Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC13; 1973LC18(SC); 1978(2)ELT333(SC); 1967(0)KLT935(SC); [1968]1SCR82
Sikri, J. 1. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala allowing two petitions filed by the respondent, M/s. A. S. Bava, under art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court, by this judgment, quashed two orders dated February 4, 1964, and directed the Collector of Customs, & Central Excise, Cochin, to hear the appeals preferred by M/s. A. S. Bava. 2. The relevant facts are as follows : M/s. A. S. Bava hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, is a firm of dealers in Tobacco. By two orders of adjudication dated March 31, 1963, the Assistant Collector of Customs demanded the payment of duty under Rule 40 of the Central Excise and Salt Rules, 1944. The petitioner filed appeals against these orders on or about July 4, 1963, to the Collector of Customs & Central Excise. The petitioner made a representation on October 3, 1963, requesting that it may not be required to deposit the duty demanded pending appeal. The Collector, by letter dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC317; [1968]67ITR106(SC); [1968]1SCR65
Shah, J.1. Meyyappa (I), Alagammal his wife, and Chokalingam and Meyyappa (II) his two minor sons formed in 1940 a Hindu Undivided Family which traded in the name of 'M.S.M.M.'. The family carried on extensive business in money lending, rubber plantations, and in real estates in the Federated States of Malaya, Burma and India. 2. The property of the undivided family was divided between the three male members on February 22, 1940. The Meyyappa (I) were allotted at the partition 'business of the family' at Rangoon and at Karaikudi in the Ramnath District and three rubber estates in the Federated States of Malaya and some houses. Even after the partition Meyyappa (I) continued to remain in management on behalf of himself and his two minor sons of all the properties and the businesses carried on by the family when it was joint, and the businesses were carried on in the name of 'M.S.M.M.'. 3. The houses and the three rubber estates allotted exclusively to Meyyappa (I) were entered in the bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC17; 1968(16)BLJR592; [1968(16)FLR36]; (1967)IILLJ863SC; [1968]1SCR61
Bhargava, J.1. The Government of Bihar, by an Order dated 14th June, 1961, referred an industrial dispute under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) to the Labour Court, Patna, wherein the following two issues were referred :- '(1) Whether the discharge of the following forty workmen was proper If not, whether they are entitled to reinstatement and/or any other relief (2) Whether the above-mentioned workmen are entitled to be made permanent ?' 2. Subsequently, the Government issued an Order by way of corrigendum on the 19th July, 1961, substituting 'Ranchi' for 'Patna' in the original order of reference dated 14th June, 1961. The effect of this corrigendum was that the reference of the dispute, instead of being made to the Labour Court, Patna, came before the Labour Court, Ranchi. In the proceedings before that Court, the principal objection that was raised was that the Government, having once made a reference to the Labour Court, Patna, was not competent to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC33; [1967(15)FLR259]; (1967)IILLJ883SC; [1968]1SCR54
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial matter and arises in the following circumstances. Responfdent Hanuman was in the service of the appellant. He took leave from 3rd to 9th April, 1965 and in that connection a certificate from the Employees' State Insurance Dispensary (hereinafter referred to as the Dispensary) was produced. He should have joined on 10th April, 1965, but he did not do so. His case was that he had sent another certificate from the Dispensary on April 10, 1965 for further leave through one Prahlad Singh. Thereafter he was given a fitness certificate on April 19, 1965 and was required to join on 20th April, 1965. He appeared to report for duty on 20th April, 1965, but he was not allowed to join on the ground that his service stood terminated. As an industrial matter was pending at the time in which he was concerned as a workman, he made an application under s. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, (hereinafter referred to as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1907; [1968]67ITR79(SC); [1968]1SCR47
Sikri, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay answering the following questions (Question No. 3) against the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City and Suburban District, appellant before us : '3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the applicant's case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a proportionate part of the profits determined on sales grouped under items 3, 4, 5 and 9 in the assessment order by the application of rule 33 was assessable to income-tax ?' 2. The High Court, in view of its answer to this question, did not answer the following question (Question No. 2) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the applicant's case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in respect of sales of Rs. 14,80,059 the profit was correctly determined by the application of rule 33 and one-third of the profits so determined could be said to accrue or arise in British India ?' 3. We are not c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1968]67ITR102(SC)
Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court in a revision under section 54(1) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', whereby the High Court held that the settlement, which we will presently refer to, was hit by section 9(1) of the Act, and the income from the lands settled were liable to be included in the assessable agricultural income of the assessee. The relevant facts are these : The appellant, C.T. Senthilnathan Chettiar, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, executed a deed of settlement on November 19, 1959, in favour of Vatsala, who was his concubine. After reciting that the settlor had great love and affection for her, etc., the deed provides : 'Now this indenture witnesseth that in consideration of the love and affection which the settlor has for the settlee and the promise which the settlor had made to the settlee the settlor hereby confers in favour of the settlee a li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC253; [1968]1SCR43
Bachawat, J. 1. One Venkatacharyulu was the Karta of a joint family consisting of himself and his four sons. The appellant was his concubine since 1945 until his death on February 22, 1949. By two registered deeds purposing to be sale deeds dated April 15, 1946, (Exbts. A-1 and A-2), he transferred to the appellant certain properties belonging to the joint family. In 1947 after the execution of Ex. A-1 and A-2 there was disruption of the joint family and a severance of the joint status between Venkatacharyulu and his sons. In 1954 his widow and sons instituted O.S. No. 12 of 1954 against the appellant for recovery of possession of the properties alleging that the documents dated April 15, 1946, were executed without consideration or for immoral purposes, and were void. The appellant instituted against his widow and sons O.S. No. 63 of 1954, asking for general partition of the joint family properties and for allotment to her of the properties conveyed by the two deeds. She also institut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC98; [1968]1SCR1
Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad accepting a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution and directing the District Board, Moradabad, not to levy upon M/s Nundan Sugar Mills, Amroha, respondent before us, circumstances and property tax for any one year exceeding the sum of Rs. 200. The High Court held that no special resolution of the Board had been passed, nor had a notification been made imposing the tax, under s. 119 and s. 120, respectively, of the United Provinces District Boards Act, 1922 (U.P. Act of 1922) - hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The relevant fact out of which this appeal arises are these : On July 28, 1925, it was notified under sub-s. (2) of s. 120 of the Act that the District Board of Moradabad, in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 108, sub-s. (2) of the Act has imposed the following tax, with effect from September 1, 1925 : 'A tax on all persons ordinarily residing or carrying on b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1968]68ITR213(SC)
Ramaswami J.1. This appeal is brought from the judgment o the Calcutta High Court dated March 10, 1964, in Income-tax Reference No. 116 of 1960. 2. The relevant assessment year is 1950-51 and the corresponding previous year ended on March 31, 1950. In respect of the said assessment year the Income-tax Officer made an order dated March 15, 1956, under section 23A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the said order the Income-tax Officer held that Rs. 35,476 should be deemed as having been distributed as dividend by the respondent and the proportionate share thereof of each shareholder should be included in the total income of such shareholder for the purpose of assessing his total income. The balance-sheet of the respondent disclosed past losses amounting to Rs. 45,692 which had been brought forward. The Income-tax Officer held that such losses resulted from the failure of the respondent in not properly accounting for some bonus shares received by it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC260; [1967]66ITR730(SC); [1968]1SCR6
Shah, J.1. The respondents - a Hindu undivided family - were assessed for the assessment year 1949-50 to tax under s. 23 of the Mysore Income tax Act on a total income of Rs. 10,100/-. The Second Additional Income-tax Officer (Urban Circle), Bangalore, commenced a proceeding under s. 34 of the Mysore Income-tax Act for re-assessment of the income of the respondents for the assessment year 1949-50, and served a notice in that behalf on March 6, 1951. On May 21, 1954 the Income-tax Officer determined the respondents' total income at Rs. 75,957/-. In appeal against the order, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. 'A' Range, Bangalore, by order dated November 4, 1961, set aside the order and directed the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after making inquiries on certain matters specified in the order. 2. At the request of the respondents under s. 66(2) of the Mysore Income-tax Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, referred the following question to the Hig...
Tag this Judgment!