Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC898; [1967]1SCR643
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This judgment will govern Civil Appeal No. 1653 of 1966 and Writ Petition No. 193 of 1966. The appeal has been filed, after obtaining special leave of this Court, by the Samyukta Socialist Party, through its General Secretary, against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab, November 18, 1965, dismissing summarily a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petition has been filed by Mr. Madhu Limaye, M.P., a member of the Samyukta Socialist Party. These two proceedings raise a common question and challenge the action of the Election Commission in allotting the 'Hut' as the reserved election symbol to the Praja Socialist Party, which symbol was previously reserved for the Samyukta Socialist Party. The challenge is on the ground of want of jurisdiction and also on the basis of fact. The Rule and Notification whereunder the action purported to be taken are also challenged as unconstitutional in the petition. The controversy arises in the following ci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1967]63ITR216(SC)
Bhargava, J.1. This appeal brought up by special leave arises out of proceedings for assessment of agricultural Income-tax under the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948 (U. P. Act No. III of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent was an agriculturist in the district of Agra, and was assessed to agricultural Income-tax for the year 1358, Fasli. The income that came up for assessment included income derived from direct agricultural operations carried on by the respondent himself. In the return filed, the respondent had shown a gross receipt of Rs. 10,899 as the proceeds of sale of all his agricultural produce and had claimed a sum of Rs. 5,769-12-3 as expenses of cultivation. The agricultural income from this source had to be computed under section 6(2)(b) of the Act because of the option exercised by the respondent. The assessing authority did not accept the figures of income given by the respondent and held that the yield from the cultivation was of the value o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC378; [1967]1SCR633
Ramaswamy, J.1. These appeals are brought by certificate' from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated August 1, 1962 by which an award of the arbitrator, Sir R. C. Mitter dated September 2, 1959 was set aside. The disputes arise out of two contracts being A. T. 1000 dated November 30, 1944 and A. T. 1048 dated June 25, 1945 between the Government of India (hereinafter called the "Government") and the Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the "appellant"). Both the contracts contained the usual arbitration clause embodied in cl. 21 of the general conditions of contract in form no. W.S.B. 133 for reference of any question or dispute arising in connection with the contract or arising under the condition thereof. The claims and the counterclaims of the parties under the two contracts were referred to the arbitration of Sir R. C. Mitter. The award of the arbitrator is dated September 2, 1959. The arbitrator found that the contract no. A. T. 1000 was for the supply of 47...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1066; [1967]1SCR618; [1967]19STC1(SC)
Shah, J. 1. M/s. Raipur Manufacturing Company hereinafter called 'the Company' - carries on the business of manufacturing and selling cotton textiles. In the account year 1953-54 the Company besides selling cloth sold coal and 25 different items of discarded or unserviceable goods and waste products from the factory. The goods sold may be classified under three heads : (1) Old containers - cans, boxes etc.; discarded stores, machinery & iron scrap; miscellaneous discarded items, such as, cotton ropes, chindis (rags) etc. (2) Kolsi (cinders), waste caustic liquor. (3) Coal. 2. The Sales-tax authorities brought the turnover from sales of those commodities to tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 and their order was confirmed in appeal by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that 'a cotton textile mill manages to collect unserviceable articles in the course of manufacture of cloth' and since these articles have to be sold, if it is to survive as an economic unit, sale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1131; [1967]1SCR627; [1967]19STC35(SC)
Bhargava, J.1.These appeals arise out of proceedings for assessment of sales-tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act No. IX of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of certain sales of cotton. The respondents were registered dealers in cotton, including kappas, groundnuts and cotton seeds with their Head Office at Bellary and Branch Offices at a number of places. They were also licensees under s. 8 of the Act in respect of cotton. They made various purchases of cotton at their places of business and subsequently sold them to different parties. Amongst these were a number of persons who were not resident within the area to which the Act applied. The question arose as to who was liable to pay the sales-tax in respect of those transactions of sale of cotton in which the cotton had been sold by the respondents to non-residents. When the case came up before the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal determined the course of transactions and held as follows : '...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1110; [1967]1SCR602
Hidayatullah, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 148, 149, 233 and 238 of 1962 and 216 of 1963. They raise a common question about the validity of the Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation, 1962 (No. VII of 1962). We shall refer to this Regulation as 'the Regulation' in this judgment. 2. By the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962, the First Schedule to the Constitution was amended by including under the heading 'The Union Territories' after Entry 7, a new Entry which read : '8. Goa, Daman and Diu The territories which immediatelybefore the twentieth day ofDecember, 1961 were comprised in Goa,Daman and Diu'.3. Similarly, in Art. 240 which gives power to the President to make regulations for Union territories the words 'Goa, Daman, and Diu' were inserted. This followed the annexation of the territories belonging to India which had passed into Portuguese hands. On March 5, 1962 the President promulgated the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC523; 1967(0)BLJR292; [1967]63ITR219(SC); [1967]1SCR590
Ramaswami J. 1. The appellant was carrying on business in jewellery, copper-wire and money lending. The books of accounts of the appellant were closed on the 30th of June every year. For the assessment year 1951-52 (for which the previous year ended on 30th June, 1950) the appellant did not comply with the notice issued under s. 22(2) or section 22(4) of the Income-tax Act. No return was filed by the appellant. The assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer on such material as was available on the 23rd February, 1955 and the income was assessed at Rs. 36,068/-. Subsequently, while making assessment for the assessment year 1955-56, the appellant was asked to furnish a wealth statement which was actually filed on the 30th June, 1954. From the wealth statement it was found that the appellant had made investments for Rs. 39,000/- during the previous year which ended on the 30th June, 1950, though in respect of that previous year, the appellant's income was assessed only at Rs. 36,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC450; (1967)69BOMLR313; 1967CriLJ414; 1967MhLJ747(SC); [1967]1SCR595
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. A.G. Nelson, Assistant Controller of Imports, P.H. Shingrani, Upper Division Clerk in the Quota Licensing Section of the Office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, Shrichand Khetwani appellant, and Ramshankar Ramayan Bhargava, were tried of an offence punishable under s. 120-B read with s. 409 I.P.C. and s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They were all convicted by the trial Court. On appeal, the High Court acquitted Bhargava and dismissed the appeals of the other three persons. The present appeal is by Khetwani, by special leave. The other two convicted persons have not appealed. 2. It may be mentioned here that the prosecution case is that in pursuance of the conspiracy, a number of licences in the name of several companies which had no existence were prepared, that some of these were actually issued and that two of those licences issued were in the name of M.L. Trading Co., Bombay, and were delivered to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1967]1SCR548
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 15801588 and 1590-1600 of 1966. Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 17, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 295 to 300, 453 and 914/63, 1076, 1175 to 1175, 2053 and 2076/64 and 1132, 1260, 1420 and 1321/65. D. R. Venkatesa Iyer, O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants (in C. As. Nos. 1580- 1586 and 1588 of 1966). M. K. Nambyar, D. -R. Venkatesa Iyer, O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants (in C. As. Nos. 1590-1594, 1596 and 1599-1600 of 1966). M. C. Setalvad, D. R. Venkatesa lyer, O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants (in C. As Nos. 1597 and 1598 of 1966). K. R. Chaudhuri, S. P. Satyanarayana Rao and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 1595 of 1966). R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents (in C. As. Nos. 1580- 1586, 1588 and 1595 of 1966). H. R. Gokhale, B. R. L. Iyengar and R. H. Dhebar, for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1512; [1967]1SCR548b
Sikri, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore, dated November 17, 1965, disposing of 49 petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, The High Court disposed of the petitions by one common judgment as identical questions of law were involved in all of them. We will also dispose of these appeals by this judgment because they raise substantially identical questions of law. These appeals may, however, be divided into two groups; one dealing with the licences for the sale of Toddy and the other dealing with the licences for the sale of arrack. 2. We may give the facts in one appeal, Civil Appeal No. 1590 of 1966, arising out of Writ Petition No. 1076 of 1964. The appellant, M/s. Guruswami and Co.--hereinafter referred to as the petitioner--filed writ petition alleging that the firm was a licensed Excise contractor with its principal office at Bangalore, and that it had been the licensee of the Bangalore Urban group of 26 shops for the yea...
Tag this Judgment!