Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1968MhLJ496(SC); [1968]2SCR203
Sikri, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Bharat in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 91 of 1955, read with Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 92 of 1955, filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution by Rao Jagdish Singh and others. By this judgment the High Court accepted the applications and quashed the decision of the Board of Revenue and dismissed the claim of Lallu Yeshwant Singh, son of Nahar Singh, now deceased, represented by Babu Singh, appellant before us. The relevant facts for appreciating the points arising in the appeal are as follows. 2. Yeshwant Singh and other sons of Lallu Nahar Singh, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, filed a suit against Rao Jagdish Singh and 4 others (Revenue Case No. 24 of 2000 S. Y.) in the Court of Tahsildar, Pargana Pichhore, District Gwalior, for the possession of some agricultural land under s. 326 of Qanoon Mal. The plaintiffs' case, in brief, was that they were gairdakhilka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC843; [1968]2SCR492; [1968]21STC383(SC)
Bhargava, J.1. The Swastik Oil Mills Ltd., appellant, carries on business of manufacturing vegetable oils, soaps and other products and selling them in India as well as exporting them outside India. It was registered as a dealer under the various Sales Tax Acts in force in Bombay. The first of these Acts was the Bombay Sales Tax Act 5 of 1946, which was replaced by the Bombay Sales Tax Act 3 of 1953. The third and the latest Act now in force in Bombay is the Bombay Sales Tax Act 51 of 1959. The appellant was assessed to sales tax on its turnover for the periods from 1st April, 1948 to 31st March, 1950 and from 1st April, 1950 to 31st March, 1951 on the basis of Returns of turnover submitted by it. In these Returns, the appellant claimed exemption from tax in respect of the turnover representing the dispatches or transfer of goods from its Head Office Bombay, to its various Depots or Branches in other States in India, and also exemption in respect of sales which were alleged to have tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC811; [1968]68ITR585(SC); [1968]2SCR483
Ramaswami, J.1. The appellant is a Private Limited Company controlled by Mulraj Kersondas and his nominees. It is a dealer in shares, both in forward and ready market. In the year 1942 Mulraj Kersondas obtained control of the Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills (hereinafter referred to as the 'Elphinstone Mills'). He also acquired the managing agency of the Elphinstone Mills for a consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs. In 1943 Mulraj Kersondas assigned the Managing Agency to a Private Company known as Chidambaram Mulraj & Co. Ltd. whose shareholders were Mulraj Kersondas, his nominees and the appellant. During the years 1942 to 1948 the dealings in shares of the appellant included dealings in shares of Elphinstone Mills also and the profit and loss in the dealings of Elphinstone Mills was taken by the appellant to its revenue account during these years. At the end of the years 1948 the appellant held 5,137 ordinary shares and 1131 preference shares of the Elphinstone Mills. During the years ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1968]2SCR476; [1968]21STC312(SC)
Ramaswami, J.1. The appellant is a partnership firm carrying business in bamboos, timber and firewood at Gokavaram in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The firm had been registered as a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (No. VI of 1957), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. For the assessment year 1962-63, the appellant submitted a return showing a gross turnover of Rs. 13,89,130.70 P and claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 13,68,174.39 P which according to the appellant represented the amount of sales effected by its commission agents and sale of firewood. By a notice dated November 28, 1963, the Commercial Tax Officer, Rajahmundry called upon the appellant to show cause as to why it should not be assessed for the year 1962-63 on a turnover of Rs. 13,89,130.70 P at 2 per cent. Eleven items were comprised in the notice. Item No. 1, relating to a turnover of Rs. 96,527.10 P was under the firewood account. It was alleged by the appellant that it paid the single point t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC779A
Shah, J. 1. One Amrital died on October 18, 1944. For the assessment year 1945-46 his estate was assessed to tax on a total income of Rs. 22,160 from salary and other sources. In January, 1946, Anusuya Devi, widow of Amritlal, encashed high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 5,84,000, and made a declaration as required by the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946, that : 'A sum of Rs. 5,84,000 in notes were made over and/or directed to be made over by the declarant's deceased husband Amritlal Ojha at Rajkot in April, 1944, some time before his death for the benefit of declarant and her 8 minor sons.' 2. In a proceeding for reassessment of the income of Amritlal for the assessment year 1945-46, the attorney, who appeared on behalf of Anusuya Devi, stated that 'Amritlal was from time to time, during the last 30 years of his life, giving gifts to his wife and also setting apart money exclusively for his wife and children and that the fund so accumulated which r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC779; [1968]68ITR750(SC); [1968]2SCR466
Shah, J. 1. One Amritlal died on October 18, 1944. For the assessment year 1945-46 his estate was assessed to tax on a total income of Rs. 22,160/- from salary and other sources. In January 1946, Anusuya Devi widow of Amritlal encashed high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 5,84,000/-, and made a declaration as required by the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946, that : 'A sum of Rs. 5,84,000/- in notes were made over and/or directed to be made over by the declarant's deceased husband Amritlal Ojha at Rajkot in April, 1944, sometime before his death for the benefit of declarant and her 8 minor sons.' 2. In a proceeding for reassessment of the income of Amritlal for the assessment year 1945-46 the attorney who appeared on behalf of Anusuya Devi stated that 'Amritlal was from time to time, during the last 30 years of his life, giving gifts to his wife and also setting apart money exclusively for his wife and children and that the fund so accumulated which r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1968]70ITR89(SC)
Shelat J. 1. Between June 16, 1962, and May 4, 1964, respondent No. 1 was the Income-tax Officer for Additional B-X VIII District, New Delhi. The appellants have, at all material times, been carrying on business in partnership in the name of M/s. Balwant Singh Santok Singh within the said Additional B-VIII (Income-tax) District. For the assessment year 1960-61 (accounting year 1959-60), the firm was registered under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1961-62 (accounting year 1960-61), respondent No. 1 noticed that the firm had not applied for renewal of registration. The firm was, therefore, liable to be assessed as an unregistered firm. At that stage, appellant No. 1, Balwant Singh, represented to respondent No. 1 that the firm had filed an application for renewal for the assessment year 1961-62 within the prescribed period, and therefore, its registration should be renewed. Respondent No. 1 adjourned the case to May 27, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1968CriLJ806; [1968]2SCR455
Hegde, J.1. Two questions that arise for decision in this appeal by special leave are : (1) whether the appellants have established satisfactorily the right of private defence pleaded by them and (2) if they had that right, have they exceeded the same 2. The prosecution case is as follows : Field No. 1129/477 measuring five bighas and thirteen biswas situated in Kilokri was an evacuee property and as such was under the management of the managing officer. That property was acquired by the Central Government under the Displaced Persons Act, 1954. (For the sake of convenience we shall refer to that property hereinafter as evacuee property.) The same was sold by public auction on January 2, 1961 and purchased by PW 17 Ashwani Kumar Dutt for a sum of Rs. 7,600. Provisional delivery of that property was given to the vendee on October 10, 1961. The sale certificate was issued on February 8, 1962. The actual delivery was given on June 22, 1962 as per the warrant issued by PW 5, Khushi Ram, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC788; [1968]68ITR573(SC); [1968]2SCR439
Ramaswami, J. 1. These appeals are brought by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 23rd July, 1964 in referred case No. 42 of 1962. 2. The assessment years involved in these appeals are 1358 F., 1953-54 and 1954-55, the relevant accounting periods being the years ending 30-9-1948, 30-9-1952, and 30-9-1953, respectively. The assessee firm Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee firm') consists of three partners, Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin, and his two sons, Khan Saheb Dost Mohammed Alladin and Noor Mohammed Alladin. The assessee firm purchased the Brengun Factory and the properties attached to it consisting of 403 acres of land, 14 factory buildings, about one hundred residential quarters, and railway sidings, furnitures etc., in addition to the stores, from the Government of India. The price of the Brengun Factory and the properties together with the furniture etc. was fixed at Rs. 27 lakhs while the price of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC728; 1968(16)BLJR512; 1968CriLJ872; [1968]2SCR450
Hidayatullah, J. 1. The appellants are father and son. They were prosecuted with one Ramdeo who has been acquitted by the High Court. The prosecution case against them is that on the evening of June 7, 1962, about sun-set they attacked one Ramdular causing him fatal injuries on his head with a lathi resulting in his death. The first appellant Baul is said to have instigated the assault and the original prosecution case was that the other appellant Sadhai and Ramdeo (the acquitted accused) assaulted Ramdular. Medical evidence established that the deceased died as a result of two fatal blows on the head, both of which appeared to have caused extensive fractures of the skull. There were two other injuries on the head which were simple. The deceased never regained consciousness after he received the blows and died in the hospital about 11.30 the same night. The occurrence took place in this way. It appears that Baul, the first appellant, and Lurkhur (P.W. 1) who are brothers-in-law were at...
Tag this Judgment!