property as hereinafter stated, particula...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC980; [1965]1SCR737
Ayyangar, J.1. These two appeals, by special leave, are concerned with the validity of the respondent-firm's claim as the registered proprietor of a Trade Mark 'Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories' used by it on its medicinal preparations. 2. The two appeals arise out of different proceedings but before narrating their history it would be convenient to briefly set out the facts upon which the claim of the respondent to the exclusive use of this Trade Mark is based. The respondent, as stated already, is a firm, and it carries on business at Ernakulam in the same name and style as the Trade Mark now in controversy - 'Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories'. As its name indicates, the firm manufactures medicinal products. The business of the firm was founded sometime in 1926 by one Dr. Sarvothama Rao who is now no more. When started, the business was called 'Navaratna Pharmacy' but from January, 1945 the name of the business was changed to the present one - Navaratna Pharmaceutical Labor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC891; 1965(0)BLJR460; [1965]16STC259(SC)
Shah, J. 1. The Indian Copper Corporation Ltd., is a company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and has its registered office for the purpose of its business in India at Ghatsila, District Singhbhum in the State of Bihar. The Corporation mines copper and iron ore from its own mines, transports the ore to its factory and manufactures finished products from the ore for sale. The Corporation has for the purpose of its business to purchase diverse categories of goods from outside the State of Bihar. Some of those goods are used in its factory in the process of manufacture and in the copper and kyanite mines, other goods are purchased for use in its offices, factory and mines and in the hospitals set up for affording medical facilities to its employees.2. On April 30, 1957, the Corporation applied to the Superintendent of Sales Tax, Jamshedpur, for registration as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act (74 of 1956) setting out a list of goods for specification in the certif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC669; (1965)GLR423(SC); [1965]1SCR712
Mudholkar, J.(1) The main, question which arises for decision in this appeal from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court is whether the appellant could be said to be guilty of a corrupt practice contemplated by Sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by reason of the fact that his election symbol, a star, was described as 'Dhruva star' in the pamphlets published and distributed by him or by his agents and in which the qualities of Dhruva star were also set out.(2) The election to the Assembly seat was contested by three candidates, the appellant, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The appellant having secured 20,062 votes as against 15,190 secured by the first respondent and 7,093 by the second respondent was declared to be elected on February 26, 1962. The first respondent thereupon preferred an. election petition before the Election Commission challenging the appellant's election on the following five groun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1103
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by the State of Madras, on certificate granted by the High Court of Madras, raises the question about the power of the High Court, when exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to consider the propriety and correctness of a finding of fact arrived at by the Government on the basis of an enquiry conducted by the Tribunal appointed under the provisions of the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal Rules, framed by the Governor of Madras in connection with complaints against government servants of the State. The question arises in this way.2. Sundaram, respondent, was an Inspector of Police in the Madras State on August 30, 1951, when he is said to have demanded bribe from one Muniswamy Chetty, hereinafter referred to as Munuswamy. The latter approached the authorities who arranged a trap. In pursuance of that scheme, Muniswamy paid Rs. 750/-to the respondent aft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC913; [1965]16STC412(SC)
S.M. Sikri, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court allowing the petition filed by the respondent, Messrs Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The facts relevant to the determination of the points raised before us are as follows. The petitioner carries on the business of supplying coal throughout India. It has a branch at Jaipur, which was registered as a dealer with the Sales Tax Officer, Jaipur. The branch does retail business in Jaipur and supervises the supply of coal made to consumers directly by collieries. On September 2, 1948, the petitioner secured a monopoly to sell the coal of collieries belonging to the Equitable Coal Company for certain areas including Rajputana. On April 28, 1955, the Company entered into a contract with the Government of Rajasthan for the supply of coal for one month to Jaipur Power House for the first tim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC834; [1965]1SCR726
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by respondent No. 1, Smt. Mukand Kanwar, challenging the validity of an auction sale held on the 14th May, 1954 in execution of a money decree passed in favour of Ratan Lal Dani, Secretary, Hindu Charitable Aushdhalaya, Ajmer, respondent No. 2, and against Umrao Mal, respondent No. 3. The property sold at the auction sale is 'old Daikhana' at Ajmer. On the 24th June, 1950, Umrao Mal who was the owner of the property, mortgaged it to the appellant Laxmi Devi. Later, respondent No. 2 obtained a money decree against respondent No. 3 for a large amount, and in execution of this money decree he brought the property in question to sale. Auction sale was accordingly held on the 14th May, 1954, and the appellant purchased the property subject to the pre-existing mortgage in her favour. The amount due under the mortgage was Rs. 33,264 and as auction-purchaser, the appellant paid Rs. 2,800 whereby she purchased the equity of re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1358; [1965]55ITR741(SC); [1965]1SCR700
Subba Rao J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Tax Case No. 74 of 1959. 2. The facts may briefly be states. The respondent-assessee, The Ajax Products Ltd. - now under liquidation, was a public limited company incorporated in 1939 to carry on the business in the manufacture and sale of steel and abrasives products. On October 30, 1954, the company, at an extraordinary general body meeting, made a resolution to go into voluntary liquidation and the Liquidator appointed by the said resolution carried on the business till the middle of December 1954 when the business was completed closed down. On March 10, 1955, the Liquidator executed a sale deed to Garborundum Universal Limited transferring to the latter the plant, machinery and buildings for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000. The said amount was made up of : (1) Rs. 1,00,000 being the value of the land, (2) Rs. 1,31,732 being the value of the building, and (3) Rs. 7,68,26...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1567; (1966)ILLJ45SC; [1965]1SCR693
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad and arises in the following circumstances. The appellant was in the service of the State of Uttar Pradesh as Sub-Registrar. He was born on December 11, 1905 and was recruited in service in July 1933. At the time of his recruitment the age of retirement (or superannuation) for government servants of his class was 55 years. Therefore, normally he should have retired on December 11, 1960. But by a notification dated November 27, 1957, the Government of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the Government) raised the age of retirement (or superannuation) to 58 years. This meant that the appellant would have retired on December 11, 1963. On May 25, 1961, the Government again reduced the age of retirement (or superannuation) to 55 years by a notification of that date issued under Art. 309 of the Constitution. Further a proviso was added in the rules relating to retirement in these terms :- 'Provided ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1150; [1965]1SCR686; [1965]16STC303(SC)
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. The short question which this appeal raises for our decision is whether the principle of constructive res judicata can be invoked against a writ petition field by the appellant Devilal Modi, who is the Proprietor of M/s. Daluram Pannalal Modi, under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The appellant has been assessed to sales-tax for the year 1957-58 under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950. He challenged the validity of the said order of assessment by a writ petition filed by him (No. 114/1961) in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on the 25th April 1961. The High Court dismissed his writ petition and by special leave, the appellant came to this Court in appeal against the said decision of the High Court. On the 8th March, 1963, the appellant's appeal by special leave was dismissed by this Court. 2. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present writ petition in the same High Court on the 23rd April 1963 (No, 129/1963). By this writ petition the appellant challenges the ...
Tag this Judgment!