Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1547; (1971)ILLJ315SC; (1971)1SCC411; [1971]3SCR461
ORDERWhereas, you Shri Sardari Lal, Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police No. 331/D, Police Station Kamla Market, Delhi hold your office during the pleasure of the President, andWhereas the President is satisfied that you are unfit to be retained in the public service and ought to be dismissed from service, andWhereas the President is further satisfied Under Sub-clause (c) of proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold an inquiry,Now, therefore, the President is pleased to dismiss you from service with immediate effect. By order and in the name of the President of India Sd/-(B. Venkataraman) Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs.3. It was common ground before the High Court and has not been disputed before us that the President had no occasion to deal with the case or the appellant himself and the order was made by Shri Venkataraman, Joint Secretary to the Government of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1974)3CTR(SC)117
Shah, C.J. - A Hindu Undivided Family was registered in the name of Doma Sao Kishun Lal as a dealer under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944. The family was assessed to tax under Section 10 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944 for six quarters ending March 31, 1947. The Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944 was replaced and was replaced by the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, but under Section 32 of the Repealing Act liability to pay tax incurred before the date of such repeal and proceedings pending on the said date as also all proceedings initiated after the commencement of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 and relating to any such liability incurred before the date of such repeal were to be continued and disposed of or initiated and disposed of, as the case may be, as if the 1947 Act had not been enacted.2. In 1962 the Commissioner of Sales Tax revised the assessment of the Hindu Undivided Family and assessed it to pay Rs. 40,729.89 as tax. Proceedings were then commenced for realisation of the dues and a tax cer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC733; 37(1971)CLT233(SC); (1971)3SCC153
G.K. Mitter, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution pray for a declaration that Sections 3(2) (a), 8(1) and Rule 5-B (6), (7), (8), (9) and (16) and Rule 6(3) and Rule 7(1) of the Orissa Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1961 as amended and the rules framed thereunder are violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 19(1) of the Constitution, for a declaration that the 'revised policy' as enjoined by the said Orissa Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Amendment Act, 1969 and rules framed is arbitrary, discriminatory and mala fide and for a writ or direction in the nature of a mandamus quashing the appointment of respondents 2 to 108 as purchasers.2. To appreciate the grievances of the petitioners it is necessary to note in brief how the trade in Kendu leaves has been taken over by the State of Orissa by successive legislation and two decisions of this Court bearing thereupon. Kendu leaves appear to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1093; (1971)ILLJ256SC; (1971)1SCC396; [1971]3SCR483
J.C. Shah, C.J.1. Joyti Prakash Mitter-hereinafter called the respondent-was a candidate for the matriculation certificate examination of the Bihar University, held in April, 1918. In the Bihar Government Gazette declaring him successful the age of the respondent was shown to be 16 years 3 months in April 1918. The respondent offered himself as a candidate for admission to the Indian Civil Service at an examination held in 1963 by the United Kingdom Civil Service Commission. On that occasion he declared that his date of birth was December 27, 1901. The respondent joined the High Court Bar at Calcutta in May 1931. On February 11, 1949 the respondent was appointed an Additional Judge and on December 26, 1949 he was recommended for appointment as a permanent Judge. He then declared that he was 45 years of age.2. In 1956 the Government of India collected information relating to the educational and other qualifications of the Judges of the High Courts and their respective dates of birth. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2270; [1971]79ITR594(SC); (1971)1SCC355; [1971]3SCR406
J.C. Shah, J.1. The respondent who is the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family entered on behalf of the family into a partnership with one Devi Sharan Garg to carry on the business of manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical products and literature-relating thereto. On July 27, 1946 the partnership was dissolved. The assets of the firm which included goodwill, machinery, furniture, medicines, library and copyright in respect of certain publications were valued at the date of dissolution at Rs. 2,50,000/-. The respondent was paid a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-in lieu of his share and the business together with the goodwill was taken over by Devi Sharan Garg.2. In proceedings for assessment of the respondent for the year 1947-48 the Income-tax Officer sought to bring an amount of Rs. 70,000/-to tax as capital gains. The contention raised by the respondent that no part of the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-received by the respondent represented capital gains was rejected by the Income-tax Officer, Appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC725; [1971]80ITR177(SC); (1971)1SCC466; [1971]3SCR438; 1971(III)LC212(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam and Nagaland has brought these appeal by certificate. The assessment with which we are concerned in this appeal is for the assessment year 1-963-64, the relevant accounting year is the financial year 1962-63. The assessee was the manager of a Tea Estate under the managing agency of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. The said Co. had a Provident Fund scheme for its employees. But that provident fund was not a recognised one. The assessee retired during the previous year relevant to assessment year 1963-64 and received out of this provident fund an amount of Rs. 27,948/-which represented the interest on the amount of his own contribution to the fund. The Income-tax Officer assessed this amount as the assessee's income from other sources. That order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But on further appeal to the tribunal by the assessee, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the receipt in question being ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2074; [1971]80ITR467(SC); (1971)1SCC417; [1971]3SCR428
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The first of these two appeals (both by certificate) viz. that filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax succeed and the second, that filed by the legal representatives of the assessee fails. The facts as found by the Tribunal and set out in the statement of the case, relevant for the purpose of these appeals are as follows:2. The relevant assessment year is 1944-45, corresponding to the accounting year ended on April 12, 1944. The assessee is one Chidambaram Chettiar (since deceased). The father of the assessee Palaniappa Chettiar was a money lender. He had made various advances to one Nallathambi Sakkarai Manradiar, who will hereinafter be referred to as the Pattayagar, a prominent landlord in Coimbatore District, on promissory notes. The total principal advanced by the father of the assessee upto July 6, 1932 amounted to Rs. 1,38,535. The interest on the same came to Rs. 1,34,965. On July 6, 1932, a further advance of Rs. 2500 was made to the Pattayagar and for the am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2089; (1972)4SCC339; [1971]27STC469(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This is an assessee's appeal by certificate, arising from a writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court of Allahabad. The appellant is a partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing flour etc. The dispute in this case relates to the sales tax levy on the appellant for four different periods, viz., from (1) April 1, 1956, to September 30, 1956 ; (2) October 1, 1956, to March 31, 1957 ; (3) April 1, 1957, to March 31, 1958; and (4) April 1, 1958, to March 31, 1959. 2. In the writ petition the assessee challenged the validity of two notifications issued by the Government of U. P. The first of those notifications was published as Notification No. ST-909/X dated March 31, 1956, and the second was published as Notification No. ST-6069/X-1097-56 dated September 30, 1956. The High Court came to the conclusion that though the first notification was struck down by that court earlier, it has now been revalidated by the U.P. Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1958, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1974)3CTR(SC)120
Hegde, J. - This is an assessees appeal by certificate, arising from a writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court of Allahabad. The appellant is a partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing flour etc. The dispute in this case relates to the sales tax levy on the appellant for four different periods viz : (1) from April 1, 1956 to September 30, 1956; (2) October 1, 1956 to March 31, 19557; (3) April 1, 1957 to March 31, 1958 and (4) April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959.2. In the writ petition the assessee challenged the validity of 2 notifications issued by the Government of U.P. The first of those notifications was published as Notification No. ST-909/X dated March 31, 1956 and the second was published as Notification Nos. ST-6069/X -1097-57 dated September 30, 1956. The High Court came to the conclusion that though the first notification was struck down by that court earlier, it has now been revalidated by U. P. Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1958 and hence the validit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2079; (1972)4SCC186; 1971(III)LC257(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court.2. The appellant is a displaced person who was formerly doing business at Lyallpur, now in Pakistan, as a Banker, Commission Agent and Clearing agent under the name and style of M/s. Narain Singh Sunder Singh. Respondents 2 and 3 are residents of Amritsar. According to the appellant they carried on their business there under the name and style of Messrs Bishan Sahai Om Prakash who is respondent No 1. The appellant had business dealings with this firm previous to the partition of the country. The claim of the appellant was that as a result of those dealings there was an outstanding balance of Rs. 39,414/0/6 payable by the respondents to the appellant together with interest at 6% per annum.3. On October 11, 1952 the appellant, who resides at Mathura, filed an application in the Court of Civil Judge, Mathura, Under Section 13 of the Displaced Persons Adjustment Act, 1951, hereinafter called the ...
Tag this Judgment!