Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC330; (1970)2SCC462; [1971]1SCR798
V. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal by Manni Lal who was one of the candidates for election to the U.P. Legislative Assembly from Ahirori (Scheduled Caste) Constituency of Hardoi District, and who was defeated at that election by respondent No. 1 Parmai Lal. The election was challenged on two principal grounds. One ground was that respondent No. 1 was disqualified under Section 8(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly, because he was convicted for offences under Sections 148 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code on 11th January, 1969, and was sentenced to imprisonment exceeding two years. The other ground was that a number of ballot papers cast in favour of the appellant had been wrongly rejected instead of being counted in favour of the appellant, that some ballot papers were wrongly counted for respondent No. 1 instead of being rejected, and that some ballot papers were wrongly counte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC64; 1971CriLJ19; (1970)2SCC426
I.D. Dua, J.1. The short and the only point raised in this appeal by special leave pertains to the justification of the High Court in summarily dismissing in limine the appeal preferred by the appellant in that Court against his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment by the Court of Session, Greater Bombay under Section 302, I.P.C.2. We do not consider it necessary to enter into an exhaustive discussion of the prosecution story and the evidence led in its support. Suffice it to say that the trial Court relied in support of its order on two eye witnesses - one of whom is stated to be the uncle of the deceased. That Court also noticed that in the dying declaration by the deceased made to his uncle the name of the accused as his assailant was not mentioned. In a case like this, therefore, in our opinion, it was incumbent on the High Court to issue notice to the State and hear the appeal with the record before it and after evaluating the evidence, to record a speaking order so that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1970]78ITR319(SC); (1970)2SCC477
J.C. Shah J.1. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. Prem Nath, the manager of the family, was admitted as representing the family to a partnership styled ' M/s. K.C. Raj & Company '. Under the terms of the partnership Prem Nath was entitled to an ' allowance of Rs. 700 per month ' for ' rendering service ' to the partnership. In proceedings for assessment of income-tax of the Hindu undivided family, the Income-tax Officer rejected the contention that the remuneration paid to Prem Nath was the individual income of Prem Nath. The order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and, in second appeal, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.2. The Tribunal submitted the following question to the High Court of Punjab at Delhi for opinion :Whether the remuneration received by Prem Nath, karta of the assessee-Hindu undivided family, for services rendered to the firm of M/s. K.C. Raj & Co. and the sub-partnership of M/s. Kishan Lal in which he is a partner representing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC647b
J.C. SHAH, J.1. The appellant who is a licensee of a liquor shop applied to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for a writ of mandamus directing the excise department of the State not to recover licence fee for those days in respect of which liquor was not supplied to the appellant. The High Court summarily rejected the petition observing that the supply of liquor to the appellant was under a contract to the Government and “if the Government had committed a breach of the contract the remedy is elsewhere”. It cannot without further investigation, be said that the rights and obligations arising under a licence issued under a statutory authority are purely contractual. In our judgment the High Court was in error in summarily rejecting the petition.2. We set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the High Court do issue rule to the State and decide the case on the merits.3. In this Court the appellant has filed copies of certain correspondence relating to the payment of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC40; (1970)IILLJ284SC; (1970)2SCC458; [1971]1SCR791
K.S. Hegde, J.1. In this appeal by certificate the only question that was canvassed before us was as regards the validity of the order contained in memorandum No. F. 16-42/68-S.1, dated August 13, 1969 issued by the Government of India. Ministry of Education and Youth Services, retiring the 1st respondent compulsorily from government service in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (j) of Fundamental Rule 56 with effect from August 14, 1969. That order was attacked before the High Court on various grounds. The High Court rejected some of those grounds. It did not find it necessary to. decide a few others but accepting the contention of the respondent that in making the order, the appellant had violated the principles of natural justice, it held that the impugned order is invalid. The High Court accordingly issued a writ of certiorari quashing that order.2. Before us the only contention presented for our decision was whether the High Court was right in holding that in making the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC2067; [1971]78ITR474(SC); (1970)2SCC834; [1971]1SCR773
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2555 of 1966. Appeal from the judgment 'and order dated March 16, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 76 of 1962.S. C. Manchanda. G. C. Sharma, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the appellant.A. K. Sen, T. A. Ramachandran and D. N. Gupta, for the respondent.775The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The respondent Company appointed one Harvey its Managing Director. Under the terms of agreement, Harvey was to retire on attaining the age of 55 years. The Company arranged to provide a pension to Harvey on retirement, and executed a deed of trust on September 16, 1948 appointing three trustees to carry out that object. The respondent Company set apart in 1948 Rs. 1,09,643/- and in each of the six subsequent years Rs. 4,364/-, and delivered the various amounts to the trustees who were authorised to take out a deferred annuity policy to secure an annuity of pound 720 per annum payable to Harvey for life. fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC239
V. BHARGAVA, J.1. The appellant, Rao Nihal Sigh, Respondent 1, Rao Birendra Singh and Respondent 2, Manohar, were candidates for election to the Legislative Assembly for the State of Haryana from Atoli Constituency during the mid-term election held in the month of May, 1968. Polling took place on 14th May, 1968 and the result was declared on the 15th May, 1968. The appellant received 15,937 votes, Respondent 1 23,673 votes, and Manohar 455 votes. Consequently, Respondent 1 was declared as the successful candidate. An Election Petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was then filed by the appellant challenging the election of Respondent 1 primarily on grounds of commission of corrupt practices which were all denied by Respondent 1. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the trial of the petition, framed four issues, but Issue 4 was not pressed in that Court, and, consequently, it was not dealt with in the judgment of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1970]78ITR474(SC)
SHAH J. - The respondent-company appointed one Harvey its managing director. Under the terms of agreement, Harvey was to retire on attaining the age of 55 years. The company arranged to provide a pension to Harvey on retirement, and executed a deed of trust on September 16, 1948, appointing three trustees to carry out that object. The respondent-company set apart in 1948 Rs. 1,09,643 and in each of the six subsequent years Rs. 4,364, and delivered the various amounts to the trustees who were authorised to take out a deferred annuity policy to secure an annuity of Pounds 720 per annum payable to Harvey for life from the date he attained the age of 55 years, and in the event of his death before that date an annuity of Pounds 611.12 annually to his widow.In its return for the assessment year 1949-50 the company claimed that in the computation of its taxable income Rs. 1,09,643 paid in 1948 to the trustees under the deed of trust were allowable as an amount wholly and exclusively expended ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC123; [1970]78ITR55(SC); (1971)3SCC110a
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Madras High Court answering the following question which had been referred to it under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the 'Act' in the affirmative and against the assessee.Whether on the facts and In the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 54,479 is assessable in the year 1957-58 under the provisions of Section 10(2A) of the Income-tax Act of 1922?The assessee is a private limited company, it runs a fleet of buses. For the assessment year 1950-51 the assessee returned an income of Rupees 14,555/-. The Income-tax Officer required the assessee to furnish various particulars and documents under Section 22(4) of the Act. These were not furnished. Apart from committing a default under Section 22(4) it committed a default under Section 23(2). The Income-tax Officer made an assessment under Section 23(4) estimating the assessee's Income at Rs. 1,80,000/-. On appeal to the Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC95; [1970]78ITR90(SC); [1971]1SCR769
A.N. Grover, J.1. The respondent company which is an assessee was required by the Income tax Officer by notices issued under Section 18A(1) of the Indian Income tax Act 1922, hereinafter called the 'Old Act' to make an advance payment of tax amounting to Rs. 3,17,077 for the assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. 3,54,911 for the assessment year 1961-62. The assessee chose to file its own estimate of tax under Section 18A(2) and in accordance therewith it paid two instalments of advance tax of Rs. 38,333/- each for the assessment year 1960-61 and three instalments of Rs. 12,875/-each for the assessment year 1961-62. Thereafter the assessee filed revised estimates of tax in the month of March 1960 and March 1961 respectively estimating the tax at Rs. 1,80,000/- for each of the assessment years on a total income of Rs. 4 lakhs. The balance of advance tax as per its revised estimate was paid in time after deducting the instalments which had already been paid. The assessee subsequently riled its ...
Tag this Judgment!