Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1147; (1971)73BOMLR305; 1971MhLJ1(SC); (1970)1SCC415; [1970]3SCR689
J.C. Shah, J. 1. Dadiba Hormusji Boatwalla was one of the eight partners of Messrs Meghji Thobhan & Company--a firm of Muccadams and cotton brokeRs. Boatwalla died on February 20, 1957. By virtue of Clause 8 of the deed of partnership the business of the firm was continued by the surviving partneRs. Khorshed and Nariman--widow and son respectively of Boatwalla--obtained letters of administration to the estate of Boatwalla and commenced an action in the High Court of Bombay for an account of the partnership between Boatwalla and the surviving partners and for an order paying to the plaintiffs the amount determined to be due to Boatwalla at the time of his death. The suit was resisted by the surviving partners--who will hereinafter be called 'the defendants'. Tarkunde, J., passed a preliminary decree declaring that qua Boatwalla the partnership stood dissolved on February 20, 1957, but not in respect of the surviving partners, and directed that an account be taken of the partnership upto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1212; (1970)1SCC462; [1970]3SCR680; [1970]26STC241(SC)
A.N. Grover, J. 1. These appeals by certificate are directed against a common judgment of the Madras High Court in petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Cosmopolitan Club, Madras, the Young Men's Indian Association, Madras and the Lawley Institute Ootacamund challenging the proceedings relating to their assessment to sales tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter called the 'Act', for supplying food, snacks, beverages and other articles to their members or their guests. It was held by the High Court that each of these clubs could not be regarded as a 'dealer' within the meaning of Section 2(g) read with Explanation I of the Act nor was any 'sale' involved in the aforesaid activity of the club within the meaning of Section 2(n) read with Explanation I of the Act.2. The Cosmopolitan Club, Madras, is a social recreation club which was started originally in the year 1873 as an unincorporated association. In 1934 it was registered under Section 26...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1231; (1970)1SCC392; [1970]3SCR662
v. Bhargava, J. 1. The appellant, Dev Kanta Barooah, was declared elected at the last General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of Assam in 1967, defeating the four rival candidates who are respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal. Respondent No. 1, Golok Chandra Baruah, filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant on various grounds, including a charge that false statements as to the personal character of respondent No. 1 had been published with the consent of the appellant, thus constituting a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This is the only ground which has been accepted by the High Court of Assam and Nagaland and the election of the appellant has been set aside: on this ground. In this appeal, consequently, the only question that falls for decision is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the election of the appellant on the ground of corrupt practice having ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC870
K.S. HEGDE, J.1. These are two appeals under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (in short “the Act”) from the decision of the High Court of Mysore in Election Petitions 3 and 6 of 1967. These petitions were tried together and decided by a common judgment. A good portion of the evidence led in the case is common to both the petitions. Therefore we shall proceed to deal with these appeals together.2. On January 13, 1967, notifications were issued calling for the election of one member for the Lok Sabha from the Koppal constituency as well as eight members to the Mysore Assembly from the eight assembly constituencies included in that Parliamentary constituency. One of those assembly constituencies was the Yelburga constituency in the District of Raichur. The last date for presenting the nominations was January 19, 1967. The scrutiny of the nominations took place on January 21, 1967 and the poll was held on February 19, 1967. Both in the Koppal Lok Sab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC564; [1970]40CompCas325(SC); (1970)1SCC248; [1970]3SCR530
J.C. Shah, J.1. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper--hereinafter called 'the petitioner'--holds shares in the Central Bank of India Ltd., the Bank of Baroda Ltd., the Union Bank of India Ltd., and the Bank of India Ltd., and has accounts--current and fixed deposit --with those Banks : he is also a director of the Central Bank of India Ltd. By these petitions he claims a declaration that the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance 8 of 1969 promulgated on July 19, 1969, and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969 which replaced the Ordinance with certain modifications impair his rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution, and are on that account invalid.2. In India there was till 1949 no comprehensive legislation governing banking business and banking institutions. The Central Legislature enacted the Banking Companies Act 10 of 1949 (later called 'The Banking Regulation Act') to consolidate and amend the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC856
K.S. HEGDE, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court. The Division Bench reversed the decision of D.K. Mahajan allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein and quashing the order confiscating the goods imported by the appellant.2. The appellant is a private limited company. It is an established importer and has been importing arms and ammunition for a number of years. On the strength of a licence issued on April 3, 1957, it imported from Holland some articles worth £84. The customs authorities confiscated those articles on the ground that they were 12 bore guns and the licence granted to the appellant did not permit it to import 12 bore guns. They were of the opinion that the articles imported are 12 bore guns and not the spare parts of 12 bore guns. The decision of the Customs Collector has been affirmed by the Central Board of Revenue as well as by the Government.3. Mahajan, J. came to the conclusion th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1033; (1971)73BOMLR514; 1970CriLJ995; 1970MhLJ478(SC); (1970)1SCC469; [1970]3SCR525
Dua, J.1. The four appellants, along with Kondu son of Ambu, were jointly tried in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Akola on the following charges :That you all accused nos. 1 to 5 on or about 12th day of November, 1967 at about 5-45 a.m. near Farshi on Risod Nazampur Road, formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly viz. : to commit murder of complainant Vithalrao Khanderao Deshmukh or in order to cause murder of Vithalrao or grievous hurts to him committed the offence of rioting and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court.That you all on the same date, time and place, were members of unlawful assembly, in prosecution of common object of which viz. :. to commit murder of Vithalrao or to cause grievous hurt to him, one or all you caused grievous hurts to him which offence you knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC782; (1971)3SCC782
J.C. SHAH, J.1. One Amar Singh resident of Bhurchi in District Sheikhupura (now in Pakistan) died many years ago leaving him surviving his wife Hukmi and his son Buta Singh. Buta Singh married Nand Kaur and by her he had a daughter Gian Kaur. Buta Singh died in 1930, leaving behind him surviving his mother Hukmi, his wife Nand Kaur and his infant daughter Gian Kaur. On the death of Buta Singh his estate devolved upon his widow Nand Kaur. In 1945, Nand Kaur contracted a remarriage and it is common ground that she forfeited her right to hold the estate of Buta Singh. Gian Kaur was then a minor and the estate of Buta Singh was entered in the name of Hukmi in the revenue records. In 1947, Hukmi and Gian Kaur migrated to and took up residence in India. Gian Kaur filed an action in the civil court in 1956 against Hukmi for a decree for possession of the estate of her father Buta Singh which she claimed on the remarriage of Nand Kaur had devolved upon her.2. The trial court dismissed the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC117; (1970)GLR1018; (1970)0GLR100; (1970)1SCC419; [1970]3SCR515
Shah, J.1. Certain officers in the ministerial branch of the Secretariat Service of the State of Gujarat moved a petition in the High Court of Gujarat for an order directing the State Government to treat its order dated August 19, 1966 as 'illegal, void and of no effect' and to forbear from enforcing its order treating the persons whose names were specified in the annexure to the order as servants of the 'Secretariat cadre'. The High Court of Gujarat granted the petition and declared the order dated August 19, 1966, invalid. With certificate granted by the High Court this appeal has been filed.2. Prior to November 1, 1956, the appellants were holding permanent posts in the ministerial service of the Secretariats of the Part B State of Saurashtra and the Part C State of Kutch. By virtue of Section 8 of the States Reorganization Act 37 of 1956 the new State of Bombay, which included the territories of the States of Saurashtra and Kutch, was formed. Section 115 of the States Reorganisatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC854
J.C. SHAH, J.1. This Court, on August 6, 1968, decided a group of three appeals, entitled Gujarat Electricity Board v. Shantilal R. Desai. The Court passed an order, disagreeing with the view of the High Court of Gujarat, that the appeals be allowed and the orders passed by the High Court set aside and the cases remanded to the High Court for deciding the issues which were left open. The reason for sending back the case is set out in the first paragraph of the judgment. It is stated:“The only question that falls for decision in this appeal is whether on the basis of the notice issued by the Bombay State Electricity Board on January 8, 1959 under Section 7 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act, prior to its amendment in 1959, the appellant can compulsorily purchase from the respondent his concern the Bilymora Electric Power Supply Company. In his application to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the respondent challenged th...
Tag this Judgment!