Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1569; (1971)2SCC88; [1971]SuppSCR284
G.K. Mitter, J.1. The main question involved in this appeal is, whether the respondent was entitled to sub-soil rights by virtue of the pattas granted in favour of his predecessor-in-interest by Nawab Salar Jung III of Hyderabad and as a consequence thereof became entitled to compensation claimed by him for acquisition of a large block of land containing a hillock of granite which was required tor the Tungabhadra Project and was notified for acquisition under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act on February 3, 1946.2. The relevant facts are as follows. In 1820 the Nizam of Hyderabad granted a jagir, the terms whereof do not appear from the record before us, to his Prime Minister known as Nawab Salar Jung I. This jagir consisted of many villages in the district of Raichur one of them being Madlapur on the bank of the river Tungabhadra. In the year 1930 the successor of the original grantee of the jagir, Nawab Salar Jung III made a grant of an island in that village comprising Section Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1170; (1971)2SCC1; [1971]SuppSCR254
G.K. Mitter, J.1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24 of 1970, a citizen of India who has been carrying on business inter alia of money lending against pledge of gold ornaments, challenges the vires of the Gold Control Act, 1969 read with the rules made thereunder and in particular Sections 6, 8 and 16(1) of the Act.2. The facts on which the petition is based are as follows. The petitioner has a fairly extensive business of money lending in Etawah in U.P. In pursuit of his business he advances moneys to a large number of persons who pledge ornaments made of gold or containing gold and other precious stones, or silver. It includes a seasonal business of agriculturists taking loans from him in the sowing season and repaying the same with interest by redeeming the pledged ornaments. According to the petition such loans are not always redeemed quickly and there are instances of ornaments lying with him under pledge for 10 to 15 years. He also owns along with other members of his family ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1525; 1971CriLJ1153; (1971)2SCC48; [1971]SuppSCR276
Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, by special, leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated September, 18, 1967 of the Delhi High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 5(2) read with Section (5)(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court also confirmed the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment. In addition to this the Special Judge had imposed a tine of Rs. 500; but the High Court reduced the fine to Rs. 100. This was the only modification effected by the High Court with regard to the sentence.2. The case for the prosecution was as follows: The appellant was employed in August, 1965 as Head Constable attached to Hauz Qazi Police Station, Delhi. One Som Nath used to park his rehri in the chowk of Hauz Qazi and sell Kulchey and Chholey. Som Nath had been plying this trade for about 8 or 10 years without payment of the necessary tax to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1586; 1971CriLJ1173; (1971)2SCC42
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 17 March, 1967 of the High Court at Allahabad acquitting all the accused. setting aside their convictions and sentences passed by the Sessions Judge, Agra and rejecting the reference made by the Sessions Judge, Agra for confirmation of death sentences passed upon the accused Sri Mohan, Hari Mohan and Ishaq alias Irshad.2.There were 7 accused. They were Juggo alias Jagdish, Madan Mohan, Sri Mohan, Hari Mohan, Sri Chand, Sri Narayan and Ishaq. Madan Mohan, Sri Mohan and Hari Mohan were sons of Gaya Prasad. Sri Chand and Sri Narayan were sons of Ninua Ram. Ishaq was the servant of Madan Mohan, Sri Mohan and Hari Mohan. They were charged for the murder of Lalu alias Raj Gopal. All the accused excepting Jaggo alias Jagdish were committed under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Jaggo was committed under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1529; 1971CriLJ1162; (1971)3SCC757; 1971(III)LC526(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. The petitioner in these three writ petitions asked for orders in the nature of habeas corpus.2. The petitioner Saifuddin alleges that he was arrested by the police on 4th October, 1970 without any order of arrest or detention. He also alleges that he was not given any cause of arrest or detention at the time of his arrest or thereafter. He therefore challenges that his arrest under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive detention Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is illegal.3. The answer is filed by A.R. Khajuria, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Jammu & Kashmir.It is stated there that the petitioner was detained by the orders of the Secretary to the Government dated 20 June, 1969. He was detained Under Section 3(1)(a)(i) read with Section 5 of the Act. The orders specifically stated that the government was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner pre judicial to the security of the State, it was necessary to detain him. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1974)3CTR(SC)164
Hegde, J. - These are assessees appeal by special leave, directed against the summary dismissal of its applications under Section 25 (2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question of law that the assessee wanted the High Court to direct the tribunal to state for its opinion is :'Whether the refusal of the tribunal to allow the claim for deduction from the gross turnover on account of aggregate sales to registered dealers for reasons given by it is legally valid.'2. The assessee appellant is a registered dealer under the Act. The assessment with which we are concerned in these cases relate to the periods November 2, 1956 to March 31, 1957, 1957-58, 1958-59. The assessee was assessed to tax for the first two periods on September 20, 1957 and June 19, 1958 respectively. Subsequently on June 24, 1959 some of its books were seized and on the basis of the information got from those books, re-assessment proceedings commenced for the periods it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1594; (1971)3SCC265; [1971]SuppSCR245; 1971(III)LC520(SC)
Grover, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a learned single judge of the Calcutta High Court who granted a certificate under Article 132(1) of the Constitution. It involves primarily the question whether the cession of a territory by India as a result of a treaty with Pakistan would be compulsory acquisition of the property comprised in that territory by the Union of India and would, therefore, attract the provisions of Article 31 of our Constitution.2. At the outset it may be mentioned with reference to a preliminary objection which has been raised by the respondents that the judgment under appeal was delivered by the learned single Judge in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and it appears that on an oral prayer made to him he granted a certificate under Article 132(1) even though under the Letters Patent of the High Court an appeal lay to a division bench of that court. This Court has said on an earlier occasion in clear and unequivocal terms that the practice o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1930; (1972)4SCC106; [1971]SuppSCR236; [1971]27STC494(SC); 1971(III)LC554(SC)
Mitter, J.1. All these four appeals are by certificate granted by the High Court of Kerala. Three of them arise out of a common judgment in T.R.C. Nos. 22 and 23 of 1966 and Original Petition No. 1046 of 1966. Appeal No. 175 of 1969 is from the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 243 of 1967 arising out of original Petition No. 1723 of 1965.2. The respondent, a private limited company having its principal place of business at Mattancherry originally in the State of Cochin but now in the State of Kerala, was assessed by the State tax Officer, Special Circle, Mattancherry, to sales-tax for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62 on turnovers which included 'works contracts' executed by the respondent. Before the taxing authorities the contention raised by the respondent was that the turnover on these contracts could not be subject to sales tax. Tax Revision Cases 22 and 23 of 1966 were filed in the High Court under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 to revise the decision of the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1599; (1972)3SCC156; [1971]SuppSCR230; 1971(III)LC568(SC)
Bhargava, J.1. The appellants are admittedly the joint owners of Bungalow No. 45, situated along Tagore Road, in the Cantonment of Kanpur. These premises are recorded in the General Land Register of the Cantonment as occupancy land on old grant terms. It appears that the words 'old grant terms' referred to grants made by the Government under the General Order of the Governor-General in Council dated 12th September, 1836. Subsequently, the first Act to be passed in respect of these lands was the Cantonments Act No. 13 of 1889. This was followed by Cantonments Act No. 15 of 1910 and Cantonments Code, 1912. These were amended by Cantonments Act No. 2 of 1924 which still continues to be in force. On the 26th June, 1925, Rules were framed for the first time under Section 280 of the Cantonments Act of 1924, regulating administration of Cantonment lands. These Rules were, however, superseded by fresh Rules by Government notification dated 23rd November, 1937. The new Rules are described as 'C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1972]83ITR439(SC)
The judgment of the court was delivered byHEGDE J. - These appeals are connected with Civil Appeals Nos. 1813, 1848 of 1967 which we disposed of on July 23, 1971. All there appeals were dealt with by a common judgment by the High Court, in references under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question arising for decision in these appeals is whether some of the losses incurred by the assessee are trading losses or not. The Tribunal has answered that question in favour of the assessee and the finding of the Tribunal has been accepted by the High Court.The assessee is a limited company acting as selling agents of various companies and also carrying on business in shares in jute as also in speculation. The assessment years with which we are concerned in these appeals are 1952-1953 and 1953-54. For the year 1952-53, the assessee returned a total income of Rs. 1,78,508 and for the year 1953-54, it returned an income of Rs. 1,08,573. In respect of the first year, the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!