Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC570; [1966]59ITR238(SC)
Sikri, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against its judgment dismissing a petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution by the appellant. The appellant is a private limited company, hereinafter referred to as 'the company', and the three persons hold shares of the company as under : Shares AmountRs.Sri C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar 2,797 27,970Sri C. P. Singaram 420 4,200Sri C. P. Doraiswamy 500 5,000 2. The company was doing transport business and for the assessment year 1959-60 (previous year ending 31st March, 1959) it claimed a sum of Rs. 48,600 as development rebate in respect of the four new buses purchased by it and brought to use during the year. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the amount but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on appeal, allowed the entire sum of Rs. 48,600 as development rebate. On May 27, 1959, the three shareholders entered into a partnership and the capital of the firm was as follows : Rs.C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1637; [1966]2SCR40
Hidayatullah, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm which manufactures and sells bidis, under the name and style of Anwarkhan Mehboob and Co., Jabalpur. In 1948 the petitioner firm, with a view to securing a supply of tendu leaves over the years acquired for a term of 25 years, the right to pluck and carry away tendu leaves from plants in ninety-nine villages in the former Imlai Estate from the Malguzar Raja Raghuraj Singh. The period of 25 years, was to run from 1948 to 1973. The document, which was not registered (annexure I), was executed by the Raja on August 22, 1948. It is a very brief document and all that it says is that tendu leaves in 99 villages have been 'sold' for 25 years for a consideration of Rs. 9,000 per year which must be paid after each tendu leaf crop is over but before the expiry of three months, that only the leaves should be plucked and that no bushes should be cut down. 2. In 1950 the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals and Alie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1206; 1966CriLJ946; [1966]2SCR34
Sikri, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta under art. 132(1) of the Constitution and is directed against the judgment of the High Court accepting a petition under art. 226 of the Constitution and quashing adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (VII of 1947) - hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The relevant facts are as follows : Following the recovery in 1954 of some foreign currency and Travellers Cheques at No. 311, Bow Bazar Street, Calcutta, where the respondent alongwith his, mother and brother, carried on the business of jewellers, the Director of Enforcement issued a notice on April 23, 1958, on the petitioner calling up on him to show cause within 10 days if the receipt of the notice why adjudication proceedings should not be held against him for contravention of s. 23(1) of the Act. On May 10, 1958, the respondent replied to the above memorandum giving his version as to how came into possession of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1011
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought by special leave on behalf of the plaintiffs from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad dated November 13, 1959, dismissing First Appeal No. 342 of 1948 arising out of the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge of Saharanpur, dated September 6, 1948, in Suit No. 64 of 1945.2. This suit was brought by the appellants as representing the Udasi sect under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code in respect of the 'Dharamshala' at Hardwar containing the Samadhi of Baba Bakhat Mal, founder of the Gaddi Shanter Shah which is located in Roorkee Teshil of Saharanpur District. The appellants prayed for a declaration that the Dharamshala was a wakf property and not transferable and that the sale deed dated June 14, 1945 executed by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 and 4 was illegal and inoperative. It was alleged by the appellants that the Dharamshala was not part of the Gaddi Shanter Shah but was a separate endowment and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC955; 1966CriLJ712; [1966]2SCR1
Subba Rao J. 1. I regret my inability to agree on the construction of section of s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The facts have been stated by my learned brother, Wanchoo, J., and I need not restate them. 2. Clause (81) of section 167 of the Sea Customs Act reads : "If any person knowingly, and with intent to defraud the Government of any duty payable thereon, or to evade any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force under or by virtue of this Act with respect thereto acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping or concealing or in any manner dealing with any goods which have been unlawfully removed from a warehouse or which are chargeable with a duty which has not been paid or with respect to the importation or exportation of which any prohibition or restriction is for the time being in force as aforesaid"; .......... 3. The penalty clause thereof reads : "such person shall on conviction before a Magist...
Tag this Judgment!