Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1061; [1965]56ITR91(SC); [1965]2SCR289
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. The short question of law which arises in this appeal is whetherrespondent No. 1, the Union of India, is entitled to claim that the tax due toit from respondent No. 2, M/s. R. K. Das and Co., on account of the assessmentyears 1946-47 and 1947-48 has priority and precedence over the decretal amountdue to the appellant M/s. Builders Supply Corporation, from respondent No. 2.This question has been answered against the appellant by the Calcutta HighCourt, and by its present appeal brought to this Court with a certificateissued by the said High Court, the appellant contends that the decision of theCalcutta High Court is erroneous in law. 2. It appears that respondent No. 2 secured a building contract from theGovernment in connection with the construction of the Mint and in that behalfit had to make a deposit of Rs. 50,000 as security for the due execution of thecontract. In connection with the execution of the said contract, respondent No.2 obtained a supply of buildi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1248; [1965]2SCR283
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. The appellant, in these four appeals by special leave, was convicted infour cases of an offence under section 409 I.P.C. and was sentenced to 4 years'rigorous imprisonment and fine in the first two cases on January 17, 1962, bythe First Addition Sessions Judge, Ujjain, Shri H. B. Aggarwal. He was alsoconvicted in these two cases of offences under section 467 read with section471 and section 477A I.P.C. The sentences imposed for these offences were torun concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for the offence undersection 409 I.P.C. The sentences imposed in the two cases for the offence undersection 409 I.P.C were to run consecutively as no order had been made by theSessions Judge for the sentence in the case in which judgment was pronouncedlater, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in the other case. 2. In each of the other two cases, the appellant was sentenced to 3 years'rigorous imprisonment under section 409 I.P.C. by Shri Dube, First Addition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1142; [1965(10)FLR168]; (1965)ILLJ466SC; [1965]2SCR265
Bachawat, J.1. The short point arising for our decision in this case is whether the special leave to appeal granted to the appellant on August 21, 1962 should be revoked on account of non-compliance with the provisions of O. 13, r. 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950. 2. The respondent was a cashier in the employ of the Amritsar Branch of the appellant Bank. He was suspended on May 5, 1952 and finally dismissed from the service of the appellant on January 24, 1959. In the meantime, he was prosecuted for offences under sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted by the Trial Magistrate on March 21, 1955 and a revision petition against the order of acquittal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on June 23, 1955. On January 9, 1961, he filed a petition under section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Presiding officer of the Central Government Labour Court, Delhi, claiming from the appellant payment of a sum of Rs. 16,000 in terms of para...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1488; [1965(11)FLR328]; (1965)IILLJ429SC; [1965]2SCR276
Hidayatullah, J.1. These are two appeals by special leave in which Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd. is the appellant. Civil Appeal No. 1108 of 1963 is against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, dated March 15, 1962 and Civil Appeal No. 1109 of 1963 is against an order of the same High Court, dated May 9, 1962 declining to certify the case under Art. 133 of the Constitution as in the opinion of the High Court the proceedings from which the appeal arose before the High Court was not a civil proceeding within Art. 133. As special leave has been granted against the judgment of the High Court and we are of opinion that the appeal against that judgment must be dismissed, we do not think it necessary to decide the other appeal. 2. The facts of the case may now be stated briefly. The appellant Company is the successor of a private concern which went under the name of Kays Construction Company and was owned by one Mr. H. M. Khosla who is Managing Director of the appellant Company. It appears...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1092; [1965]2SCR269
Sikri, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in a reference under section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Board of Revenue referred the following question to the High Court : (1) Whether the document is a sale-deed for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000 as contended by the executants. (2) Whether in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Stamp Act, the sale consideration shall be deemed to be Rs. 5,55,000 and liable to be paid thereon as held by the Board. (3) Whether the consideration of the sale will be deemed to be Rs. Ten Lakhs, i.e., the entire amount due to the mortgagee Bank, and duty is payable thereon. (4) On what amount is the additional stamp duty under section 107 of the Kanpur Development Act, 1945, leviable. 2. The High Court gave the following answer to the first three question : 'The document in question is a sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000 only and that the Stamp duty payable in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1628; [1965]35CompCas526(SC); [1965]2SCR249
Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, raises for consideration a very short point regarding the proper construction of bye-law 137-B of the Bombay Bullion Association Ltd., which will hereafter be referred to as the 'Association' and in particular whether on the facts established in this case the requirements of the said bye-law has been satisfied.2. The appellant is a member of the first respondent - the Association and carries on business as a bullion merchant. By a notification dated March 14, 1949, the Government of Bombay in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act LXIV of 1947) sanctioned the bye-laws framed by the Association. Under the said Act the members of the Association were permitted to carry on forward dealings in bullion subject to the said bye-laws. The appeal is concerned with the regularity of a purchase effected by the Association purporting to act under its bye-laws, of a quantity of silver ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1147; [1965]2SCR242
Subba Rao, J. 1. This appeal by special leave raises the question of the right of aMunicipality to a vacant piece of land adjacent to a metalled public road. 2. The plaintiff is the owner of plot No. 3211 in abadi No. 1416 in khewatNo. 216 in the town of Manglaur. Through the said plot runs a public road andtwo nalis on the north and south of the said road. There is also a water piperunning through the said plot which belongs to the defendant Municipality.There is a vacant site lying in between the nalis and the road. TheMunicipality was seeking to erect a structure on the vacant site wherein itintended to install a statue of Mahatma Gandhi and also to put up two rooms oneither side for piyo and library. The plaintiff, who is the owner of plot No.3211, filed Suit No. 138 of 1948 in the Court of the Munsif, Deoband, for apermanent injunction to restrain the Municipal Board, Manglaur, from putting upthe said structures on the suit site and for delivery of possession of the sameto the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1506; [1965]2SCR233
Ayyangar, J.1. The tenability of the appellant's claim to possession of certainproperties belonging to the Dera of Sanyasi Sadhus in Mauza Kharak TahsilHansi, District Hissar in Punjab is the subject-matter of this appeal which isbefore us on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Punjab. 2. The appellant claimed the properties as the successor of the last Mahantof the Dera-Kishan Puri who died on February 15, 1951. The fortunes of the litigationstarted by the appellant have greatly fluctuated. His suit was decreed by thelearned trial Judge, was dismissed by the first appellate Court, was againdecreed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab High Court on second appeal butthis judgment has again been reversed on Letters Patent appeal and the suitdirected to be dismissed. On a certificate of fitness granted by the High Courtthe matter is now before us. 3. The last Mahant of this Dera-Kishan Puri died on February 15, 1951.Immediately on his death disputes seem to have arise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1405; [1965]2SCR221
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by certificate raises the question whether the High Courtwent wrong, in the circumstances of the case, to give a decree for specificperformance of an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The facts may be briefly stated : On August 23, 1954, at 10 a.m.defendants 1 and 2, through their Auction Agent, defendant 3, advertised andput their plots Nos. 1 to 4 situated in Narayanguda opposite to Deepak MahalTheatre to public auction. In regard to plots Nos. 2 and 3 the plaintiffoffered the highest bid of Rs. 12,000/-. He wanted to purchase the plots forthe purpose of starting his business. When the plaintiff tendered one-fourth ofthe sale price as earnest money in accordance with the terms of the auction,the defendants unlawfully refused to accept it. On August 30, 1954, the plaintiffgave notice to the 3rd defendant and sent copies thereof to the otherdefendants calling upon them to obtain from him the one-fourth amount of thesale price as earnest money ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1072; 1965CriLJ154; (1965)67PLR429; [1965]2SCR213
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. A number of gold bars, held to be smuggled gold, were recovered from theperson of the appellant on September 17, 1957, when he was going in a truckfrom Jaisalmer to Pokaran. The Superintendent of Land Customs issued a noticeto the appellant on December 4, 1957, to show cause why penal action be nottaken against him and as to why the goods should not be confiscated undersection 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act 8 of 1878), hereinafter calledthe Act. The appellant showed cause and on March 21, 1959, the Collector ofCentral Excise and Land Customs, hereinafter shortly termed Collector, orderedthe confiscation of the gold seized from the person of the appellant andimposition of a penalty of Rs. 15,000 on him under section 167(8) of the Act.The appellant presented writ application under art. 226 of the Constitution tothe High Court of Punjab praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashingthe order of the Collector dated March 21, 1959 and for the issue of ...
Tag this Judgment!