Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC847; [1967]2SCR14
Subba Rao, C.J.1. In this petition the question of the constitutional validity of Order XL, r. 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, hereinafter called the Rules, is raised.2. The petitioner filed a special leave petition against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab passed in a Letters Patent Appeal. On January 14, 1964, this Court granted special leave. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the amount of security and some money as advance towards printing charges. But, as he failed to file the list of documents, on April 2, 1965, special leave granted to him was rescinded and the special leave petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Then the petitioner filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 85 of 1966, in this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution on the ground that the said order of revocation of the special leave granted and the dismissal of his special leave petition deprived him of his right to appeal and that the said order offended Art. 14 of the Con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC844; [1967]63ITR656(SC); 1967MhLJ647(SC); [1967]2SCR7
Bhargava, J.1. Seth Walchand Hirachand and his wife, Bai Kasturbai, owned certain shares, had several insurance policies, owned house property and also held lease lands. The two of them together joined in executing an indenture on 25h November, 1946, by which they created a trust. The trustees were both of them themselves and three brothers of Seth Walchand. The provisions of the trust, with which we are concerned, laid down that, after defraying the expenses for management of the trust properties and certain other expenses, such as, rents, rates, etc., the trustees were to pay to Bai Kasturbai, during her life-time, the income arising from the trust funds and properties. Further, Seth Walchand himself and Bai Kasturbai, during their life-time, had the right of residence in some of the house property, free of rent and without any obligation for payment of any outgoings or moneys in respect thereof. These provisions were contained in clause 7 of the deed of trust. The next provision con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC614; [1967]63ITR651(SC); [1967]2SCR1
Bhargava, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay under Section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the answer returned by the High Court to the following question referred to it by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Act :- 'Whether having regard to the provisions of section 12B(ii), the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction from the full value of the consideration of Rs. 45.262.50 nP. received for the capital asset, the sum of Rs. 37,630 or any similar sum ?' 2. The case arose out of proceedings for assessment of the appellant for the assessment year 1957-58, the corresponding previous year being the financial year 1956-57. The appellant was holding 710 ordinary shares of the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), which she had inherited some time prior to 1st January, 1954, as an investment. It was admitted that she was not a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC448; [1967]63ITR485(SC); 1967MhLJ654(SC); [1967]1SCR998
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, on behalf of the assessee from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated March 15, 1961 in Income-tax Reference No. 56 of 1960. 2. The assessee is a partnership firm constituted under a Deed of Partnership dated March 19, 1950. The partners are three brothers - Nandlal Bhimjibhai, Tarachand Bhimjibhai and Rajnikant Bhimjibhai, each one having an equal 1/3rd share in the partnership firm. Prior to November, 1949, the three partners of the assessee-firm in partnership with eight others carried on business in Bombay and other places in the name and style of 'Rajnikant Vitheldas & Co.' In that larger firm, each one of the three brothers had an equal two annas share each, the other eight partners having the remaining ten anna share. The larger partnership of 'Rajnikant Vitheldas & Co.' was dissolved on October 31, 1949, and on its dissolution the business of the two branches thereof at Nagpur was allotted to the three brothers, who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC578; [1967]63ITR645(SC); [1967]1SCR991
Shah, J.1. Under a deed of trust dated June 26, 1941, one Rambhai Patel settled under a deed subject to certain terms and conditions 80 shares of the Central Cotton Trading Company (Uganda) Ltd. for the advancement and maintenance of his son, Manubhai, and an equal number of shares for the benefit of his son Mahendra. Manubhai died of June 7, 1954, when he was a minor and unmarried. The Deputy Controller of Estate Duty, by order dated August 26, 1959, brought the interest of Manubhai in the settlement to tax in the hands of his brother Mahendra on the footing that it was vested in possession in Manubhai and was chargeable to estate duty under s. 5 of the Estate Duty Act 34 of 1953. The order of the Deputy Controller was confirmed in appeal to the Central Board of Revenue. The Central Board of Revenue referred the following question to the High Court of Gujarat under s. 64 of the Estate Duty Act 34 of 1953 : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion, in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC829; [1967]1SCR1012
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 648 of 1964. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and. order dated, November 23, 1960 of Assam and Nagaland High Court. in Civil Rule No. 88 of 1960. Sukumar Ghose, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. The Judgment Of SUBBA RAO, C. J. and SHELAT, J. was delive- red by SHELAT., J. BACHAWAT, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. Shelat, J. We regret our inability to agree with the conclusion reached by Bachawat J. The appellant, a non-tribal, started trading at Aijal, Mizo, District, in 1957 under a temporary licence issued by the Mizo District Council investing about Rs. 50,000/- therein. The temporary licence could be issued at a time for a year only and therefore he applied for and obtained its renewal from time to time upto May 31, 1960. He applied for a further renewal whereupon the Executive Committee of the District Council passed an order dated July 11, 1960 refusing any further renewal and -directing him to. remove h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC849; [1967]63ITR497(SC); [1967]1SCR1004
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Mysore High Court dated November 17, 1964 in Tax Referred Case No. 1 of 1964. 2. The property in question is house No. 34, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bangalore. It had been purchased by the appellant's father Dr. C.F. Da Costa (hereinafter called the 'deceased') in the joint names of himself and his wife on February 14, 1940. They made a gift of the house to their two sons on October 20, 1954. The document recites that the donees had accepted the gift and they had been put in possession. But the parents continued to be in possession of the house though the municipal tax was paid thereafter in the names of the sons. The deceased died on September 30, 1959 more than 4 years after the gift. The appellant, the accountable person, then filed a return showing the value of the estate left by his father as Rs. 93,750/- excluding the value of the house No. 34, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bangalore. The Assistant Controller of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC657; [1967]63ITR458(SC); [1967]1SCR965
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought by special leave on behalf of Ramanathan Chettiar (hereinafter called the 'assessee') from the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated September 24, 1962 in T.C. No. 144 of 1960. 2. Arunachalam Chettiar (senior) was a resident of Devakottai, Ramanathapuram District who owned extensive properties including properties in Ceylon. He married three wives viz., Valami Achi, Lakshimi Achi and Nachiar Achi. Valami Achi died in 1913 leaving behind her a son Arunachalam Chettiar (junior) and three daughters. Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi did not have natural born sons. Arunachalam Chettiar (junior) died on July 9, 1934. Arunachalam Chettiar (senior) died on February 23, 1938. He was survived by his two widows Lakshimi Achi and Nachiar Achi and by the widow of his predeceased son, Arunachalam Chettiar (junior) viz., Umayal Achi. After the death of Arunachalam Chettiar (senior) disputes arose between his two widows and the widow of Arunachalam Chettiar (ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC433; [1967]63ITR466(SC)
Shah, J.1. Chockalingam Chettiar and his son, Annamalai, were members of a Hindu joint family. On March 28, 1939, the joint family status was severed. On February 2, 1943, Chockalingam executed a will devising the property which fell to his share, in favour of his two grandsons - Narayanan and Viswanathan - and of the other grandsons that maybe born of his son, Annamalai. The relevant provisions of the will were these : 'After my lifetime, the minor sons of my divided son the aforesaid Annamalai Chettiar, viz., Narayanan and Viswanathan and the male children that may be born hereafter to the aforesaid Annamalai Chettiar shall take and enjoy in equal shares and with absolute rights all assets and liabilities in respect of immovable and movable properties... I hereby appoint my divided son S.N.A.S. Annamalai Chettiar... and his wife Meenakshi Achi... as executors. Therefore, they shall after my lifetime manage and augment all my immovable and movable properties and firms, which are menti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC602; [1967]1SCR961; [1967]19STC84(SC)
Ramaswami, J.1. These appeals are brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland dated May 20, 1964 in Sales Tax Reference No. 1 of 1963. 2. The respondent is a registered dealer under the Assam Sales Tax Act (Act 17 of 1947). For the two periods ending September 30, 1959 and September 30, 1960, the Sales Tax Officer assessed the respondent to sales tax holding that hydrogenated oil was exempt from sales tax but the value of the containers should be assessed at Re. 1/- for each container of hydrogenated oil and at 2 annas for salt bag and a small mustard oil tin which are other exempted goods for the period ending September 30, 1959. For the other period ending September 30, 1960, the value of the containers of the exempted goods was estimated at Rs. 21,500/-. The respondent preferred appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, but the appeals were dismissed. The respondent preferred second appeals before the Assam Board of Revenue which by its...
Tag this Judgment!