Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC545; 1972CriLJ329; (1972)3SCC282
I.D. Dua, J.1. These two appeals by special leave are directed against the order of a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated February 26, 1970 setting aside the order of discharge dated April 29, 1969 made by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. Bombay in case No. 121/P of 1969 under Section 120B. I.P.C. read with Section 7. Essential Commodities Act and Section 7 of the said Act against the appellants. In the trial court there were four accused, (accused No. 1 being Messrs. Century Spinning and ., Bombay, running textile mills manufacturing cotton textiles, and the other three being respectively, the President of the Executive Committee of the Mills who is in over-all charge of production, the Vice-President (Works) controlling the production of cloth manufactured by the mills and authorised to sign statutory returns required to be submitted by the mills to the Textile Commissioner and other authorities, and the Resident (Executive) of the two companies (M/s. Udyog Services L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2096; (1973)75PLR31; (1972)4SCC769; 1972(4)LC95(SC)
1. These appeals by certificate raise common questions of law. One of the questions that was canvassed before the High Court was whether the appellant had separated himself from the rest of the family namely his sons, in view of the relinquishment deed alleged to have been executed by him on Aug. 24, 1948. The said deed was not before the High Court. Therefore, the High Court was not able to come to any firm decision on that point. That question has to be decided afresh in an appropriate proceeding after taking into consideration the terms of the deed as well as the other evidence bearing on the subject The finding of the High Court in that regard cannot be taken as conclusive in view of the fact that all the material was not before the High Court.2. The other contention taken before the High Court was whether as a result of the alleged relinquishment of his rights by the appellant in his family properties it should be deemed that there was a general partition in the family. This conte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1972]83ITR170(SC); (1972)4SCC531; [1972]1SCR1076
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The question of law referred to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts of Rs. 5,790/-and Rs. 39,085/-could be deemed to be the dividend income of the Hindu undivided family in the respective assessment years?'2. The assessee in this case is a Hindu undivided family. From the case stated it is not possible to state definitely as to how many coparceners were there in that family. But we gather from the case stated that the three of the members of that family, viz. Doraiswamy, Singaram and Sarathy were shareholders in a private limited company by name 'The Chittoor Motor Transport; Co. (Private) Ltd.' Doraiswamy and Singaram held 100 shares each in that company; Sarathy held 2,797 shares. The Tribunal found that these shares were acquired ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC425; (1971)2SCC893; [1972]1SCR1055
G.K. Mitter, J.1. In all the above matters there is common attack on the validity of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. The Act received the assent of the President on the 13th April, 1962 and was published in the official gazette on the 2nd May, 1962. It is styled 'An Act to provide for fixation of ceiling on agricultural land holdings and for certain other matters connected therewith in the State of Madras'. The preamble to the Act shows that it was passed in furtherance of the directive principles of State policy as embodied in Article 39 of the Constitution and in particular, clauses (b) and (c) thereof, namely, that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community were to be so distributed as best to subserve the common good and that the operation of the economic system did not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. The Act sought to achieve this by acquiring agricultural land from pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)1CTR(SC)124
Vaidialingam, J. - This appeal, by special leave, raises the question whether the deed dated March 20, 1959 and marked Ex. A is an Instrument of Partnership on the basis of which the appellant firm is eligible to be granted registration under sec. 26A of the Indian Income-tax, Act, 1922 (hereinafter to be referred as the Income-tax Act).2. The appellant is a firm consisting of six partners and the partnership was constituted under the document dated March 20, 1959. The business of the partnership, as recited in the deed, is stated to have been carried on in partnership was registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1922, (hereinafter to be referred as the Partnership Act) on or about August 11, 1959. For the assessment year 1959-60, corresponding to the previous year ending March 31, 1959, the appellant filed an application to the Income Tax Officer, A Ward, Dharwar under sec. 26-A for registration of the partnership in the name of M/s K. D. Kamath & Company. The Income Tax Officer b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1971]82ITR680(SC); (1971)2SCC873; [1972]1SCR1034
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, raises the question whether the deed dated March 20, 1959 and marked Ex. A is an Instrument of Partnership on the basis of which the appellant firm is eligible to be granted registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter to be referred as the Income-tax Act).2. The appellant is a firm consisting of six partners and the partnership was constituted under the document dated March 20, 1959. The business of the partnership, as recited in the deed, is stated to have been carried on in partnership from October 1, 1958. The partnership was registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, (hereinafter to be referred as the Partnership Act) on or about August 11, 1959. For the assessment year 1959-60, corresponding to the previous year ending March 31, 1959, the appellant filed an application to the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Dharawar under Section 26A for registration of the partnership in the name of M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC438; 38(1972)CLT67(SC); (1972)74PLR338; (1972)2SCC576; [1972]1SCR1022
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The seven petitioners in these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenge the validity of the orders of detention dated January 31, 1971 passed against each of them by the District Magistrate, Manipur (Central) under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 read with Sub-section (1) of the Orissa Preventive Detention Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as extended to Manipur. They seek relief for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus and for directions being issued to the respondent-the State of Manipur to release them from custody.2. The orders of detention state that they have been passed with a view to preventing the petitioners from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioners, in consequence of these orders, were taken into custody and detained. Along with the petitioners another person, Prof. Nandlal Sharma, was also detained. The grounds of detention, as required by Section 7(1) of the Act were furnish...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC375; [1972]84ITR475(SC); (1972)4SCC489; [1972]1SCR1016
A.N. Grover, J.1. These appeals from a common order of the High Court of Madras are by certificate. The assessee, who is the respondent is a limited company carrying on business of tea planting. It owns several tea estates in the States of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Assam. Its head office is in Munnar in the State of Kerala. One of the tea estates owned by the assessee is called Chittavurai Tea Estate and comprises 1043 acres of tea plantations. Out of this an area of 1006.60 acres is situate in Kerala and the remaining 36.40 acres, in Tamil Nadu. According to the assessee Chittavurai Estate is working as one unit. There is only one factory manufacturing tea grown in the Madras and Kerala portion of the estate. The expenses are incurred for the maintenance of the whole estate as one unit and common accounts are maintained for it, there being no separate account for the Madras portion.2. Section 2(1) of the Indian Income tax Act 1922 hereinafter called the 'Income tax Act' defines 'agricult...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC383; (1972)4SCC604; [1972]1SCR977; 1972(4)LC77(SC)
S.M. Sikri, C.J.1. By judgment dated May 26, 1970, this Court (Sikri J., as he then was and Ray J.) allowed Civil Appeal No. 542 of 1967, set aside the judgment of the High Court and passed a decree in favour of the appellant after modifying the decree passed by the Trial Court. The respondent subsequently filed Review Petition No. 35 of 1970 for review on the ground that they had failed to bring to the notice of the Court the provisions of Travancore Regulation IX of 1094 and the fact that the loans were granted under the above Regulation. We allowed review on February 1, 1971. This judgment is, however, in continuation of our earlier judgment dated May 26, 1970.2. The only new point which needs discussion is the effect of the provisions of Travancore Regulation IX of 1094 on our conclusion on the fourth point in that judgment.3. We had inter alia held that the 'fourth point raised by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff is fatal for the respondent.' We observed that 'the bonds do no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC386; [1971]82ITR804(SC); (1972)4SCC517; [1972]1SCR991
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred to the High Court for its opinion was:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs. 70,000/-by the assessee on 11-6-1954 was revenue or capital in nature.2. The High Court held that the said receipt was capital receipt. Aggrieved by that decision the Commissioner of Income-tax came up in appeal to this Court.3. We shall now refer to the material facts found by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as can be gathered from the case stated. The assessee was assessed as an individual. The relevant assessment year is 1955-56, the accounting period for the same ended on Asad sudi 1, S.Y. 2011.4. The assessee was instrumental in discovering the existence of Kankar deposits in Jind State. He also brought about an agreement bet...
Tag this Judgment!