Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC63; 1967CriLJ1; (1966)68PLR794; [1966]SuppSCR286
ORDER21. In view of the judgment of the majority, the appeal is allowed, the conviction of the respondent is altered to one under Section 354 I.P.C., and he is awarded rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default, rigorous (imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the fine, if realised. Rs. 500/- shall be paid as compensation to the child....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC109; 1966(0)BLJR781; [1966]SuppSCR280
Mudholkar, J. 1. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Patna High Court reversing that of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for partition and separate possession of their half share in a house and for payment of compensation from May 2, 1947 to September 11, 1951 at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. with interest and for payment of compensation at the same rate from the date of suit till the recovery of possession of their share in the house. 2. The facts which are not disputed before us are these : The property in dispute which is situate within the limits of the municipality of Bhagalpur was purchased jointly by five persons, Juri Mal, Gajanand, Ramasahai Sah, Jahuri Sah and Ramgali Sah. The first two of these are father and son (and were members of a joint Hindu Family). Both of them are dead. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the sons and plaintiff 6 is the widow of Gajanand and plaintiff No. 5 is the widow of Jurimal. Jurimal, Gajanand (constituted a joint Hindu famil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC436; [1966]SuppSCR270
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought by certificate on behalf of the defendants against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated August 7, 1962 in Appeal Suit No. 312 of 1957. 2. In the village of Varagali, in the district of Nellore, there is a temple in which is enshrined the idol of Sri Kodandaramaswami. The temple was built in the middle of the last century by one Burla Rangareddi who manager the affairs of the temple and its properties during his life-time. After his death, his son, Venkata Subbareddy was in management. By a deed dated August 19, 1898 Venkata Subbareddi relinquished his interest in the properties in favour of one Vemareddi Rangareddi whose family members are defendants 1 to 5. The plaintiff filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments, Nellore, alleging mismanagement of the temple and its properties by the first defendant. Notice was issued to the 1st defendant to show cause why the temple properties should not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1995; 1966(0)BLJR873; 1966CriLJ1538; (1966)IILLJ759SC; [1966]SuppSCR259
Ramaswami, J.1. The question of law presented for determination in this appeal is whether the respondent - S. K. Roy - is the 'owner of a coal mine' within the meaning of s. 2(b) and 2(e) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 (Act 46 of 1948), hereinafter called the 'Act'. 2. The respondent was prosecuted under para 70 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter called the 'Scheme') for violation of cls. (a), (d) and (f) of paragraph 70 read with paragraphs 33A, 38, 42 and 69A of the Scheme. An Inspector appointed under the Act filed a complaint against the respondent alleging that he was the owner of the Bhowra Coke Plant and that he had contravened certain provisions of the Scheme. It was alleged that the respondent had failed to pay the contribution for the Provident Fund, both employer's and employees' from April, 1960 to November, 1960 and had failed to submit returns in Form 'H' with corresponding declaration in Form 'A' and the statement in Form '...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1966CriLJ1509; [1966]SuppSCR230
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This judgment will also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1965 (Rajwant Singh v. The State of Kerala). The appellants in these two appeals have been convicted under Sections 302/34, 364, 392, 394 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. Unni (appellant in this appeal) has been sentenced to death and Rajwant Singh (appellant in the other appeal) has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. No separate sentences under the other sections have been imposed on Unni but Rajwant Singh has been sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 392 and 394, Indian Penal Code, with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life. The High Court of Kerala has dismissed their appeals and confirmed the sentence of death on Unni. They now appeal by special leave of this Court. 2. These appellants were tried with three others, of whom two were acquitted. One Taylor was also convicted of the same offences and was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1910; 1966CriLJ1521; 1966MhLJ913(SC); [1966]SuppSCR239
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1965. Appeal from the Judgment and order dated July 9, 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No. 166 of 1963. B.Sen and 1. N. Shroff, for the appellant. B.D. Sharma, for the respondents. A.V. Rangam, for Intervener No. 1. V.A. Seyid Muhammad, Advocate-General, Kerala, B. R. L. Iyengar, A. G. Pudessery and M. R. K. K. Pillai for Intervener No. 2. B. R. G. K. Achar, for intervener No. 3 The Judgment of SARKAR C.J. and MUDHOLKAR J. was delivered by SARKAR C.J. The Judgment of BACHAWAT and SHELAT JJ. was delivered by BACHAWAT J. HIDAYATULLAH J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. Sarkar, C.J. On a complaint of trespass the police registered a case against the respondents under S. 447 of the Penal Code. The respondents were later arrested by the police and released on the execution of surety bonds whereby the sureties undertook to produce them as required by the police. The case against the respondents was thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC246; [1966]62ITR740(SC); [1966]SuppSCR224
Sikri, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a reference made to it under s. 46 of the Gwalior War Profits Tax Ordinance, Samvat 2001 - hereinafter called the Ordinance. Three questions were referred to the High Court by the War Profits Tax Commissioner, but we are only concerned with question No. 1, which reads as follows :-'Whether the dividend income of Rs. 11,09,332/- received from the Binod Mills was chargeable under the War Profits Tax ?'2. When the reference was first heard by the High Court three contentions were raised by M/s Binodram Balchand of Ujjain, respondents before us, hereinafter referred to as the assessees. They were :'(1) The assessees did not deal in shares and their holdings in the Binod Mills Limited were purely in the nature of investments, having no connections with their business as defined in Section 2(5) read with Rule 1 of Schedule 1 of the Gwalior War Profits Tax Ordinance. The business o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC249; [1966]SuppSCR215
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Punjab High Court dated February 22, 1962 in Civil Revision No. 331-D of 1958 whereby the High Court upheld and confirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court and set aside the judgment of the trial court staying proceedings in the suit. 2. The Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') was registered under the Co-operative Societies Act No. II of 1912 at Lucknow and was carrying on the business of playing public carriers on Kanpur-Delhi route. The Society had been granted, for this purpose, permits by the Uttar Pradesh Government and Delhi Administration for seven vehicles. In March, 1954, the Society entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs - M/s Sunder Brothers - through Bimal Kumar Jain and Dhan Kumar Jain by which they were appointed as Managing Agents for carrying on the business as public carriers. The terms of the Managing Agency agreement were em...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC243; 1967CriLJ282; [1966]SuppSCR209
Sarkar, C.J.1. The petitioner, Puran Lal Lakhanpal, was arrested and detained under clause(b) of sub-r. (1) of Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 by an order passed on December 10, 1965 and directed to be detained in Central Jail, Tehar, New Delhi. The order stated that : 'WHEREAS the Central Government is satisfied that with a view to preventing Shri P. L. Lakhanpal, son of late Shri Diwan Chand Sharma................. from acting in a manner prejudicial to the Defence of India and Civil Defence, public safety and the maintenance of public order, it is necessary that he should be detained; NOW, THEREFORE,................... the Central Government hereby directs that the said Shri P. L. Lakhanpal be detained.' He has moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution by a petition presented on December 24, 1965 for a writ of habeas corpus directing his release. He challenges the legality of the detention order on various grounds which we now proceed to consider. 2. The first ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC234; [1966]SuppSCR198; [1966]18STC222(SC)
Shah, J.1.This is a group of appeals filed by the State of Madras against orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras which raises the following common question as to applicability of concessional rate of sales tax to transactions of inter-State sale and taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 : 'When a purchasing dealer in one State furnishes in Form 'C' prescribed under the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1957, to the selling dealer in another State a declaration, certifying that the goods ordered, purchased or supplied are covered by the certificate of registration obtained by the purchasing dealer in Form 'B' prescribed under r. 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1957, and that the goods are intended for resale, or for use in manufacture of goods for sale, or for use in the execution of contracts, or for packing of goods for resale, and that declaration is produced by the selling dealer, is it open to the Sales Tax au...
Tag this Judgment!