Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC516; [1964]8SCR347
Subba Rao, J.1. These five appeals by certificate arise out of Original Suits Nos. 183,184 and 185 of 1945 filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbator,Madras State. 2. O.S. No. 183 of 1945 relates to properties claimed on behalf of SriChowleswaraswami temple. Periaswami Goundar and Samana Goundar, the plaintiffsin the said suit, are the trustees of the said temple. They filed the suit forthe recovery of the plaint-scheduled properties from the defendants who are thearchakas and the alienees from them on the ground that the said properties werethe properties of the deity and that the defendants had no right therein. Theyalso claimed mesne profits for a period of 3 years prior to the suit. Thedefendants filed a written-statement admitting the claim of the diety to themelvaram interest in the properties but claimed that the archakas owned thekudivaram therein and that some of the said properties were validly transferredto the alienees 3. O.S. No. 184 of 1945 was filed in the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC568; [1965]55ITR17(SC); [1964]8SCR332
Shah, J.1. M/s. Chugandas and Co. - a firm dealing in securities - received in theyear 1946 Rs. 4,13,992/- as interest on securities held by it. In 1947 itreceived Rs. 1,01,229/- as interest from the same source. On June 30, 1947 thefirm discontinued its business. In proceedings for assessment for 1947-48 and1948-49 the firm, relying upon s. 25(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922,claimed exemption from payment of tax on income earned in the relevant previousyear, on the plea that the firm was carrying on business before the IndianIncome-tax Act, 1922, was enacted, and on that business, tax had been chargedunder the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act 7 of 1918 in respect of thebusiness done immediately before that Act was repealed. The firm also appliedto substitute the income earned in the year 1947 for the income of the previousyear. The Income-tax Officer held that the interest earned by the firm onsecurities being 'liable to be assessed to tax' under s. 8 and notunder s. 10 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC560; 1965(0)BLJR54; [1964]8SCR313; [1965]16STC93(SC)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 887 and 888 of 1963. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 23, 1961, of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos. 483 and 484 of 1961. S. K. Kapur, B. L. Khanna, S. Murty and K. K. Jain, for the appellants. C. B. Agarwala and C. P. Lal, for the respondent. July 27, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.The appellant, Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd., hereinafter called the company, a joint-stock company, and S. P. Bhasin. a shareholder of the company, filed writ petition no. 1003 of 1961 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the validity of the U.P. Sales Tax Validation Act, 1958 (Act XV of 1958), hereinafter called the Validation Act, and praying for the quashing of the assessment order dated October 15, 1960 and the order dated February 1, 1961, of the Sales Tax Judge (Appeals), Meerut, in connection with the assessment of tax on the sale of vanaspati and oth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC577; [1964]8SCR306
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by certificate raises the question whether a decree obtainedin a suit to enforce a debt incurred after the Madras Agriculturists ReliefAct, 1938 (Act 4 of 1938), hereinafter called the Parent Act, came into forcecould be scaled down under s. 13 of the Parent Act. 2. The facts are as follows :On February 15, 1964, the appellant and 4 others executeda mortgage deed in favour of Kaverlal Chordia for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 payableafter three years with interest at 9 per cent. per annum. On January 24, 1946,the mortgagee assigned the said mortgage in favour of the respondent. Certainpayments towards principal and interest were made thereunder. On February 28,1950, the assignee-mortgagee i.e., the respondent, filed a suit, O.S. No. 55 of1950, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris, Ootacamund, for therecovery of Rs. 1,98,487-8-0, made up of Rs. 1,50,000 for the balance of theprincipal and Rs. 48,487-8-0 for interest due on the mortgage. The suit endedin a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC596; 1965(13)BLJR1; 1965CriLJ501; [1964]8SCR295
Gajendragadkar, C.J. 1. These Criminal Appeals and Writ Petitions have been placed for hearing together in a group because they raise common questions of law. 2. As is well-known, after the Chinese attacked the northern border of India on the 8th September, 1962, the President issued a Proclamation under Art. 352 of the Constitution on the 26th October, 1962. This proclamation declared that a grave emergency existed which posed a threat to the security of India. On the same day, an Ordinance was promulgated by the president. This Ordinance was subsequently modified by Ordinance No. 6 of 1962 on the 3rd of November, 1962. The President also issued an Order under Art. 359(1) suspending the rights of citizens to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Articles 21 and 22 during the pendency of the emergency proclamation. On the 26th October, 1962, the Rules framed by the Central Government under the Defence of India Act (hereinafter called 'the Rules') were published....
Tag this Judgment!