Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC800; (1968)70BOMLR726; [1968(17)FLR445]; 1968LabIC984; (1968)IILLJ700SC; 1968MhLJ523(SC); [1968]2SCR577
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated August 10, 1961 by which the appeal of the respondent against the judgment of S. M. Shah, J. of that High Court was allowed and the suit of the appellant was dismissed. 2. The appellant was a member of the Bombay Medical Service, Class II and as such was an employee of the State of Maharashtra. In 1943, the appellant was posted at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and on February 18, 1950 he was in-charge of the Medico-Legal Section of that hospital. On January 19, 1950, one Nabimahomed complained to Mr. Rathod, Sub-Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, Ahmedabad, that the appellant had demanded Rs. 50/- over and above his fees for issuing a certificate to him in order to enable him to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. On January 20, 1950, a trap was arranged and it is alleged that the appellant received Rs. 55/- from, Nabimahomed Rs. 5/- as fees and Rs. 50...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC954; 1968(16)BLJR610; [1968]2SCR572
Bhargava, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house which, at one time, used to belong to one Ram Lal. On 11th January, 1939, one Ram Das filed suit No. 354 of 1939 against Ram Lal in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 144/-. That suit was later transferred to the Court of the Munsif and an ex parte decree in that suit was passed on 27th March, 1939, after the Court held that Ram Lal had been sufficiently served. In execution of that decree, the house was sold and the sale certificate was issued on 21st January, 1941 is favour of Prabhu Dayal, the father of the appellant in this appeal. Formal delivery of possession was taken and the certificate of delivery of sale is dated 15th May, 1941. Admittedly, Ram Lal continued to live in the house ever thereafter, and on 19th September, 1945, he died leaving no heir. Ram Lal was a subject of the Maharaja of Jaipur and, on Ram Lal's death, the servants of the Maharaja took possession of the hous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC9; [1968]2SCR565
Ramaswami, J. 1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated September 18, 1963 dismissing an application under s. 33 of the Arbitration Act. 2. By its letter dated September 14, 1960, the appellant made an offer for sale to the respondent of 500 Bales (1,50,000 bags) 'B' Twills on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter. The offer was accepted by the Director-General, Supplies & Disposals on behalf of the respondent by his letter No. CAL/DL-1/5750-L/II/Modi/158 dated September 16, 1960. The appellant deposited with the Reserve Bank of India the sum of Rs. 20,182.50 p. towards security deposit on September 22, 1960, as required by the acceptance letter. The date of delivery fixed under the contract was November 30, 1960 and the respondent sent the appellant despatch instructions dated November 21, 1960, through the Director of Supplies & Disposals. On November 30, 1960 the appellant, however, intimated to the respondent tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC919; 34(1968)CLT733(SC); [1967]2SCR559
Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the District Judge Ganjam-Boudh, Berhampur, who had affirmed the order passed by the Munsif, Berhampur, dismissing M.J.C. No. 220/60 of Gopinath Naik, respondent before us, hereinafter referred to as the Judgment Debtor. 2. The facts in this case are not in dispute. One Konchada Ramamurti Subudhi, deceased, now represented by his legal representatives and appellants before us - hereinafter referred to as the Decree Holder - and Bhagirathi Naiko, now represented by Gopinath Naik, Judgment Debtor, filed a compromise petition under O. XXIII, r. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, in T.A. No. 13 of 1955. In terms of this compromise petition a decree was passed. The Decree Holder filed an application for execution of the decree and the Judgment Debtor filed the application (M.J.C. No. 220/60) u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC933; [1968]2SCR548
Bachawat, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment instituted by a landlord against a tenant. It is common case that the suit is governed by the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act No. 38 of 1952) hereinafter referred to as the Act. The material provisions of s. 13(1) of the Act are as following : '13. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or any contract, no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed by any Court in favour of the landlord against any tenant (including a tenant whose tenancy is terminated) : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any suit or other proceeding for such recovery of possession if the Court is satisfied - . . .(b) that the tenant without obtaining the consent of the landlord in writing has, after the commencement of this Act, - (i) sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises; ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC739; [1968]38CompCas932(SC); [1968]70ITR730(SC); 1968LabIC814; [1968]2SCR536; [1970]25STC82(SC)
Shah, J. 1. The respondent - a Joint Stock Company - has its principal place of business in Bombay, and a branch office in New Delhi. The Assessing Authority, Karnal, exercising power under the Punjab Professions, Traders, Callings and Employments Taxation Act 7 of 1956, assessed the respondent to profession tax for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62 and issued a notice of demand for the amount so assessed. The High Court of Punjab quashed the notices of demand and the assessment orders holding that the respondent did not carry on trade within the State of Punjab and was not liable to be assessed to tax under the Act. The State of Punjab has appealed to this Court against the order of the High Court. 2. Section 3 of Act 7 of 1956 provides : 'Every person who carries on trade, either by himself or by an agent or representative, or who follows a profession or calling or who is in employment, either wholly or in part, within the State of Punjab, shall be liable to pay for each financial year o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC709; 1968CriLJ867; [1968]2SCR528
Vaidialingam, J. 1. The two appellants, in this appeal, by special leave, challenge their conviction, by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jaipur City, for offences under Ss. 120B, 420, 420 read with 511, and 467 read with 471, I. P. C., as confirmed by the High Court of Rajasthan, at Jodhpur. Bhanwar Singh has also been convicted, for an offence under s. 380, I. P. C. Both of them have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine, for these offences, and the sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The two appellants, along with two others, who have since been acquitted, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, for various offences, as indicated below. There was a common charge of criminal conspiracy, under s. 120B, IPC, to do, or cause to be done, illegal acts viz., offences of theft, cheating, forgeries, etc., against all the four accused. Under this head, the allegation was that the four accused agreed, among themselves, to commit theft ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC883; [1968]38CompCas348(SC); [1968]68ITR630(SC); [1968]2SCR539
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated May 3/4, 1963 in Income Tax Reference No. 40 of 1957. 2. The respondent-company is a limited liability company with a paid up capital of Rs. 15,25,000/- as on June 30, 1947. Prior to 1930 the respondent-company had suffered large losses and in 1930 a debit balance of Rs. 12,75,000/- in the profit and loss account of the respondent-company was adjusted by reducing the paid up capital. The face value of the Ordinary shares was reduced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 10/- each and of Preference shares from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 25/- each after obtaining the sanction of the Bombay High Court. For the assessment year 1948-49, for which the relevant previous year was the year ended June 30, 1947, the respondent-company was assessed to a total income of Rs. 7,47,639/-. On that amount tax was calculated at Rs. 3,27,091/- and the balance available for distribution by way of dividends for the purposes of s....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC881; 1968(16)BLJR606; 1968CriLJ1025; [1968]2SCR522
Hidayatullah, J. 1. The respondent Ramprasad against whom the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal by special leave was tried in the Court of Session under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by the Sessions Judge under s. 324 of the Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The state Government then filed an appeal against his acquittal under s. 302, Indian Penal Code and also an application for revision for the enhancement of the sentence passed on him. The High Court convicted him under s. 304 Part II and sentenced him to 4 years' rigorous imprisonment; concurrently the application for revision was dismissed as infructuous. The State Government has now filed this appeal and contends that the conviction of the respondent should have been under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and that there has been failure of justice in the case requiring interference from this Court. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : Ram Prasad was living with his mis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1968]69ITR864(SC)
Ramaswamy, J.1. These appeals are brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated June 28, 1966, in Income- tax Referred Case No. 6 of 1965. 2. For the assessment years 1958-59 to 1960-61 the Income-tax Officer, A- Ward, Trivandrum, completed the assessment of the appellant to wealth- tax as follows : Assessment year Net wealth assessedRs.1958-59 73,36,3031959-60 72,47,5221960-61 74,31,7603. The appellant took the matter in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Trivandrum, and contended that the liability to income-tax and wealth-tax as mentioned below should be deducted in computing the net wealth of the appellant as on the relevant valuation dates corresponding the the respective assessments : ----------------------------------------------------------------------Assessment year Amount of Amount of Total taxincome-tax wealth-tax liabilityliability claimed liability claimedclaimed----------------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!