Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1404; 1967(16)BLJR962; [1967]3SCR1
Sikri, J.1. In this petition under art. 32 of the Constitution as notice of demand issued by the Dehri-Dalminangar Notified Area Committee demanding Rs. 100/-on account of Profession Tax levied under the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (B & O Act VII of 1922) - hereinafter referred to as the Act - for the period 1963-64 to 1965-66 from the petitioner, Shri Ram Bachan Lal, Land Office, who is in the employment of Rohtas industries Ltd., Dalminagar, is sought to be quashed on the ground that the provisions of the Act under which it has been issued infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioner under arts 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. 2. The Dehri-Dalmianagar Notified Area Committee was constituted by notification dated May 23, 1942, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s (1) of s. 388 of the Act. Section 388 reads as follows : '388. Constitution of notified area - (1) The State Government may be notification declare that it is necessary to make administrative p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
H.R. Khanna, J. (1) This order relates to S. C. A. Nos. 28-D to 54-D of 1962. The petitioners in these petitions ' under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution of India and sections 109 and 110 and Order 45, rules 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, have prayed for a certificate of fitness to appeal to Supreme Court against the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court dated 5th December, 1961. By that judgment a Division Bench of the Court accepted 27 writ petitions and quashed the orders of assessment made under the Sea Customs Act on the ground that they had not been made in accordance with the law. (2) These petitions have been referred to the Full Bench because the learned judges of the Division Bench found that three important questions of law arose in the case and they merited decision by a larger Bench. Those questions were- (1)Whether in computing the period of limitation for a petition under Articles 132 and 133, the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of the jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1445; 1967(0)BLJR718; 1967CriLJ1218; [1967]3SCR19
Bhargava, J.1. In 1964, there were eight vacancies in the Rajya Sabha for which members had to be elected from the constituency of the Legislative Assembly of Bihar. The election was to be held on 26th March, 1964. It appears that the Congress Party put up 6 candidates out of the total of 13 candidates who were nominated for those right vacancies. Two of the candidates withdrew after scrutiny of nomination papers and, consequently, for the actual election there were 6 Congress candidate and 5 others. Amongst these 5 others was the appellant Rajendra Prasad Jain who was standing as an Independent candidate. One of the Congress candidates was respondent Sheel Bhandra Yajee. At the election, Rajendra Prasad Jain was declared as one of the elected candidates, while respondent Sheel Bhadra Yajee was unsuccessful. Respondent No. 1. Sheel Bhadra Yajee then filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant to the Rajya Sabha. The main ground for challenge was that the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1458; [1967]3SCR28
Subba Rao, C.J.1. There 44 appeals by certificate are preferred against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the petitions filed by the respondents under Art. 226 of the Constitution for directing the state of Andhra Pradesh and other appropriate authorities to forbear from collecting the assessment of land revenue under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional assessment) and Cess Revision Act, 1962 (Act 22 of 1962), hereinafter called the Principal Act, as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (additional Assessment) and Cess Revision (Amendment) Act 1962 (Act 23 of 1962), hereinafter called the Amending act. For convenience of reference the Principal Act as amended by the Amending Act will be called in the course of the judgment as 'the Act'. The appellants raised the question of the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Act. 2. The Principal Act was passed on September 27, 1962 and it came in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1408; (1967)69PLR530; [1967]3SCR10; [1967]19STC493(SC)
Shelat, J.1.This appeal by certificate granted by the Punjab High Court raises the following question;- 'Where the sales tax authority is not satisfied with the returns filed by a registered dealer and issues a notice under s. 11(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 before the expiry of three years from the termination of the period for furnishing returns but finalises the assessment order after three years from the aforesaid date, whether such an assessment order can be said to be time barred and, therefore, without jurisdiction.' 2. A few facts for understanding this question may first be stated. The respondent is a partnership firm registered under the Act and was at the material time carrying on business in vegetable ghee, sugar and other commodities. the assessment year in question commenced from April 1, 1955 and ended on March 31, 1956. The dealer furnished four quarterly returns a required by the Rules framed under the Act viz., for the period April to June 1954 on Octo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1967(2)LLJ34; AIR1967SC1450; 11LawRep145; 1966MhLJ664; 69BomLR594; 1967(14)FLR375
Ramaswami, J.This appeal is brought, by special leave, against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated February 6, 1962 in Appeal No. 36 of 1960 from the order of K. K. Desai, J., in Miscellaneous Application No. 327 of 1959 filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.The appellant carried on business as a cotton textile mill prior to July 1, 1958. It had been registered as an "undertaking" in the cotton textile industry under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act 11 of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Respondent 2 are a representative union of the cotton textile industry in the city of Bombay and registered as such under the provisions of the Act. Respondent 2 gave a notice of change in connexion with the method to be adopted for grant of bonus for the years 1953 to 1957. The dispute arising out of that notice was referred to arbitration of the industrial court by a submission in writing dated February 28, 1956 under S.66 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1643; 1967(0)BLJR818; [1967]2SCR762
Subbarao, C.J.1. These three writ petitions raise the important question of the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. 2. Writ Petition No. 153 of 1966, is filed by the petitioners therein against the State of Punjab and the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The petitioners are the son, daughter and grand-daughters of one Henry Golak Nath, who died on July 30, 1953. The Financial Commissioner, in revision against the order made by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, held by an order dated January 22, 1962 that an area of 418 standard acres and 9 1/4 units was surplus in the hands of the petitioners under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act X of 1953, read with s. 10-B thereof. The petitioners, alleging that the relevant provisions of the said Act whereunder the said area was declared surplus were void on the ground that they infringed their rights under cls. (f) and (g) of Art. 19 and Art. 14 of the Constitution, filed a writ in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1967(0)BLJR749; [1967]2SCR757
Bachawat, J. 1. This appeal incidentally raises a question of interpretation of article 164 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. The respondent instituted two suits against the appellant in the court of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur. Suit No. 25 of 1958 was for the recovery of moneys due on a mortgage for Rs. 50,000. Suit No. 22 of 1958 was to recover a sum of Rs. 8,000 due on a ruqqa. On May 15, 1958, both the suits were decreed ex-parte. The appellant filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree passed in Suit No. 22 of 1958. This application was numbered as miscellaneous case No. 104 of 1958. On August 16, 1958, the First Civil Judge, Kanpur, passed an order setting aside this ex-parte decree on certain conditions. The order sheet in O.S. No. 22 of 1958, Misc. Case No. 104 of 1958 on August 16, 1958 stated : 'Heard parties counsel, accept the applicant's affidavit and hold that due to non-service applicant was prevented from being present. Allowed on condition of payment of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1401; 1967(0)BLJR815; [1967]2SCR751; [1967]19STC520(SC)
Hidayatullah, J.1. The appellant is a public limited company which manufactures the well-known Tata Mercedes-Benz trucks, bus chassis, their spare parts and other accessories at Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar and they are sold to the Government of India, the State Governments, State Transport Corporations and others. In the courses of its business, the appellant Company sells its products, particularly the trucks and bus chassis, to dealers in various parts of India and the dealers resell them to consumers all over India. According to the appellant Company, its sales in the Indian market are of three kinds : (a) Sales inside Bihar State; (b) Sales in the course of inter-State trade and commerce; and (c) Sales effected from their stockyards located in States other than Bihar. 2. The present appeal concerns sales in the last category and the question arises in the following circumstances. 3. The appellant Company filed returns for the quarter ending on 30th June, 1965, under the Biha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1415; (1967)69PLR805; [1967]2SCR739
Bhargava, J.1. This appeal under certificate granted by the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh, has been filed by Harnam Singh appellant against a decree passed by the High Court, decreeing a suit under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after setting aside the dismissal of the suit by the District Judge, and removing the appellant from the office of the Mahant of an institution described in the plaint as 'Gurdwara Jhandawala.' The suit was brought by two plaintiffs after obtaining permission from the Advocate-General. One of the plaintiffs/respondents, Ishar Singh, died and his legal representatives were not brought on the record. However, in view of the nature of the suit, no objection was raised before us about the maintainability of this appeal on this ground and, consequently, we refrain from dilating on this aspect. 2. The respondents claimed in the plaint that there is one Gur Granth Sahib at village Jhandawala in the name of Gurdwara Jhandawala which is managed by Mahant H...
Tag this Judgment!