Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC135; [1966]61ITR444(SC); [1966]SuppSCR419
ORDER41. In accordance with the opinion of the majority, the appeals are allowed with costs here and in the High Court. One hearing fee. 42. Appeals allowed. 43. We are here not concerned with sub-section (3) as admittedly all the partners of the firm are resident within the meaning of the Act. It is the argument of Mr. Joshi that having regard to the provisions of sub- section (1) of section 182 of the Act, the assessment of the assessment of the partners of the firm are the integral parts of an assessment as a whole. In respect of the income of the firm assessment proceedings had been taken and that makes the firm an 'assessee' within the meaning of section 2(7) of the Act. Under the scheme of the Act, the income of the firm is taxed in the hands of its partners and those assessment orders have also been made in the individual assessment of the various partners including the partner, Bajranglal, but nothing could be recovered from Bajaranglal. Therefore, by reason of the provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC122; [1966]SuppSCR401
Sarkar, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Jammu and Kashmir, G. M. Sadiq, Chief Minister of that State and D. P. Dhar, its Home Minister. The appeal is contested by respondent No. 1, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad. The other respondent, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, a retired Judge of this Court, has not appeared in this Court or in the court below. These are the parties to the proceedings before us. 2. After the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India in 1947, a responsible Government was set up there under the Prime Ministership of Shiekh Mohammad Abdulla. Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad was the Deputy Prime Minister in that Government and G. M. Sadiq was also in the Cabinet. In 1953 Sheikh Mohammad Abdulla was dismissed from office and a new Government was formed with Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad as the Prime Minister and G. M. Sadiq and D. P. Dhar were included in the Cabinet. On January 26, 1957, a new Constitution was framed for Jammu & Kashmir. In the first elections held under the Const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC256; 33(1967)CLT105(SC); [1966]SuppSCR436
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment and decree of the Orissa High Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Puri, dismissing the suit instituted by Mahant Gadadhar Ramanuj Das, represented after his death by Mahant Srinivas Ramanuj Das, for the setting aside of the decision of the Commissioner of Endowments dated July 20, 1946, under s. 64(1) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939 (Act 4 of 1939), hereinafter called the Act, and for a declaration that the Act did not apply to the properties described in Schedules Ka, Kha and Ga of the plaint. 2. The allegations in the plaint are as follows. The premises on which the residential quarters of the plaintiff existed was said to be popularly knows as (i) Srinivas Kote; (ii) Rajagopal Math; and (iii) Emar Math, according to the names of the different ancestors of the plaintiff, Srinivasachari, Rajagopalachari and Embarachari. It was alleged that these pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC115; [1966]SuppSCR387
Sarkar, C.J.1. These appeals arise out of an election to a seat in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly from the Khargram Murshidabad constituency reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes. The contestants at this election were Abhoy Pada Saha and Sudhir Kumar Mondal. Sudhir is admittedly a member of a Scheduled Caste. Abhoy Pada described himself in the nomination paper as 'a member of the Sunri caste which is a Scheduled Caste'. Sudhir objected to this nomination contending that Abhoy Pada did not belong to any Scheduled Caste. The objection was rejected by the Returning Officer. At the election which ensued, Abhoy Pada secured 16,730 votes and Sudhir, 15,523 and the former was consequently declared elected. 2. Sudhir then filed a petition challenging the validity of Abhoy Pada's election on various grounds. At the hearing of the petition by the Election Tribunal, however, he challenged the election only on the ground that Abhoy Pada was a member of the Saha caste and not a member...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC253; 33(1967)CLT128(SC); [1966]SuppSCR380
Bachawat, J.1. On November 29, 1947, the Indian Chemical Products, Ltd., a Limited company, was incorporated having its registered office in Baripada, Mayurbhanj and in the town of Calcutta. Its authorised capital is Rs. 25 lakhs divided into 25,000 shares of Rs. 100 each. The company has seven share-holders. The Maharaja of Mayurbhanj subscribed and paid for 7,500 shares. The remaining six shareholders hold 150 shares only. All the shareholders are signatories to the memorandum of association of the company. The State of Orissa claims that by reason of the constitutional changes since the declaration of independence, all the shares held by the Maharaja of Mayurbhanj have now vested in it by operation of law. The State also based its claim to the shares on a formal instrument of transfer executed by the Maharaja. On March 16, 1950, the Government of Orissa lodged the share scrip and the transfer deed with the company, and requested it to make the necessary changes in the share register...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1863; 1967(0)BLJR97; 1966CriLJ1503; 1966Supp(1)SCC1503; [1966]SuppSCR373
Ramaswami, J. 1. The 2nd petitioner Kuppuswami lodged a a complaint with Yercaud Police on October 12, 1963 alleging that the respondent, M. S. P. Rajesh and other persons had formed an unlawful assembly and committed offences of house trespass, mischief and causing hurt at 10 p.m. on October 11, 1963. The complaint was the subject-matter of investigation by the police who did not present a charge-sheet against respondent, M. S. P. Rajesh but filed a charge-sheet against 4 other persons under Sections 323, 325 and 448, Indian Penal Code in C.C. No. 3097/1963 in the Court of Sub-Magistrate 3, Salem. The case was tried by the Sub-Magistrate who ultimately acquitted all the accused by his judgment dated December 13, 1963. In the course of evidence at that trial the 1st petitioner was examined as P.W. 1 and 2nd petitioner as P.W. 2 and it is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner gave false evidence to the effect that the respondent was also among the trespassers and assailants and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1888; 1966CriLJ1514; [1966]SuppSCR393
Mudholkar, J. 1. The only point which falls to be decided in this appeal by certificate granted by the High Court at Allahabad is whether the District Judge has jurisdiction under s. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer a reference made by a Magistrate to a particular civil court under s. 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to another civil court. It arises this way. Proceedings under s. 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated by a Magistrate on the basis of a report of a police officer to the effect that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning a plot of land situate within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate between the parties mentioned in the report and praying for appropriate action under s. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate upon being satisfied about the possibility of a breach of the peace made a preliminary order under s. 145, Cr.P.C., attached the property to which the dispute related and called upon the parties to adduce evid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC193; [1966]61ITR428(SC); [1966]SuppSCR295
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos, 731-732 of 1964. Appeals by special leave from the order dated January 29, 1963 of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-1, in No. 1/RP/BBY/40 and 41 of 1961. N. A. Palkhivala, T. A. Ramachandran, S. P. Mehta and O, C. Mathur, for the appellant. Sarjoo Prasad, R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. The Judgment Of SARKAR, C.J. and MUDHOLKAR, J. was delivered by SARKAR, C.J. BACHAWAT, I. delivered a dissenting opinion. Sarkar. CJ. The assessee was an advocate of the High Court of Bombay and was practicing his profession there till March 1, 1957 when he was elevated to the Bench of that Court. He then ceased to carry on his profession and has not resumed it since. As an advocate he had been assessed to income-tax on his professional income, his accounting years for the assessments being the calendar years, When he was raised to the Bench, various fees for professional work done by him were outstanding. In the years...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC295; [1966]36CompCas639(SC); [1967]1SCR898; [1966]SuppSCR311
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 381 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 7, 1965 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil Writ No. 1626-C of 1965. M. C. Setalvad, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, for the appellants. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, B. R. L. Iyengar, R. K. P. Shankardass and R. H. Dhebar, for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to 7. S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, C. Ramakrishna and A. V. V. Nair, for respondent No. 2. The dissenting Opinion Of SARKAR, C.J. and MUDHOLKAR., J. was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, J HIDAYATULLAH. BACHAWAT and SHELAT JJ. delivered separate judgments allowing the Appeal. Mudholkar, J. On May 19, 1965 Mr. D. S. Dang, Secretary of the Company Law Board issued an order on behalf of the Company Law Board made under s. 237 (b) of the Companies Act, 1956 appointing 4 persons as Inspectors for investigating the affairs of the Barium Chemicals Ltd., appellant No. I before us, since its incorporation in th...
Tag this Judgment!