Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC212; (1964)2MysLJ(SC)48; [1964]8SCR233
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by certificate raises the question whether a minor who wasadmitted to the benefits of a partnership can be adjudicated insolvent on thebasis of debt or debts of the firm after the partnership was dissolved, on theground that he attained majority subsequent to the said dissolution, but didnot exercise his option to become a partner or cease to be one of the saidfirm.2. The facts are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. MallappaMahalingappa Sadalge and Appasaheb Mahalingappa Sadalge, respondents 2 and 3 inthe appeal, were carrying on the business of commission agents andmanufacturing and selling partnership under the names of two firms 'M. B.Sadalge' and 'C. N. Sadalge'. The partnership deed between themwas executed on October 25, 1946. At that time Chandrakant Nilakanth Sadalge,respondent 1 herein, was a minor and he was admitted to the benefits of thepartnership. The partnership had dealings with the appellants and it had becomeindebted to them to the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1964]53ITR307(SC); [1964]8SCR263
Sikri, J.1. These are appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax on certificatesgranted by the Rajasthan High Court under s. 66A(2) of the Indian Income TaxAct, 1922 (II of 1992), hereinafter referred to as the Act, against thejudgment of the High Court in a consolidated reference under s. 66(1) of theAct. The High Court answered the question, reproduced below, in theaffirmative. The reference was made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in thefollowing circumstances. 2. The respondent, Anant Rao B. Kamat, hereinafter referred to as theassessee, had received in the previous years (1950-51 and 1951-52) dividendsfrom two companies, Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd., and RajputanaMining Agencies Ltd. For the assessment years 1951-52, and 1952-53, theassessee claimed before the Income Tax Officer that the dividends received byhim should be 'grossed up' under s. 16(2) of the Act, without taking intoconsideration the rebate allowed to the said companies under the Part B States(Taxatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC279
Sikri, J.1. These are appeals by the Commissioner of Income-tax on certificates granted by the Rajasthan High Court under section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), hereinafter referred to a the Act, against the judgment of the High Court in a consolidated reference under section 66(1) of the Act. The High Court answered the question, reproduced below, in the affirmative. The reference was made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the following circumstances. 2. The respondent, Anant Rao B. Kamat, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, had received in the previous years (1950-51 and 1951-1952) dividends from two companies, Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. and Rajputana Mining Agencies Ltd. For the assessment years 1951-52, and 1952-53, the assessee claimed before the Income-tax Officer that the dividends received by him should be 'grossed up' under section 16(2) of the Act, without taking into consideration the rebate allowed to the said companies unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC502; [1964]8SCR252
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. The appellant Shri Jagadguru Kari Basava Rajendraswami of Gavi Mutt isthe Matadhipati of Sri Gavi Mutt which is a religious institution dedicated tothe propagation and promotion of the tenets of the Veera Saiva cult ofHinduism. This Mutt is situated at Uravakonda in the district of Anantapur. Itappears that on the 6th September, 1939, the Board of Hindu ReligiousEndowments constituted under the Madras Act II of 1927 (hereinafter called 'theearlier Act') framed a scheme under s. 63 of the said Act for the properadministration of the said Mutt and its endowments. The predecessor-in-officeof the appellant then filed suit No. 21 of 1939 on the file of the DistrictJudge, Anantapur for getting the said scheme set aside. His suit substantiallyfailed, because the District Court was persuaded to make only a few minormodifications in the scheme subject to which the scheme was confirmed. Thatdecision was taken in appeal by the predecessor of the appellant to the HighCourt o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC17; (1965)67PLR117; [1964]8SCR273
Sarkar, J.1. I agree with the orders proposed by my brother Hidayatullah.2. These appeals arise out of a suit brought by a firm called the Modern Cultivators against the State of Punjab to recover damages for loss suffered by flooding of its lands as a result of a breach in a canal belonging to the State of Punjab. Both the Courts below have held in favour of the plaintiff but the High Court reduced the amount of the damages awarded by the trial Court. Both parties have appealed to this Court. The Modern Cultivators contend that the High Court is in error in reducing the amount of the damages. The State of Punjab contends that it had no liability for the loss caused by the flooding. The breach and the flooding of the plaintiff's lands are not now denied.3. In regard to the appeal by the Modern Cultivators I have nothing to add to what has been said by Hidayatullah J. For the reasons mentioned by him I agree that the damages had been correctly assessed by the trial Court.4. In its appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC225; [1964]8SCR239
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a redemption suit filed by therespondent Dev Karan against the appellant Murarilal. The mortgage sought to beredeemed was executed on the 19th March, 1919 for a sum of Rs. 6,500. Themortgaged property consisted of a shop which was delivered over in thepossession of the mortgagee after the execution of the mortgage deed. Themortgage deed had provided that the amount due under the mortgage should berepaid to the mortgagee within 15 years, whereupon the property would beredeemed. It had also stipulated that if the payment was not made within 15years, the mortgagee would become the owner of the property. The mortgagor wasMangal Ram who died and the respondent claims to be the heir and legalrepresentative of the said deceased mortgagor. In the plaint filed by therespondent, it was averred that the transaction was, in substance, a mortgageand the mortgagor's right to redeem was alive even though the stipulated periodof 15 year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1965]35CompCas30(SC)
Shah, J. 1. On November 13, 1946, the United Hindustan Films Ltd. was incorporated as a public limited company with its head office at Calcutta, ' to carry on the business of cinematographic trade and industry and particularly the film industry both silent and talkie, ... to manufactureand deal in educational films, commercial and agricultural pictures and to purchase films or to take on hire films from other film producers.' By Clause 31 of the memorandum of association, the company was authorised to employ brokers, commission agents and underwriters for sale of shares and debentures and to provide for their remuneration. The articles of association provided that the company may pay a commission for subscribing or agreeing to subscribe for any shares or agreeing to procure subscribers for any shares, but so that the commission in respect of the shares shall not exceed ten per cent. of the shares subscribed or to be subscribed. The articles also provided that ' Messrs. Eastland Trust'-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1964]8SCR217; [1964]15STC719(SC)
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. These are three petitions under art. 32 by the petitioners, which is apartnership firm, praying for a declaration that s. 2 of the Madras GeneralSales Tax (Special Provisions) Act, 1963 (Act No. 11 of 1963) hereinaftercalled the Act, is ultra vires the Constitution and of no effect and for a writof mandamus directing the State of Madras to refrain from enforcing any of theprovisions of that section. Each of the petitions relates to a particularassessment year. 2. The petitioners are dealers in skin, carrying on business at Shenbakkam,Vellore, North Arcot District, in the State of Madras. They purchase raw skinsfrom places both within and outside the State of Madras, tan the same and sellthem through their agents in Madras. They were assessed to a certain amount ofsales-tax, in accordance with the provisions of the Madras General Sales TaxAct 1939 (Madras Act IX of 1939) and r. 16(2)(ii) of the rules framedthereunder viz., the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC33; [1964]53ITR250(SC); [1964]8SCR189
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by special leave is preferred against the order of the MadrasHigh Court in a reference made to it by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal unders. 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the Act. 2. The facts leading up to the reference and relevant to the present enquiryare as follows. The Free Press of India (Madras) Ltd., hereinafter called theFree Press Company, was a private limited company carrying on business asprinters and publishers of certain newspapers, namely, 'IndianExpress', 'Dhinamani' and 'Andhra Prabha' at Madras,'Eastern Express' and 'Bharat' at Calcutta and 'SundayStandard' and 'Morning Standard' at Bombay. On August 31, 1946,the Free Press Company passed a resolution transferring to the ExpressNewspapers Limited, a new company formed on or about April 22, 1946,hereinafter called the assessee-company, the right to print and publish thesaid newspapers from September 1, 1946, letting out its machinery and assetsand authorizing the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC96; [1964]53ITR241(SC); [1964]8SCR204
Sikri, J.1. The respondent, the Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd., hereinafterreferred to as the assessee, is a company incorporated under the IndianCompanies Act, 1882, limited by shares. Since 1938, the nominal capital of theassessee is Rs. 33,00,000 divided into shares of Re. 1 each. It carries onbanking business restricted to its shareholders, i.e., the shareholders are entitledto participate in the various recurring deposit schemes of the assessee or toobtain loans on security. The statement of the case describes the working ofthe assessee thus : 'Recurring deposits areobtained from members for fixed amounts to be contributed monthly by them for afixed number of months as stipulated at the end of which a fixed amount isreturned to them according to published tables. The amount so returned willcover the compound interest of the period. These recurring deposits constitutethe main source of funds of the assessee for advancing loans. Such loans arerestricted only to members who have...
Tag this Judgment!