Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1061; [1967]63ITR404(SC); [1967]1SCR905
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by certificate, against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated December 18, 1962 in T.C. No. 143 of 1960. 2. The appellant (hereinafter called the 'assessee') was a firm called O.RM.M.SP. SV. Firm which was registered under s. 26(A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the '1922 Act'). Prior to the constitution of the firm, the partners were members of a Hindu undivided family. The family which consisted of Meyyappa Chettiar and his two brothers carried on money-lending business in India and in the former Federated Malaya States and it was assessed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918 (hereinafter called the '1918 Act'). There was a disruption of the joint family status on June 2, 1938, and thereafter the members of the family continued the business as partners. In the course of the assessment for the year 1939-40 it was claimed by Meyyappa Chettiar, one of the members of the family that having regard to the severance of joint fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC469; [1967(14)FLR4]; (1967)ILLJ423SC; [1967]1SCR882
Mitter, J.1. On March 4, 1966 an order under s. 10(1) and s. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed over the signature of Secretary (Industries and Labour), Delhi Administration, Delhi referring to the Special Industrial Tribunal certain matters setforth in the Schedule annexed thereto for adjudication. According to the recitals in the order, it appeared to the Delhi Administration from a report submitted by the Conciliation Officer under s. 12(4) of the Act that an industrial dispute existed between the managements of Delhi Cloth Mills and Swatantra Bharat Mills and their workmen represented by four different Unions and the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, was satisfied on a consideration of the said report that the said dispute should be referred to an Industrial Tribunal. The terms of reference specified in the Schedule are reproduced below : '1. Whether in calculating the bonus table for the accounting year ending 30-6-1965 the allocations se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC762; [1967]63ITR416(SC); [1967]1SCR913
Shah, J.1. Sir Chinubhai Madhavlal, Baronet, his wife Lady Tanumati and his three sons Udayan, Kirtidev and Achyut were originally assessed to income tax in the status of a Hindu undivided family by the First Income tax Officer, A-III Ward, Bombay. Sir Chinubhai filed suit No. 2176 of 1948 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay for partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family estate. On March 8, 1950, the High Court of Bombay passed a decree by consent declaring that as from October 15, 1947 the joint family stood dissolved and that all the members of the family had become separate in food, worship and estate from that date and each member of the family was entitled to a fifth share in the properties movable and immovable belonging to the family, subject to the right of maintenance in favour of the mother of Sir Chinubhai. In Sch. A, Part I properties which were allotted to Sir Chinubhai were set out; in Parts II & III of Sch. A properties which were collective...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC978; [1967]1SCR873
Shelat, J.1. One Soni Virji Sundarji for himself and on behalf of the Hindu joint family of which he was the Karta executed a deed of mortgage dated December 11, 1907 in respect of two shops in Jamnagar in favour of Jetha Roopchand, to secure repayment of Rs. 800 advanced to the said family. The said mortgage was with possession and was redeemable in 8 years. On August 25, 1930 the coparceners of Virji, who had died in the meantime, by an agreement of sale agreed to sell and respondents 1 and 2 agreed to purchase the said two shops together with certain other properties for Rs. 3,200, subject of course to the said mortgage. In spite of the said agreement of sale the coparceners of Virji by a registered deed of sale dated September 10, 1930 sold the said shop and the said properties to Lalji Jetha and Kanji Jetha, the sons of said Jetha Roopchand, for Rs. 3,400. The said Lalji and Kanji both died and the appellants and respondents 3(1) to 3(9) are the heirs and legal representatives of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC400; 1967(0)BLJR242; 33(1967)CLT356(SC); [1967]19STC151(SC)
R.S. Bachawat, J.1. The appellant, a registered dealer under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, was assessed to pay sales tax for four different periods. The arrears of taxes were public demands within Section 3 (6) read with item 3, Schedule 1 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (B. and O. Act No. 4 of 1914). On the requisition of the Superintendent, Sales Tax, Purnea, the Certificate Officer, Purnea, signed and filed four certificates under Section 6 of the Act stating that the demands were due from the appellant. The certificates were put in execution. In the course of the execution proceedings, the appellant paid the principal amounts of the certificates. The Certificate Officer claimed payment of the interest due on the certificates. The appellant filed objections disputing its liability to pay any interest. By his orders, dated March 20, 1958, the Certificate Officer dismissed the objections. The appellant filed four writ applications challenging these orders. The Pat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC417; [1967]63ITR328(SC); [1967]1SCR859
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the High Court of Mysore dated December 11, 1961 in Income Tax Reference Case No. 13 of 1959. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') is a public limited company carrying on business of banking at its head office in Mangalore and its branches in various places. It opened one branch in Karachi on November 15, 1946. After the partition of India in 1947, the currencies of the two dominions of India and Pakistan continued to be at par until there was a devaluation of the Indian Rupee on September 18, 1949. As Pakistan did not devalue her rupee, the old parity of the Pakistan and Indian Rupees ceased to exist. The exchange ratio between the two countries was not determined until February 27, 1951. On this date it was agreed that a hundred Pakistani Rupees were equivalent to a hundred and forty four Indian rupees. On the date of devaluation of the Indian Rupee the Karachi Branch of the Bank had with i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1967]63ITR411(SC)
Shah, J.1. In their return of income for the assessment year 1951-52 the respondents, Messrs. K. Y. Pilliah & Sons, declared Rs. 18,679 as their income from business. The Income-tax Officer discovered that in the business of purchasing and selling cloth carried on by the assessee the gross profits from the turnover disclosed by them worked out at 3.8% while in the case of other merchants carrying on similar business in the same locality it worked out at 6 to 7% that the relevant vouchers for purchases by the assessee of goods were not produced, and that in respect of those transactions, besides the entries in the books, of account, there was no evidence of actual payment of credit purchases. the Income-tax Officer was, therefore, of the view that the 'purchases remained unproved'. Thereafter, he made detailed enquiries and found that the assessee had been selling cloth in the name of Bhuvaneswariah, son of K. Y. Pilliah, principal partner of the assessees, and on the name of Veerabhadr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1967]1SCR864
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and arises in the following circumstances. A suit was brought by the first respondent, Avinash Prasad Srivastava, against the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with her and the grant of a decree of divorce. In the alternative the first respondent prayed for a decree of judicial separation. His case was that he was married to the appellant on May 27, 1955, and the appellant lived with him for four years and a half. The parties last resided together and cohabited at Bareilly. A number of allegations of all kinds were made in the petition by the first respondent against the appellant; but it is unnecessary to refer to them, for the first respondent had to bring his case under one or other clause of s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25 of 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) if he wanted a decree of divorce, and under one or other clause of s. 10 if he wanted a decree of judi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1967]63ITR325(SC)
Bhargava, J.1. The respondent is a company which, for assessment to agricultural income-tax under the Coorg Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1952-53, filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 43,071. The relevant accounting year was the calendar year ending 31st December, 1951. The assessing authority thereupon issued a notice under section 18(2) of the Act in response to which the account books of the respondent were produced, and the assessing authority held that the respondent had not accounted for the receipts from the crop so the agricultural year 1950-51. The explanation of the respondent for not including those receipts was that the standing crops of that year were purchased separately from the previous owners for a sum of Rs. 2,16,000 and, consequently, the respondent did not treat that crop as its agricultural receipts. In the alternative, a claim was put forward that, if the value of that crop is treated as income, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC526; [1967]1SCR843
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Punjab High Court and arises in the following circumstances. The appellant entered into a contract with the Union of India (UOI), respondent herein, for construction of certain highway bridges. In connection with the execution of the contract, some disputes arose between the parties and were referred to the joint arbitration of Sri B.K. Guha and Sri N.P. Gurjar. As there was difference of opinion between the two arbitrators, the matter was referred to an umpire, namely, Sri Dildar Hussain, retired Chief Engineer, Hyderabad. The umpire recorded evidence of the parties and gave his award on May 27, 1961. It appears that the award was made in duplicate and one copy was sent to each party. On August 4, 1961, the appellant made a petition before the Subordinate Judge First Class, Delhi under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, No. 10 of 1940, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was prayed that the umpi...
Tag this Judgment!