Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC642; [1968]2SCR125
Shelat, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Second Appeal No. 378 of 1961. 2. The respondents as trustees of a charitable trust are the owners of certain houses situate in Indore City. Prior to January 26, 1954 the Indore Municipality was governed by the Indore City Municipal Act, 4 of 1909. By virtue of the power conferred on it by that Act the Municipality used to levy and collect house tax at the rate of 7% of the gross annual letting value of these houses and the trustees duly paid such tax. After the formation of the State of Madhya Bharat, the legislature of that State passed the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954 which came into force on January 26, 1954. The 1954 Act repealed amongst other Acts the Indore City Municipal Act 1909. The Indore Municipality however purported to levy the house tax on the basis of the gross annual letting value at the rate of 7% of such value for the financial years ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC637; [1968]68ITR244(SC); [1968]2SCR103
Bachawat, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the vires of the Taxation Laws (Extension to Union Territories) Regulations Nos. 3 of 1963. The contention is that the President had no power to promulgate the Regulation under Art. 240 of the Constitution. On August 16, 1962, Pondicherry became a Union Territory. On December 5, 1962, Parliament enacted the Pondicherry Administration Act, 1962 (Act No. 49 of 1962). Section 4(1) of this Act provided that all laws in force immediately before August 19, 1962 would continue to be in force in Pondicherry until amended or repealed by a competent legislature or other competent authority. Section 4(2) empowered the Central Government to make necessary adaptations and modifications for the purpose of facilitating the application of any such law in relation to the administration of Pondicherry and bringing the provisions of any such law into accord with the provisions of the Constitution. Section 7 provided that all taxes, dut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC612; [1968]2SCR112
Sikri, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, is directed against his judgment allowing a petition fined by the respondents and issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Divisional Forest Officer, Sarahan Forest Division, and the Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh - hereinafter referred to as the appellants - to issue or get issued the necessary permission for felling the trees and the transit pass, in respect of certain khasra numbers. 2. In order to appreciate the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. Land measuring 27 bighas and 16 biswas comprised in khasra Nos. 452/1, 453, 453/1, 40, 100 and 440 and situated in village Kadiali, Tahsil Theog, District Mahasu, belonged to Government and was under the tenancy of Moti Ram. He filed an application under s. 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 - hereinafter referre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC615; [1968]2SCR117
Shelat, J. 1. One Arunshashi Dasi, Charu Chandra Sur and Jotish Chandra Sur were the owners of the suit land admeasuring 1.15 acres situate in Rishra Municipality, West Bengal. On November 15, 1920 they leased the land to Srikrishna Goshala. On September 10, 1924, the said Goshala sold its leasehold interest in the said land to the 1st respondent Society. On September 5, 1935 the Society sold the said leasehold interest to one Sovaram Sarma. In 1941, the said Jotish Sur filed a Rent Suit against Sovaram and obtained an ex parte decree against him. On September 9, 1941 the said Jotish in execution of the said decree and at an auction sale held thereunder purchased Sovaram's interest and took possession of the land. Thereafter, Sovaram's widow and son filed a suit against the said Jotish alleging that as Sovaram had died during the pendency of the said suit the decree passed against him was a nullity and so also the auction sale. On June 27, 1945 the said suit was decreed against the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC683; [1968]68ITR385(SC)
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by certificate, on behalf of the assessee from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated July 23, 1963, in Income-tax Reference No. 5 of 1962. 2. The appellant (hereinafter called the 'assessee') is a Hindu undivided family of which Shri M. D. Dhanwatey is the karta. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1954-55, the corresponding accounting year being the year ended September 30, 1953. Shri M. D. Dhanwatey was a partner in the partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works. The share capital of Shri M. D. Dhanwatey was entirely contributed by the assessee Hindu undivided family. The rights of the partners were governed at the relevant time by a partnership agreement dated April 1, 1951. According to the agreement to the partnership was of lithography and art printing and was carried on by means of a press under the name and style of 'Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works'. Clause (4) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC682; [1968]68ITR365(SC); [1968]2SCR62
ORDERRamaswami, J.46. This appeal is brought, by certificate on behalf of the assessee from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated July 23, 1963 in Income Tax Reference No. 5 of 1962. 47. The appellant (hereinafter called the 'assessee') is a Hindu undivided family of which Shri M. D. Dhanwatey is the Karta. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1954-55, the corresponding accounting year being the year ended September 30, 1953. Shri M. D. Dhanwatey was a partner in the partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works. The share capital of Shri M. D. Dhanwatey was entirely contributed by the assessee Hindu undivided family. The rights of the partners were governed at the relevant time by a partnership agreement dated April 1, 1951. According to the agreement, the partnership was of lithography and art printing and was carried on by means of a press under the name and style of 'Shivraj Fine Art Litho Work'. Clause (4) of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC609; 1968CriLJ657; 1968MPLJ90(SC); [1968]2SCR88
Vaidialingam, J.1. The appellant, who was the second accused, in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1967, and the accused No. 1, were found guilty, under s. 195 and s. 196 read with s. 34, I.P.C. and each of them has been convicted and sentenced to undergo three year's rigorous imprisonment, for these offences, and the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The case of the first accused, is not before us, in these proceedings. 2. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence, passed against him, before the High Court of Bombay, in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1967. A Division Bench of the High Court has, by its order dated April 27, 1967, summarily dismissed the appeal, in one word 'dismissed'. The appellant has come up, to this Court, by special leave. But this Court, by its order dated September 7, 1967, has granted special leave, limited to the question as to whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal summarily. That is the only point, that the arises for consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC678; [1968]68ITR221(SC); [1968]2SCR55
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the Madras High Court in T. C. No. 151 of 1962 dated October 17, 1963. 2. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') is a Hindu Undivided Family consisting of the father and four major sons. The assessee became a share-holder in the Trichy-Sri Rangam Transport Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') in 1934 and owned 90 shares out of the 300 shares of the company. The shares were acquired with the funds of the Hindu Undivided family of the father and his four major sons. There were initially four shareholders including the assessee, two of whom were directors. On the death of one of the Directors, the assessee became a director in 1941 and on the death of another director who was managing the business the assessee became the Managing Director with effect from 1942. By a resolution dated April 16, 1944 the company granted him an honorarium of Rs. 3,000 for the year 1943-44 and sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC714; [1968]2SCR95
Vaidialingam, J.1. In Civil Appeal No. 691 of 1966, the appellant, by special leave, granted by this Court, challenges the judgment and decree, of the Allahabad High Court, dated April 20, 1965, in Second Appeal No. 1602 of 1963. In Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2631 of 1967, the appellant has prayed this Court, to pass an order that Civil Appeal No. 691 of 1966 has abated, in view of the amended s. 5, of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (U.P. Act 5 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The appellant was the defendant, in a suit instituted by the respondents, under s. 209, of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act I of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act). The plaintiff claiming to be a bhumidar of the land, in question, instituted the suit, out of the which the second appeal arose, against the appellant, for recovery of possession of the property, on the ground that the appellant was a trespasser ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1968]68ITR252(SC)
ORDER. - In accordance with the opinion of the majority the appeals are allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras are set aside and the orders of rectification passed by the Income-tax Officer are held to be effective and binding on the respondents. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs of these appeals.Appeals allowed....
Tag this Judgment!