Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)4SCC481; [1972]2SCR146; [1972]29STC210(SC)
1. These are appeals by certificate. They are by the same appellant and they raise common question of law. Hence they are considered together.2. Two questions of law were urged on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeals. The first contention urged was that Section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) is ultra vires the Constitution, firstly because that under that section excessive legislative power had been delegated to the State Government and secondly on the ground that it discriminates between the registered dealers who made their purchases through licensed dealers and the registered dealers who made their purchases through dealers who are not licensed. The second contention taken was that notification No. ST-7122/X-900(16)64 dated October 1, 1964 issued under Section 3-D(1) of the Act imposing purchase tax on oil seeds is invalid as it contravenes Section 3AA of the Act.3. We have considered the first ground of attack in Civil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)1CTR(SC)138
Hegde, J. - These are appeals by certificate. They raise a common question of law for decision. The only contention arising for decision in these appeals is as to the vires of s. 3D-(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The validity of that section has been assailed on two different grounds viz. that the power delegated to the executive under s. 3-D (1) is excessive and as such bad in law and (2) Section 3-D infringes Art. 14 of the Constitution in as much as it discriminates between the registered dealers who purchase through the agency of licensed dealers and the registered dealers who purchase through other dealers.2. The appellants are dealers in Rab. In respect of their dealings in Rab, they have been levied Purchase tax as per the notification issued by the Government under sec. 3-D(1) of the Act. They are challenging the validity of the levy on the grounds mentioned above.3. The High Court has repelled both the above contentions. The Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1972CriLJ849; (1972)3SCC873; 1972(4)LC119(SC)
J.M. Shelat, J.1. Between July and November, 1962, that being the period relevant to this appeal, the respondent, Lt. Col. J.S. Khanna, ani Res. Major Lala were staff officers Nos. 1 and 2 respectively attached to the headquarters, Chief Engineer, Tusker Project at Tezpur. As kuch efficers, one of their duties was to ensure supplies of goods, such as motor spare parts, required for military trucks and other vehicles conveying troops, materials etc. to forward areas in Assam and NEFA.2. According to the prosecution, these two officers were responsible for manipulations in placing supply orders with a firm called M/s. Manik Mo or Works, of obtaining supplies even before orders in relation to them were placed, and in some cases, even before issuing quotations enquiries and obtaining in answer to such enquiries quotations as required by the relevant rules in connection with such supplies. The prosecution case further was that they paid exobitant prices for these materials, that the quotati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1168a; (1972)4SCC485; [1972]2SCR141; [1972]29STC206(SC)
1. These are appeals by certificate. They raise a common question of law for decision. The only contention arising for decision in these appeals is as to the vires of Section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The validity of that section has been assailed on two different grounds viz. (1) that the power delegated to the executive under Section 3-D(1) is excessive and as such bad in law and (2) Section 3-D infringes Article 14 of the Constitution in as much as it discriminates between the registered dealers who purchase through the agency of licensed dealers and the registered dealers who purchase through other dealers.2. The appellants are dealers in Rab. In respect of their dealings in Rab, they have been levied purchase tax as per the notification issued by the Government under Section 3(D)(1) of the Act. They are challenging the validity of the levy on the grounds mentioned above.3. The High Court has repelled both the above contentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1061; [1972]83ITR582(SC); (1971)2SCC779; [1972]2SCR33
S.M. Sikri, C.J.1. This appeal is from the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ No. 2291 of 1970, which was heard by a Bench of five Judges. Four Judges held that Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1969, insofar as it amended the relevant provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. Pandit, J., however, held that the impugned Act was intra vires the legislative powers of Parliament. The High Court accordingly issued a direction to the effect that the Wealth Tax Act, as amended by Finance Act, 1969, insofar as it includes the capital value of the agricultural land for the purposes of computing net wealth, was ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. We may mention that the majority also held that the impugned Act was not a law with respect to entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; in other words, it held that this tax was not covered by entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule.3. The Wealth Tax Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1061a
S.M. Sikri, C.J.1. This appeal is from the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ No. 2291 of 1970, which was heard by a Bench of five Judges. Four Judges held that Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1969, insofar as it amended the relevant provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. Pandit, J., however, held that the impugned Act was intra vires the legislative powers of Parliament. The High Court accordingly issued a direction to the effect that the Wealth Tax Act, as amended by Finance Act, 1969, insofar as it includes the capital value of the agricultural land for the purposes of computing net wealth, was ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. We may mention that the majority also held that the impugned Act was not a law with respect to entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; in other words, it held that this tax was not covered by entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule.3. The Wealth Tax Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1248; (1972)4SCC600; [1972]2SCR162; 1972(4)LC204(SC)
1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of Kerala High Court affirming an appeal, the order of the Lower Court whereby the appellant Bank's application for execution of an award made under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act) was dismissed.2. The appellant is a Co-operative Society registered in Bombay under the Bombay Act. The Head Office of the appellant is in Bombay and it has a branch in Mangalore. As the objects of the appellant were not confined to one State, it was governed by Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act of 1942 (herinafter referred to as the Central Act). The appellant made a claim under Section 54 of the Bombay Act in respect of a transaction which took place in Mangalore against the respondent who is a resident of Kasaragod, and was a member of the appellant society. Roth Mangalore and Kasaragod were at the relevant time in Madras Presidency. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bombay ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC528; 1972CriLJ316; 1972MhLJ616(SC); (1972)4SCC643; 1972(4)LC117(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 10 June, 1968 of the High Court at Bombay refusing to set aside the order dated 11 December, 1967 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poona.2. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate came to be passed under the following circumstances. On 3 March, 1967 the respondent Mrs. Pestonji filed an application and lodged a complaint in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poona under Section 107 of the CrPC alleging that the appellants had threatened to kill the son of the respondent Mrs. Pestonji and threatened to endanger the safety of the members of the respondent's family. On 10 May, 1967 a notice was issued by the Magistrate requiring the appellants to appear in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poona and to show cause why they should not be asked to furnish a surety and a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1000/-each for a period of one year for ensuring non-committal of any action the part of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2268; 1972CriLJ661; (1971)3SCC683; [1972]2SCR152; 1972(4)LC111(SC)
I.D. Dua, J.1. These two appeals by special leave arise out of common judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which disposed of two criminal appeals by two rival factions belonging to two different villages situated at a small distance from each other which were involved in the occurrence in question dated February 4, 1965.2. Village Siloda in Tehsil Sanwer, district Indore was inhabited by Muslims but it was divided into two groups, the relations between whom were strained and differences rose to such a pitch that one group felt compelled to leave the village and shift to a new site for their residence. The new village formed by this group was called Naya Siloda. The original village Siloda was thereafter given the name of Juna Siloda. It appears that in spite of the departure of one group for Naya Siloda the differences between the two groups remained unresolved and the bitterness did not abate. The two villages virtually became inimical to each other. The animosity between the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC530; 1972CriLJ317; (1972)3SCC294
D.G. Palekar, J.1. These are petitions for an order in the nature of habeas corpus filed by Debu Ghose, Aswini Kumar Das and Manick Chandra Roy who have been detained by orders of District Magistrates under the provisions of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 being President's Act No. 19 of 1970.2. Section 3(1) of that Act provides that the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. Sub-section (2) defines the expression 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order' for the purpose of Sub-section (1) Sub-section (3) empowers certain authorities including the District Magistrate to pass orders under Sub-section (1). When an order of detention is made by the District Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!