Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC599; [1968]1SCR705; [1968]21STC212(SC)
Bachawat, J.1. In all these writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners ask for an order declaring that s. 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 (Andhra Pradesh Act No. 45 of 1961) is unconstitutional and ultra vires and a direction prohibiting the respondents from levying tax under s. 21 and to refund the tax already collected. Section 21 of the Act is in these terms : '21(1) The Government may, by notification, levy a tax at such rate not exceeding five rupees per metric tone as may be prescribed on the purchase of cane required for use, consumption or sale in factory. (2) The Government may, by notification, remit in whole or in part such tax in respect of cane used or intended to be used in a factory for any purpose specified in such notification. (3) The Government may, by notification, exempt from the payment of tax under this section - (a) any new factory which, in the opinion of the Government has substantially...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC445; [1968]1SCR735; [1968]21STC174(SC)
Hegde, J.1. The main controversy in this appeal by certificate is as to the constitutional validity of s. 12A(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax 1946, to be hereinafter referred to as the Act,. As in our judgment that provision is void, the same being violative of Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, we have not thought it necessary to examine the other contentions raised in the appeal. 2. The facts material for the purpose of deciding the question formulated above, are these : The appellants are dealers registered under the Act carrying on business in art silk, cotton and handloom cloth. During the period January 26, 1950 to March 31, 1950, the appellants effected various sales outside the State of Bombay. As those sales were protected by Art. 286(1)(a) of the Constitution, they were outside the reach of the Act. But yet the sales tax officer assessed the turnover relating to those sales. The tax levied in respect of that turnover was Rs. 4,494/3/9. In appeal, the order of the sales tax officer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC507; [1968(17)FLR350]; (1968)IILLJ407SC; [1968]1SCR721
Ramaswami, J.1. In this case the petitioner, C.A. Rajendran has obtained rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show case why a writ in the nature of mandamus under Art. 32 of the Constitution should not be issued for quashing the office Memorandum dated November 8, 1963 which is Annexure 'C' to the Writ Petition, and for directing respondent No. 1 to restore the orders passed by it in Office Memorandum No. 2/11/55-RPS dated May 7, 1955 and No. 5/4/55-SCT-(1) dated January 4, 1957. Cause has been shown by the Attorney-General on behalf of the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given. 2. The petitioner is a permanent Assistant in Grade IV (Class III, non-gazetted-ministerial) of the Railway Board Secretariat Service. He was initially appointed as Accounts Clerk on February 6, 1953 in Southern Railway. He was appointed as an Assistant on October 22, 1956 in the Railway Board and confirmed as Assistant on April 1, 1960. The pay-scale of the Assistant's ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC565; [1968]1SCR661; [1968]21STC326(SC)
CIVIL APPERLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 511-514 of 1966. Appeals, by special leave from the judgments and orders dated August 9, 1961, July 20, 1964, of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Misc. Civil Applications Nos. 1118 of 1959. 192 of 1961. 1360 of 1959 and 193 of 1961 respectively. H. R. Gokhale, M. R. Bhandare, P. C. Bharta, and O. C. Mathur, for the appellant (in all the appeals). N. S. Bindra, P. C. Chatterjee, S. P. Nayar for R.H. Dhebar, the respondents (in all the appeals). The Judgment of WANCHOO C. J., MITTER and HEGDE, JJ. was delivered by HEGDE, J. The dissenting judgment of BACHAWAT and RAMASWAMI, JJ. was delivered by BACHAWAT, J. HEGDE, J. The principal question canvassed in this group of appeals by special leave is whether s. 11(4)(a) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act 1947, to be referred to as the Act hereinafter, is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and consequently the notices impugned in the writ petitions from which these appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC418; (1968)70BOMLR332; 1968MhLJ435(SC); [1968]1SCR652
Shah J. 1. One Sambhusing applied under s. 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 29 of 1950 for a declaration that City Survey Nos. 371 to 379 of Taloda were settled by one Dagadu Khushal in favour of the Municipality in 1883 for the benefit of the Johari Panch and for an order that the property be registered as property of a public trust under the Act. The Assistant Charity Commissioner who heard the petition by his order dated January 20, 1956, held that 'there was no such institution known as Johari Panch', and that the property in dispute had not been used for the benefit of that community, but Dagadu Khushal had transferred the property to the Municipality for the benefit of members of the public interested in the Samadhi of Nagabawa. The Assistant Charity Commissioner declared that there was a public trust and City Survey Nos. 371 to 379 of Taloda Municipality were the property of the Trust and that the Municipality held it as trustee of that trust. That order was confirmed in appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC497; [1968]1SCR685
Shelat, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab (Delhi Bench) dismissing the appellant's petition for an appropriate writ directing the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi, to state the case to the High Court under section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 2 of 1899. 2. The facts leading to the said petition may be briefly stated : On December 20, 1961 the appellant executed a deed of trust in respect of certain properties on a stamp paper of Rs. 30 on the footing that the said deed was a declaration of trust. The Sub-Registrar to whom it was presented for registration, impounded it and forwarded it to the Collector for action under section 38(2). The Collector served a notice on the appellant to show cause why he should not be charged with deficient stamp duty of Rs. 3,365 and a penalty of Rs. 33.650. After hearing Counsel the Collector directed the appellant to deposit the aggregate amount of Rs. 36,685. The appellant filed a re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC594; 1968CriLJ550; [1968]1SCR695
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court if Bombay dated July 20, 1967 dismissing a criminal revision application filed by the appellant against an order of the Special Judge, Bombay tendering pardon to a co-accused under section 8(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952. The appellant is being tried before the Special Judge, Bombay along with seven others for conspiracy to cheat the officers of the Naval Dockyard and under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The substantive charges against the several accused are different but it is not necessary to mention them here. The gist of the accusation is that the several accused had entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat the authorities of the Naval Dockyard. Material purchased locally was certified to be of superior quality while it was, in fact, inferior. In this and in diverse ways the Naval Dockyard Authorities were cheated to the tune of Rs. 3,65,000 and odd. Among t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC422; (1968)70BOMLR324; 1968MhLJ363(SC); [1968]1SCR641
Shelat, J. 1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court at Bombay dated 11/12-12/1962 in Writ Petition 259 of 1962. 2. The appellant is the mahant of a pubic and religious trust called Kabir Nirnay Mandir. The trust is being administered at Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh and the bulk of its properties is situate there, except three pieces of land at Vadjai, a village in Dhulia District. Respondent 1 is the tenant of two out of these three pieces of land situate at Vadjai. The question in this appeal is whether the appellant can apply and obtain an exemption certificate under section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The Act was originally passed in 1948 but was drastically amended by Amendment Act, XIII of 1956 which came into force on August 1, 1956. The Amendment Act inducted into the Act inter alia secs. 32 to 32R and secs. 88A to 88D. Secs. 32 to 32R deal with purchase of land by tenant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC519; [1968]1SCR646
Shah, J.1. The appellant Vidya Vati who is the owner of 56.10 1/4 standard acres of agricultural land in the village Bishanpura, tahsil Jind, District Sangrur, in the State of Punjab, was ousted from the land sometime in 1954 by certain persons who had no title to the land. A civil suit filed by her for a declaration of title and for possession of the land from the trespassers was decreed and she was restored to possession of the land on October 15, 1960. 2. The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 13 of 1955 was brought into force during the pendency of the civil suit with effect from March 4, 1955. Under s. 5 of the Pepsu Act 13 of 1955 every landowner owning land exceeding thirty standard acres was entitled to select for personal cultivation from the land held by him in the State as a landowner any parcel or parcels of land not exceeding in aggregate area the permissible limit and reserve such land for personal cultivation by intimating his selection in the prescribed form and m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC410; 1968(16)BLJR237; [1968]1SCR635
Sikri, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment, dated November 11, 1966 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ petition field by the appellant seeking to quash the order of the State Transport Authority dated March 20/21, 1963. The State Transport Authority had by this order rejected the appellant's revision petition against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that a mere decision of the Regional Transport Authority limiting the number of stage carriages under s. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939) hereinafter referred to as the Act could not form the subject matter of a revision application. It was of the view that 'when the Regional Transport Authority actually proceeds to fill up the vacancies, which it has decided to create, then the persons whose interests would be adversely affected, would have a right of representation before the Regional Transport Authority; and in the case of th...
Tag this Judgment!