Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)1SCC309; [1971]27STC268(SC)
J.C. Shah, C.J.1. Section 5(2)(a)(v) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, provides :(2) In this Act the expression 'taxable turnover' means in the case of a dealer who is liable to pay tax under Section 4 or under Sub-section (3) of Section 8, that part of his gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting there from(a) his turnover during that period on....(v) sales of goods which are shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner not to have taken place in West Bengal, or to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, or in the course of import of the goods into, or export of the goods out of, the territory of India, within the meaning of Section 5 of that Act.2. The respondent-company carries on the business of a colliery. Pursuant to an agreement between the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, the former agreed to release certain quantities of coal for con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC740; (1971)1SCC286; [1971]3SCR314; 1971(III)LC167(SC)
J.C. Shah, C.J.1. On October 5, 1960 the appellant agreed to do certain construction work for the respondent on the terms and conditions of a 'written tender'. Clauses 12 & 13 of the tender were:12. In the event of any dispute, arising out of this Sub-contract, the parties hereto agree that the matter shall be referred to arbitration by two Arbitrators under the Arbitration Act of 1940 and such amendments thereto as may be enacted thereafter.13. Notwithstanding the place where the work under this contract is to be executed, it is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties here to that this Contract shall be deemed to have been entered into by the parties concerned in the City of Bombay and the Court of law in the City of Bombay alone shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate thereon.Disputes arose between the parties and the appellant submitted a petition to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Varanasi for an order under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act 10 of 1940 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1971MhLJ604(SC); (1971)1SCC276; [1971]3SCR319; 1971(III)LC164(SC)
J.C. Shah, C.J.1. Sohan Lal Naraindas-hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintff'-commenced an action in the City Civil Court, Bombay, for a decree in ejectment against Laxmidas Raghunath hereinafter called 'the defendant'-alleging that the defendant was occupying a loft 19' x 15' on the upper floor of a building at Pragraj Galli, Mulji Jetha Market, Bombay under an agreement of licence dated November 3, 1958 and that the licence had been duly terminated and withdrawn but the defendant had failed and neglected to vacate the loft notwithstanding the demand. The defendant contended that he was a tenant of the loft, that the tenancy had not been duly terminated as required by law, that he was entitled to the protection of the Bombay Rents Hotel & Lodging House Rates Contract Act 1947 and that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.2. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and not his licensee. The decree was confirmed in appeal, by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC664; (1971)1SCC387; [1971]3SCR340
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. These two appeals on certificate are directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated March 27, 1962 in First Appeals from the Original Decree Nos. 311 and 312 of 1956.2. Two plots of land bearing No. 936 of Mouza Asansol and plot No. 9202 of Mouza Asansol Municipality were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated December 13, 1947 was published in the Calcutta Gazette of 25th December, 1947. The declaration under Section 6 dated December 30, 1947 was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 8th January, 1948. For plot No. 936 of Mouza Asansol measuring about 31 acres, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1707/-including Rs. 13 1/6 on account of the landlord's interest. The entire compensation in respect of this plot was directed to be paid to Bhaktabala Dasi, the sole respondent in Civil Appeal No. 436 of 1967. In respect of plot No. 9202 of Mouza Asansol ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC659; 1971MhLJ591(SC); (1971)3SCC137; 1971(III)LC171(SC)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, by the tenant of a residential building, is directed against the order of the Bombay High Court dated January 9/10, 1967 in Civil Revision Application No. 888 of 1965.2 The short question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in holding that the respondent landlord was entitled to seek eviction of the appellant on the ground that the latter had failed to pay the standard rent including the permitted increases for over a period of six months. Incidentally the question also arises whether the notice issued by the respondent on June 15, 1955 is a valid one Under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act 57 of 1947), (hereinafter to be referred as the Rent Act). The facts so far as they are material are as follows :3. A building known as Lal Bungalow situate in Kurla Road, Andheri originally belonged to the respondent and one Ratnabai. The appellant ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC681; 1972MHLJ24(SC); (1971)1SCC358a; [1971]3SCR324
J.C. Shah, C.J.1. Dawalatshah and Ranwirshah-sons of Pratapshah-instituted an action in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Chanda, for a decree for possession of property immovable (including the Zamindari of Dhanora) and movable specified in the Schedules annexed to the plaint, and for an order for payment of mesne profits and also for recovery of the amount of compensation in respect of certain lands received by the defendants from the Government of Madhya Pradesh and for an order declaring their right to receive the balance of compensation remaining to be paid. The plaintiffs relied upon the following genealogy : GANGASHAH ___________________________________________|________________________________________ | | | | | Hira Bhakta Sakru Kajur Raju Thakur Thakur Thakur Thakur Thakur | | | | Sitaram Tanoa Thakur | Chatturshah | Thakur | | (dead) | | Nillanshah | | | | | | | Pratapshah | | | | |_______________ | | ____________|________ | | | | | | Gulabshah Lalashah | | Dawalatsh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)4SCC303; 1971(III)LC161(SC)
J.C. Shah, C.J.1. The respondents are dealers in cotton. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer assessed the respondents to tax for the year 1957-58 on a turn over exceeding Rs. 12 lakhs under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. The Board of Revenue revised the order delivering the taxable turn over of respondents turnover. In appeal by the respondents against that order in the High Court of Madras it was contended that the transactions of sale were liable to tax Under Section 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The High Court, following the judgment of this Court in The State of Mysore v. Taddalam Lakshminarasimihiah Setty & Sons 16 S.T.C. 231 held that inter state transactions of the respondents however in cotton were not taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act because under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, sale of Cotton was taxable at the stage of last purchase. The State of Madras has appealed to this Court against that order.2. Since the judgment of the Madras High Court was deliver...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC673; (1971)1SCC460
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a writ petition which had been filed by the appellants. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The appellants were recorded as Sir Khudkasht holders of the plots in dispute. Respondents 4 to 6 were entered as subtenants in respect of those plots in the year 1356 Fasli. The appellants filed a suit for a declaration that the respondents were adhivasis. The suit was decreed ex parte. The ex parte Order, however was set aside upon the application of the respondents. The suit was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit. It appears that in 1960 three suits were filed. The principal allegation in the suits was that the entry in the revenue records on the basis of which the respondents claimed adhivasi rights was fictitious. The parties then entered into a compromise in which it was admitted by the respondents that the appellants were Bhoomidars and that the respondents had no interest in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1971]79ITR499(SC); (1972)4SCC84; 1971(III)LC163(SC)
J.C. Shah C.J.1. The facts in these four appeals are substantially common. We will deal with the facts in respect of only one appeal (Civil Appeal No. 631 of 1987) relating to the assessment of income-tax for the assessment year 1943-44. The decision will govern the other appeals.2. The assessee declared in his return for the assessment year 1943-44 an income of Rs. 34,560/-On examination of the accounts produced by the assessee the income-tax officer found that there was inflation in purchase, spurious cash credits, diversion of sales, and bogus speculation losses were claimed. In assessing the income the Income-tax Officer made additions under four heads of different items of income and brought to tax an income of Rs. 1,43,433/-. The order passed by the Income-tax Officer was substantially confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and by the Tribunal. The Income-tax Officer also commenced a proceeding Under Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act and imposed a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC671; [1971]79ITR502(SC); (1971)1SCC284; [1971]3SCR310; 1971(III)LC159(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. These appeals have been brought by certificate from a common judgment of the Orissa High Court.2. Five different suits were filed against certain defendants on the foot of five different pronotes. All the five suits were heard together and were decreed by the trial judge. In respect of two suits the valuation being low the appeals were preferred before the District Judge and in three suits the appeals were filed in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeals. It is altogether unnecessary to refer to the points in controversy between the parties because the sole question which has been agitated before us relates to the admissibility of certain assessment orders on which reliance has been placed for deciding whether the contesting defendants were the partners of firm Surajmal Manilal on whose behalf the pronotes had been executed. The learned subordinate judge had found that the suit transactions were genuine and execution on behalf of the firm as well as the p...
Tag this Judgment!