Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1701; 1964CriLJ609; (1964)2MysLJ(SC)51; [1964]7SCR606
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated August 1, 1962, of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 1961. W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant. R. Gopalakrishnan and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the res- pondent. April 1, 1964. The Judgment of SUBBA RAO and DAS GUPTA JJ. was delivered by DAs GUPTA J. RAGHUBAR DAYAL J delivered a dissenting opinion. DAS GUPTA, J.-The appellant, who was a registration clerk in the Haveri Post Office in the Mysore State, was tried by the Sessions Judge, Dharwar, on charges under s. 52, s. 53 and s. 55 of the Indian Post Office Act. The prosecution case is that on the 18th October 1955 a registered letter containin half portion of a ten-rupee note and petition on behalf of one Muppayyagonda asking for the said note to be exchanged for a fresh note was received at the Haveri Post Office at 4.30 p.m. from the Branch Post Office at Kabbur. The appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC49; [1964]53ITR91(SC); [1964]7SCR569
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by special leave preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam raises the question of the interpretation of s. 7(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (Act No. XI of 1922), hereinafter called the Act.2. The respondent, L. W. Russel, is an employee of the English and Scottish Joint Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd., Kozhikode, hereinafter called the Society, which was incorporated in England. The Society established a superannuation scheme for the benefit of the male European members of the Society's staff employed in India, Ceylon and Africa by means of deferred annuities. The terms of such benefits were incorporated in a trust deed dated July 27, 1934. Every European employee of the Society shall become a member of that scheme as a condition of employment. Under the term of the scheme the trustee has to effect a policy of insurance for the purpose of ensuring an annuity to every member of the Society on his attaining the age of s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1866; [1964]34CompCas668(SC); [1964]53ITR83(SC); (1965)67PLR248; [1964]7SCR579
Shah, J.1. The appellant which is a Hindu undivided family was the registered holder of 1,500 shares of M/s. Govan Bros. (Rampur) Ltd. in the year of account October 1, 1950 to September 30, 1951. Pursuant to a resolution passed by the board of directors of M/s. Govan Bros. (Rampur) Ltd. - hereinafter call 'Govan Bros.' - at a meeting held on August 30, 1950, the appellant received a dividend warrant dated December 28, 1950, for Rs. 4,12,500/- being interim dividend in respect of its share-holding in Govan Bros. This amount was brought to tax with the other income of the appellant in the assessment year 1952-53 by the Revenue authorities, after rejecting the objection of the appellant that it represented income for the assessment year 1951-52.2. At the instance of the appellant the Appellate Tribunal drew up a statement of the case and referred the question set out hereinbelow to the High Court of Punjab under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act :'Whether on a true interpretation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC330; (1964)2MysLJ(SC)39; [1964]7SCR618
Das Gupta, J. 1. Is the requirement of three clear days' notice for the holding of a special general meeting as embodied in s. 27(3) of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act 1951, a mandatory provision That is the main question which arises for decision in this appeal. 2. The appellant was elected as the President of Holenarsipur Municipality on September 11, 1962. At a special general meeting of the Municipal Council held on October 14, 1963, a resolution was passed in the following terms :- 'This Council has no confidence in the Municipal President of Holenarsipur Municipality.' 3. On November 2, 1963 Mr. Narasimhiah, the President of the Council applied to the High Court of Mysore under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of an appropriate writ quashing the proceedings of the meeting which culminated in the resolution of no confidence against him. Prayers were made also for some consequential reliefs. 4. Holenarsipur Municipality has twenty Councillors. Thirteen out of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1746; [1964(9)FLR101]; (1964)IILLJ460SC; [1964]7SCR596
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. The short question which this appeal by special leave raises for our decision is in relation to the construction of s. 18(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) hereinafter called 'the Act'). This question arises in this way. An industrial dispute in regard to the payment of bonus arose between the appellant Hochtief Gammon and the respondents, its workmen, represented by the Rourkela Workers Union, Rourkela. This dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa by the Government of Orissa on the 14th November, 1960. After the reference was received by the Tribunal, it passed an order on the 17th November, 1960 that notice of the reference should be issued to the parties concerned. Purporting to give effect to this order, the office of the Tribunal issued notices not only to the appellant and the respondents, but also to the Deputy General Manager of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. This was so done apparently because a copy ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1585; [1965(10)FLR231]; (1965)ILLJ323SC; [1964]7SCR587
Gajendragadkar, C.J. 1. This petition which has been filed by the petitioner S. Gurdev Singh Sidhu under Art. 32 of the Constitution, challenges the validity of article 9.1 of the Pepsu Services Regulations, Volume I, as amended by the Governor of Punjab by the notification issued by him on the 19th January, 1960 in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution and all other powers enabling him in that behalf. The petitioner's contention is that the said article contravenes the constitutional right guaranteed to the persons employed in civil capacities either under the Union or the State, by Art. 311. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Superintendent of Police in the erstwhile Patiala State by His Highness the Maharaja Adhiraj of Patiala on the 4th of February, 1942. The conditions of his service were governed by the Patiala State Service Regulations which had been issued by the Ruler of Patiala State who was at the relevant time the s...
Tag this Judgment!