Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC888
J.C. SHAH, J.1.On August 30, 1948, the appellant executed a deed of mortgage with possession in respect of two houses in favour of the respondent to secure repayment of Rs 15,000. The property mortgaged remained in the possession of the appellant under a rent note for Rs 150 per month. It appears that sometimes thereafter one of the two houses mortgaged was released and the rent was reduced to Rs 75 per month. The appellant having fallen in arrears of rent, the respondent filed Suit 601 of 1955 in the Court of the Munsiff, Kanpur, for a decree for Rs 2625 being the rent for the period May 30, 1952 to May 10, 1955. The suit was decreed by the Munsiff. The decree was sought to be executed by the mortgagee by attachment and sale of the mortgaged property, but the application was rejected. The mortgagee also instituted a suit on the mortgage and obtained a decree. That decree was confirmed by this Court in Civil Appeal 239 of 1967 by order, dated July 31, 1967. This Court rejected the cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC946; 1971(0)BLJR78; (1970)1SCC354; [1970]3SCR455; [1970]26STC254(SC)
Shah, J.1. Ashoka Marketing Ltd.--hereinafter called 'the assessee'--returned for the year 1956-57 under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, an amount of Rs. 2,46,67,517-1-6 as its turnover from sale of cement and other commodities. The Superintendent of Sales Tax brought to tax an additional amount of Rs. 7,67,702-13-0 being the railway freight paid in respect of the goods supplied by the assessee. By order dated April 2, 1961 the Appellate Authority set aside the order directing inclusion of the railway freight in the turnover, and ordered that the assessment be revised.2. In the meantime the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, was repealed and was replaced by the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 19 of 1959. By Act 20 of 1962 Section 20A was introduced in the Bihar Sales Tax Act 19 of 1959. The relevant provisions of Section 20A were :(1) No person who is not a registered dealer shall collect from any person any amount, by whatever name or description it may be called, towards or purporting to be tax on sale ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC1
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.1. In this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, December 22/23, 1966, the appellant Ambalal Chimanlal Chokshi stands convicted under Rule 126-P(2)(ii) of the Defence of India Rules and Section 135(b), read with Section 135(b) of the Customs Act by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, 8th Court, Bombay and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and Rs 2000 fine for each offence. The sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently. His convictions and sentences were confirmed by the High Court, on appeal.2. Chokshi was residing in Neeta Building opposite Marine Lines Railway Station, Bombay in a flat on the second floor. On April 5, 1963, Rane (PW 1) Deputy Superintendent of the Excise Department with other officers went to make a search of his flat. He was authorised by Wagh (PW 2) Officer-in-charge of the Excise Department, to make this search under the provisions of the Gold Control Order. When Rane reached the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)1SCC730
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.1. In this appeal by certificate under Articles 132(1) and 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, the appellant Jethamal Nihal Chand Jain appeals against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, February 2, 1967. He was prosecuted before the Presidency Magistrate, 23rd Court, Bombay on the complaint of the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Marine and Preventive Division, Bombay for offences under Section 135(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 126 P(1)(i) and (2)(ii), read with Rule 126(1), sub-rule (i) of the Defence of India Rules. He was acquitted of the charge under the Customs Act but was convicted under the Defence of India Rules and sentenced for each of the offences to six months' rigorous imprisonment which sentences were to run concurrently. The facts of the case are as follows.2. On February 10, 1963, Naik Sub-Inspector, Paltan Road Police Station, Bombay raided Room No. 32 on the 2nd floor of Lucky House, 272, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1494; [1971(21)FLR251]; 1970LabIC1332; (1970)IILLJ143SC; 1971MhLJ188(SC); (1970)1SCC362; [1970]3SCR448
Hegde, J.1. The appellant was a probationary Naib Tehsildar. He had been appointed temporarily. While he was working at Bilaigarh in 1961, the Commissioner of Raipur Division directed an enquiry against him on as many as 13 charges. By his order dated August 3, 1961, the Commissioner placed him under suspension pending enquiry. Sometime later, the State Government taking the view that the enquiry ordered by the Commissioner may not be legal, revoked his orders viz. the order directing a departmental enquiry against the appellant as well as the order placing him under suspension. But on the same day, it ordered a departmental enquiry against him and at the same time it placed him under suspension pending that enquiry. In this connection a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on August 1, 1964. But even before that show cause notice was issued, on June 6, 1964, the appellant gave a notice to the Government terminating his services. After the issue of the afore-mentioned show cau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC116; [1971]41CompCas887(SC); (1970)1SCC352; [1970]3SCR445
Bhargava, J.1. The appellants in these appeals were exporters of Jute Carpet Backing Cloth and, in connection with some exports by them between the period January 1957 to January 1963, penalties have been imposed on them under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act for contravention of Section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act No. 7 of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in view of the provisions of Section 23A of the Act and Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act by the Adjudicating Officer. Their appeals to the Central Board of Excise and Customs (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') were dismissed, though the amounts of penalties imposed were reduced. The order of the Board dismissing the appeals has been challenged in these appeals before us by special leave.2. The Board based its decision for upholding the penalties on the finding that the declarations given in purported compliance with Section 12(1) of the Act were defective in two respects. One defect found was t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)1SCC374
ORDER No. 3/C/1968dated 16-2-1968.Whereas I, Bharat Bhushan IAS, Divisional Commissioner, Jammu an satisfied that with a view to preventing Shri Karam Chand s/o Khushi Ram r/o Chan Gran P/S Kathua from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it is necessary so to do:Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 I, Bharat Bhushan, IAS. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu hereby direct that the said Karam Chand be detained in the Central Jail Jammu subject to such conditions as to maintenance of discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline as have been specified in the Jammu and Kashmir Detinues General Order 1968.Sd/- Bharat Bhushan IASDivisional Commissioner, JammuOn the same day the said officer made another order under Section 8 read with Section 13A of the aforesaid Act directing that the detenue be informed that it is against the public interest to disclose to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1226; (1971)73BOMLR489; 1971MhLJ68(SC); (1970)1SCC382; [1970]3SCR440
DUA. J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani challenging the order of the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner (with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner) under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), hereafter referred to as the Act, disallowing the writ petitioner's revision from the order of the Settlement Officer (with delegated powers of Settlement Commissioner) which had affirmed on appeal the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The writ petitioner's case was held to fall within Rule 19(3) of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Rules, hereafter called the Rules, made by the Central Government under Section 40 of the Act. The question which falls for decision is a very short one and it relates to the meaning and effect of Rule 19(3).2. The facts are not in disput...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)1SCC368
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. These two appeals are by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad confirming the death sentence of Madan Patel under Section 302 I.P.C. but setting aside his con under Section 148 and also acquitting Nanak Chand of his conviction under Section 148 but confirming his conviction under weighed at the time of granting special leave was the averment that the orders of the Bench of the High Court of Allahabad having granted three applications by the accused for additional evidence by summoning and examining certain witnesses were completely ignored by the next Bench, that finally heard and disposed of the appeals; otherwise there was a concurrent finding by both the Sessions Judge Agra and the High Court which would not have entitled the appellants for the giant of special leave. But Mr. Nurddin Ahmed learned Counsel for Madan Patel and Mr. S.P. Sinha for the appellant Nanak Chand have however urged before us that the grant of spec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1970MhLJ714(SC); (1970)3SCC854
K.S. HEGDE, J.1. These are two connected appeals. They arise from a suit which originated in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. Civil Appeal No. 1872 of 1968 is filed by some of the defendants in that suit and Civil Appeal No. 1873 of 1968 is brought by the plaintiff in that suit. The suit was filed to recover possession of the suit premises, rent thereof with interest, municipal taxes, insurance premia and damages. It was resisted on various grounds. In these appeals we are not concerned with the various controversies that engaged the attention of the High Court and the Lower Court. The only point arising for decision in Civil Appeal No. 1872 of 1968, the appeal brought by the defendants is as to the scope of Section 20 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Bombay Rent Act”). The solitary contention advanced in Civil Appeal No. 1873 of 1968 is that the appellate court as well as the High Court erred in determi...
Tag this Judgment!