Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1968]68ITR192(SC)
Sikri, J.1. These two appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Kerala are directed against the judgment of the High Court passed in Appeal No. 1067 of 1959, which arose out of Original Suit filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cochin. Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1966 is by M. J. Kanaka Bai and others (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs'), and Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1966 is by the Union of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant'). 2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised before us, it is necessary to set out the following facts : One Shri A. N. Padmanabha Shenoi, father of the two plaintiffs, was carrying on a joint Hindu family business under the name of style of 'A. N. Guna Shenoi and Bros.' in the former State of Cochin. At the relevant time, the Cochin Excess Profits Tax Act, 1117 M. E. (II of 1117 M. E.) (1941 A. D.) and Cochin Income-tax Act, 1117 M. E. (VI of 1117 M. E.) were in force in the Cochin State. Cochin Later became part of the State ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Tatachari, J. (1) This letters patent appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Punjab originally came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court (S.S. Dulat and S.K. Kapur, JJ). The learned Judges took the view that the case involved a question of limitation which should be decided by a larger Bench. The Appeal, has, therefore, been posted before us. The appellant, M/s. Bhajan Singh Hardat Singh and Co., filed a suit No. 718 of 1954 in the Court of Shri Munnilal Jain, P.C. S., Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, for recovery of Rs.3392/9/6 from the respondents , herein Karson Agency (India) and another who were impleaded as defendants in the said suit. (2) The case of the appellant-plaintiff was: (a) That on 14-2-51, the respondents defendants agreed at Delhi to purchase from the appellant '500 Yards of worsted (Woolen cloth) of Indian Woolen Mills, steel colour, June - July, Challan at Rs.23/4/ per yard and paid Rs.1,000/- as advance that on 25-7-1951...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1532; 1967CriLJ1396; (1968)0GLR101; [1967]3SCR351
Bachawat, J. 1. The appellant and six other persons were charged under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887. The sub-inspector of police Shri Anjaria received information that the appellant was keeping a common gaming house. He obtained a special search warrant from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Porbandar, Shri S. M. Pandya, and raided the appellant's house in Bantwa on June 4, 1961 at 1 p.m. The raiding party found the door leading to the upper floor closed. The inmates pressed against the door from the inside and did not open it until blacksmith broke open the latch. Shri Anjaria seized torn and burnt pieces of playing cards lying on the floor of the central room, two packs of cards from a wall cabinet, some burnt cards lying on the floor and in the folds of a bed in the drawing room, four jokers and three packs of cards from trunks in the kitchen, some cash, burnt cigarette ends, bidis and matches and empty cigarette cases. All the accused were foun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1853; (1968)GLR41(SC); [1967]3SCR343
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. Brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. A suit was brought by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) against the appellant and three others in the Court of Judge Small Causes at Ahmedabad under s. 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, No. LVII OF 1947. The case of the respondents was that the three persons who were defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were the chief of the premises while the present appellant who has defendant No. 4 was their sub-tenants. The respondents had given notice to the tenants-in-chief terminating the tenancy and asked them to vacate the premises from after November 30, 1956, which was the end of the month of tenancy. The suit was filed on March 1, 1957 and was based on two grounds, namely, (1) that the rent had not been paid for six months, and (2) that there had been unlawful sub-letting by the tenants-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1815; 1968(16)BLJR159; [1967]3SCR329
Wanchoo, J. 1. These are two appeals on certificate granted by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, (No. 64 of 1950), came into existence in May 1962 to operate as a State Transport Undertaking under s. 68-A of the Motor Vehicles Act No. 4 of 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Corporation passed two resolutions in April and May 1964 by which it decided to take over certain routes under Chapter IV-A of the Act to the Exclusion of the existing private operators on those routes. Two schemes, namely, Nos. 16 and 22 dated May 11, 1964, were published by the Corporation inviting objections within 30 days. The schemes appeared in the Government Gazette of May 22, 1964 and objections thereto were filed by private operators affected thereby within the period prescribed. Thereafter the authority empowered to hear objections under s. 68-D of the Act gave notices fixing a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC150; [1967]66ITR367(SC); [1967]3SCR322
Sikri, J. 1. This appeal, in pursuance of the certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta under section 66A(2), of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is directed against the judgment of the High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 79 of 1959. By its judgment, the High Court answered the following question, referred to it by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, against the revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was filed by a proper person ?' 2. The relevant facts are stated in the statement of the case and are as follows : The respondents, hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee', is a Hindu undivided family and for the assessment year 1947-48 the assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer, District I(2), on February 12, 1952. He held that the income of Rs. 1,41,851 derived from forests in East Pakistan was not agricultural income exempt from tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1606; [1967]3SCR302
Mitter, J.1. These two appeals by special leave, are limited to the question as to whether in dismissing a revision and confirming the order of the State Of Andhra Pradesh, the Union Of India was bound to make a speaking order. The text of the order is the same in both the cases, the only difference being in the situs and the area in respect of which the lease was applied for. One of the orders as follows : 'New Delhi, the 22nd June, 1966'. I am directed to refer to your revision application dated 14.12.1964 and letter dated 28.1.1966 on the above subject and to say that after careful consideration of the ground stated therein, the Central Government have come to the conclusion that there is no valid ground for interfering with the decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh rejecting your application for grant of mining lease for asbestos over an area of Ac.. 113.50 in Brahmanapalli village. Cuddaph District, Andhra Pradesh. Your application for revision is therefore rejected.' 2. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1552; [1967]65ITR603(SC); [1967]3SCR298
Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab, Chandigarh, in Income-tax Reference No. 23 of 1962, made to it by the Income-tax Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The following question was referred to the High Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act was properly served on the assessee within the prescribed period.' 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent, Shri Daulat Ram Khanna, hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee', is a Hindu undivided family, and the dispute relates to the year of assessment 1945-46. Proceedings under section 34 of the Income-tax Act were started by the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Amritsar, against the assessee by issue of a notice on March 29, 1954. The process-server went to the assessee's shop for service of the notice on the assessee on March 30, 1954, but he could not serve it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1968]68ITR177(SC)
SHAH J. - The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. Till June, 1947, the assessee was carrying on business in jewellery at Lahore. The assessee started a jewellery shop at Delhi in the name and style of 'Roshan Di Hatti'. On March 31, 1948, a credit entry of Rs. 3,33,414 was made in the books of account of the assessee as capital of the business - Rs. 2,92,340 being the value of gold ornaments, gold bullion and precious stones, and Rs. 41,074 being cash.It appears that the assessee was never assessed to income-tax till 1956, either at Lahore or at Delhi. Pursuant to information received by him, the Income-tax Officer-cum-Wealth-tax Officer, Circle-II, New Delhi, commenced proceedings for assessment for the year 1948-49, and subsequent years and called upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of the capital introduced into the business. The assessee submitted that the assets entered as capital in the books of account were brought at the time of migration of the assessee from L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1967]65ITR603a(SC)
Sikri, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab Chandigarh in Income Tax Reference No. 23 of 1962 made to it by the Income Tax Tribunal under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act 1922. The following question was referred to the High Court :- 'Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the cas the notice under section 34 of the Income Tax Act was properly served on the assessee within the prescribed period.' 2. The relevant facts, in brief are that the respondent Shri. Daulat Ram Khanna hereinafter referred to as the assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the dispute relates to the year of assessment 1945-46. Proceedings under s. 34 of the Income Tax Act were started by the Income Tax Officer 'B' Ward Amritsar against the assessee by issue of a notice on March 29, 1954. The Process Sever went to the assessee's shop for service of the notice on the assessee on March 30, 1954 but he could not serve it on the assessee because the ...
Tag this Judgment!