Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1491; [1965]2SCR36
Hidayatullah, J.1. The appellant obtained on lease from the 4th respondent (Raja Charanjit Singh) 208 canals of agricultural land for five years commencing from Rabi 1951 to Kharif 1955 on an annual rent of Rs. 7,500. The lease deed was registered and was executed on November 20, 1950. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. 7,500 as advance rent for one year. There was a tube well on the land and one of the terms of the lease was that the Raja would put the tube well into working order and the lease was to commence on the day this was done. The tube well was repaired on July 11, 1951 and the lease is said to have commenced on that day. According to the appellant the tube well did not deliver the right quantity of water and that led to certain disputes. 2. The appellant did not pay rent for the subsequent years. On August 15, 1952 the Raja filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,500 as rent for Rabi and Kharif, 1951. He claimed that Rs. 7,500 paid to him was to be retained as deposit to be adjusted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC909; [1965]57ITR784(SC); [1965]2SCR29
Shah, J.1. Agricultural income of the respondent-Raja Jagdish Prasad Sahi - wasassessed by the Collector of Sultanpur to tax under the U.P. AgriculturalIncome-tax Act 3 of 1949 for the Fasli year 1359, corresponding to the periodJuly 1, 1951 to June 30, 1952, and he was directed to pay the amount due in fourequal instalments of Rs. 13,274-5-0 each. The respondent failed to pay thefirst and the second instalments which fell due respectively on December 9,1952 and February 9, 1953. The Revenue authorities imposed upon the respondentliability to pay Rs. 4,400 in the aggregate as penalty for default in paymentof the two instalments. 2. Pursuant to a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sultanpur,proceedings were started against the respondent to recover Rs. 17,674-5-0 beingthe amount of the second instalment and penalty. The respondent then presenteda petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad for a writ directing the Collectors ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC839; [1965(10)FLR171]; (1965)ILLJ453SC; 1965MhLJ877(SC)
M. Hidayatullah, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the only question is whether the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, Indore erred in introducing, by its award dated December 29, 1.962 a scheme of gratuity in the Burhanpur Tapti Mills Ltd., the appellant before us. The Burhanpur Tapti Mills Mazdoor Sangh (respondent) which represents the workers in the Company gave a notice of change under Section 31(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 demanding a scheme of gratuity. The Company did not accept the demand and the Sangh forwarded under the Act to the Conciliator a statement of its case. The conciliation proceedings failed and the Sangh made a reference under Section 52 of the Act to the Industrial Court submitting its demand as follows:'(1) Whether there is a case for awarding the introduction of the Scheme of gratuity to the employees of the Burhanpur Tapti Mills Ltd., Burhanpur.(2) If so, whether the Scheme of gratuity as demanded by the representative union or s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1708; [1965]55ITR660(SC); [1965]2SCR22
Subba Rao, J.1. These appeals raise, though not the same but a similar question on whichwe have given a decision in The Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad v. M/S.A. Abdul Rahim & Co. [1965] 2 S.C.R. 12. The assessee-firm was themanaging agent of Palani Andavar Mills Ltd., Udamalpet. It was originallyconstituted by a deed of partnership, dated June 1, 1934. The following 6persons were the partners : (1) G. Venkataswami Naidu . . As. 2(2) G. T. Narayanaswamy Naidu . . As. 2(3) G. T. Krishnaswamy Naidu . . As. 2(4) M. A. Palaniappa Chettiar . . As. 5(5) R. Guruswamy Naidu . . As. 2 1/2(6) K. Venkatasubba Naidu . . As. 2 1/22. By subsequent transactions the share of G. Venkataswami Naidu wastransferred to his son Vidyasagar and the share of M. A. Palaniappa Chettiarwas purchased by R. Guruswamy Naidu. With the result that the 5th partner, G.Guruswamy, had 7 1/2 annas share in the partnership instead of 2 1/2 annasshare which he held earlier. Guruswamy Naidu and Venkatasubba Naidu, the 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1703; [1965]55ITR651(SC); [1965]2SCR13
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by certificate raises the question whether the Income-tax Officer can refuse to register a genuine partnership entered into between more than two persons on the ground that one of them is only of them is only a benamidar for another. 2. The relevant facts may briefly be stated. Three persons by name Abdul Rahim Valibhai, Adbullah Rehman and Abdul Rahim Malangbhai, constituted a partnership having 9 annas, 5 annas and 2 annas shares respectively. The said partnership was carrying on business in goat and sheep skins. From the beginning of Samvat year 2012 (November 15, 1955, to November 2, 1956), there was a change in the constitution of the said firm. A fourth partner of name Abdul Rehman Kalubhai was inducted into the partnership with 2 annas share carved out of the 9 annas share of Abdul Rahim Valibhai. The said Abdul Rehman Kalubhai is a nephew of Abdul Rahim Valibhai. On March 6, 1956, a partnership deed was executed between the said four persons. Under t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1780; 1965(0)BLJR533; [1965]2SCR6
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, on certificate granted by the High Court of Patna, raisesthe question whether section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act as introduced by theMotor Vehicles (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XXVII of 1950),hereinafter referred to as Bihar section 64A, was not applicable to proceedingsfor grant of permit for inter-State routes. This question, however, was decidedby this Court in S. K. Pasari v. Abdul Ghafoor (Civil Appeal No. 306 of 1964,decided on 4-5-64). It was held that it was applicable to cases ofstage-carriage permits for inter-State routes. 2. The respondent prayed, in view of the observations in Abdul Mateen v. RamKailash Pandey : [1963]3SCR523 for permission to challenge the validityof the aforesaid section on the ground that Parliament, by the Motor Vehicles(Amendment) Act, 1956 (Act No. 100 of 1956), has introduced another section 64Ain the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939), hereinafter referred to asCentral section 64A and that there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1740; [1965]56ITR84(SC); [1965]16STC398(SC)
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal by special leave arise out of a petition under article 226 of the Constitution presented by the appellant for the issue of a writ of mandamus against the State of Madhya Bharat and its officers, the Special Tax Commissioner and the Assessing Office, Industrial Tax, to refund a sum of Rs. 62,809-5-2 which had been illegally collected by the Industrial Tax Officer in the years 1943-48 on account of industrial tax. The petition was dismissed by the High court on various grounds. 2. The facts leading to the petition are these : The appellant is the managing proprietor of Bhandari Iron and Steel Company which had its foundry at Shilnath Camp, Indore, where it carried on the business of mechanical engineers, iron, brass and malleble iron founders and re- rollers in steel. There was in force in the Indore State, the Indore Industrial Tax Act, 1927, for the imposition of industrial tax on cotton mills. Excess profits duty was payable under the Indore Excess Pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1037; 1965MhLJ333(SC); [1965]2SCR1
Sarkar J. 1. The appellant, Ramhans, and six other persons were alleged to have committed the murder of Gabde and to have attempted to murder Ramchandra. The deceased and Ramchandra are said to have belonged to one party while the alleged assailants belonged to another, and between these two parties there had been great enmity for some time past. It was said that about midnight of November 18, 1959, while the deceased and Ramchandra and certain other persons were sleeping on a Tiwaria (terrace), the assailants entered the place and Ramhans shot Gabde dead with a gun and fired two shots at Ramchandra with intent to kill him but only succeeded in injuring him and that all this time the appellant was standing there armed with a gun and the other persons were also there armed variously and that all had entered the place with the common intention of committing the offences. 2. Ramhans had absconded and so the appellant and the other six alleged assailants were put up for trial for offences ...
Tag this Judgment!