Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC136; (1964)2MysLJ(SC)58; [1964]7SCR549
Sikri, J. 1. This a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for enforcing the fundamental rights of the petition under Arts. 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution. Although the petition raises various points, before us only two points have been argued by Mr. Garg, on behalf of the petitioner. We are grateful to Mr. Garg, who has argued as amicus curiae, for the assistance he has given. The two points may be formulated as follows : (1) That the Mysore General Services (Revenue Sub-ordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959, were not made with the previous approval of the Central Government under s. 115(7) of the State Re-organisation Act, and, therefore, do not govern the petitioner insofar as the conditions of service have been varied to his disadvantage; (2) That the Madras-Government had, prior to November 1, 1956, by various orders, reduced the petitioner in rank in violation of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution and Art. 16. 2. In order to appreciate the arguments addressed to us, it is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC155; (1964)IILLJ113SC; [1964]7SCR555
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. This appeal by special leave raises a short question about the validity of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, directing the appellant, the Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., to reinstate its workman K. K. Raghavan whom it had dismissed with effect from the 14th of November, 1955. The appellant is a public limited concern engaged in the industry of soaps and toilet articles. It owns three factories in addition to 12 sales offices. One of these factories is located at Tatapuram, Ernakulam, in the State of Kerala. Mr. Raghavan was working with the appellant at its factory at Tatapuram. It was reported to the appellant that on the 12th November, 1955, Mr. Raghavan and another employee of the appellant, Mathews by name, way laid Mr. C. A. Augustine, the Chargeman of the Soap Plant of the company's factory at Tatapuram while he was returning home after his duty in the second shift and assaulted him. That is why charge-sheets were issued against both Messrs R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1742; [1964]53ITR100(SC); [1964]7SCR539
Subba Rao, J.1. These two appeals filed by special leave raise the question of the true construction of the provisions of s. 4 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1959 (Act No. 1 of 1959), hereinafter called the Amending Act. The material facts lie in a small compass and they are as follows. For the assessment year 1947-48 the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1963 filed a return of her income before the Income-tax Officer, District IV, Calcutta, and the assessment was completed sometime in 1948 as a result whereof it was found that no tax was payable by her. On April 2, 1956, the Income-tax Officer served on her a notice dated March 19, 1956, under s. 34(7) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the Act, on the ground of escaped assessment. The date of the notice fell within 8 years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e., March 31, 1948; but it was served beyond 8 years from that date and, therefore, was clearly out of time under the provisions of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1598; [1963]33CompCas568(SC); [1964]7SCR503
Sarkar, J.1. The appellant is a company carrying on business as supplier of electricity in a certain area in the State of Bombay. The respondents Bhathena and Tendulkar were consumers of electrical energy supplied by the appellant. The present appeals arise out of disputes between these consumers and the appellant concerning the legality of the charges made by the appellant for electricity supplied by it. 2. The supply of electrical energy is controlled by two statutes and the questions involved in the present cases will turn on them. These statutes are the Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948. I will first consider the Act of 1910. Section 3 of this Act gives power the Government to grant a licence to a party to supply electrical energy in any specified area and to prescribe in the licence the limits of price to be charged by it for the supply. This section further provides that the provisions in the Schedule to the Act would, unless otherwise directed, be deeme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1964]53ITR574(SC)
Shah, J.1. The respondent, Daulatram Rawatmal, is a firm registered under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. At all material times there were six partners of the firm. They were Nandlal Bhowalka, Giridharilal Bhowalka, Shyamlal Bhowalka, Bajranlal Bhowalka, Rawatmal Nopany and Rameshwarlal Nopany. The firm carried on business as dealers and commission agents in jute, rice and other commodities. For the account year 2001-2002 Bikram Samvat (September 27, 1944, to October 15, 1945) the firm was assessed in the assessment year 1946-47 by the Income-tax Officer Non - Companies - cum - E. P. T. Circle, under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act. On February 19,1955, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle VI, to whom the case was transferred by the Central Board of Revenue, issued a notice under section 34 of the Act calling upon the firm to file a revised return of income for the corresponding accounting year. Pursuant to this notice the firm filed a return showing an income of Rs. 2,75...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC289; [1964]7SCR490
Das Gupta, J. 1. There brothers, Ramakrishna, Narayanaswamy and Mahadeva, who are eighty-three, seventy nine and sixty nine years of age respectively, are the main figures in this litigation. After their father's death in 1908 the three brothers continued as members of a joint family. The eldest brother, Ramakrishna became under the law the Karta of the family. When the father died the family was possessed of about 10 acres of land. But he had left some debts and one of the first acts which Ramakrishna had to do as the Manager was the repayment of those debts. Ramakrishna had become the Karnam in Narasingampettai in 1902 and even during his father's life time started acquiring property. Property to the extent of about 25 acres was acquired for the joint family between the years 1911 to 1931. In 1927 Ramakrishna had been transferred to the bigger village of Vepatthur and continued to be there till 1930. On his retirement in that year his son Venkatarama succeeded him as the Karnam of Ve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1781; [1964]7SCR456
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. The principal question of law which arises in this group of 37 civil appeals relates to the construction of section 3 of the Madras Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act, 1949 (No. 29 of 1949) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The dispute which has given rise to these appeals centers round the validity of two notified orders issued by the respondent, State of Andhra Pradesh on the 28th January, 1955, and 30th January, 1955 respectively, and it is the contention of the appellants that the said notified orders are outside the purview of s. 3. The appellants in all these appeals are supplied electricity by the respondent for many years past, and several individual agreements have been passed between them and the respondent during the period 1946 to 1952 prescribing the terms and conditions on which the said supply would be made to them. One of these terms stipulated the rate at which the supply of electricity had to be charged against th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1770; [1964(9)FLR111]; [1964]7SCR477
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam. A dispute arose between the appellant and its workmen as to payment of bonus for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59, and was referred for adjudication to the tribunal. The respondents claimed bonus on two grounds : (i) on the basis of profits earned by the appellant, and (ii) one the basis that payment of some bonus at Christmas had become an implied condition of service between the appellant and its workmen. It may be mentioned that the claim was for four months' wages for each year on the basis of profit bonus. The alternative claim was for 1 1/2 months' wages for each year on the basis of an implied term of service. We may also mention that the appellant had paid two months' basic salary as bonus for the year 1957-58, and one month's basic pay as bonus for the year 1958-59. The appellant contended that there was no surplus available on the basis of the Full Bench formula applied in such...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC868; (1966)ILLJ50SC; 1964MhLJ747(SC); (1964)2MysLJ(SC)33; [1964]7SCR471
Ayyangar, J. 1. A very short question regarding the proper construction of Rule 50(b) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules is involved in this appeal which comes before us by a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Mysore under Art. 133 of the Constitution. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal which are necessary to be narrated to appreciate the only point urged before us were these : The respondent was recruited as an Upper Division Clerk by the Government of Bombay in 1931 and was later appointed substantively as a Junior Assistant in the Political Department. While so, on September 17, 1943 his services were transferred on deputation to the office of the Controller of Rationing, Bombay to work as a Senior Assistant in the newly started Rationing department which was a temporary department. He obtained successive promotions in this department and by March, 1954 he was drawing a pay of Rs. 460/- p.m. in the grade Rs. 350 - 30 - 650 as Rationing Officer. That department ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1687; [1964(9)FLR83]; (1964)IILLJ426SC; [1964]7SCR484
Das Gupta, J.1. Two main question arise in this appeal. The first is whether s. 42(1)(g) of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes and Settlement Act, 1947 prohibits an employer from taking action against a workman for participation in an illegal strike before it is so declared under s. 41 of the Act. The second question is whether in an application made under s. 16(3) of the Act the Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide the legality or illegality of the strike. 2. On September 21, 1956 the first respondent in this appeal, the Burhanpur Tapti Mills Ltd., served a charge-sheet on one of the employees Sulemankhan Mullaji, who is the second respondent in the appeal alleging that he had instigated workers of the Waving Department to go on an illegal strike earlier that day. After holding an enquiry into the matter the Manager came to the conclusion that the charge had been established being of opinion that this constituted misconduct under clause 25(b) of the Standing...
Tag this Judgment!