Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC848; (1973)3SCC748; 1972(4)LC771(SC)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is against the order dated February 28, 1972 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Special Civil Application No. 223 of 1972.2. As the order appealed against is an interlocutory order, it is not necessary to refer in any great detail to the circumstances under which the writ petition has been filed in the High Court as well as the defence raised on behalf of the respondents. It is enough to state that the appellant in the writ petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution prayed for quashing the notification dated December 9, 1971 issued by the Director of Agriculture Market, Poona-1, purporting to be issued under Sections 3 and 4(3) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, and for certain other consequential reliefs. Pending the said writ petition, the appellant prayed for an interim order prohibiting the respondents herein from enforcing the said notification and from interfering with the rights a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC494; 1972CriLJ1214; (1972)3SCC504
J.M. Shelat, J.1. These two appeals, founded on special leave obtained from this Court, are directed against two orders passed by the High Court of Allahabad, dated March 16. 1967 and July 24, 1967 respectively. The first order was passed in Criminal Miscellaneous application No. 3334 of 1966 under Section 561-A of the CrPC for quashing the Criminal case against the respondent pending before the Third Temporary Additional Sessions Judge. Allahabad on charges under Sections 408 and 477A of the Penal Code, A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed that application and quashed the said proceedings as the State had failed to file any counter-affidavit against the statements made by the respondent in the said application. The second order was passed in an application filed by the State for recalling the said order. The same learned Judge dismissed that application observing that the State had had five months' time to file a reply to the respondent's said application, that the State h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1972]86ITR1(SC)
Sikri, C.J. 1. M/s. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd., the assessee, claimed to deduct Rs. 5,63,670 payable as wealth-tax for the assessment year 1959-60, from its assessable income for that year. The Income-tax Officer; disallowed the claim. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred was incidental to business and allowed the claim of the assessee, observing that the wealth-tax payments should be allowed in the years when they are actually paid.2. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the following question was referred to the High Court: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, having. regard to the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act of 1957, the allowance of wealth-tax liability was correct 3. The High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee. This judgment of the High Court is dated November 24, 1964. The revenue; obtained...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1880; [1972]84ITR735(SC); (1972)2SCC150; [1973]1SCR15
S.M. Sikri, C.J.(on Behalf of self, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray and D.G. Palekar, JJ.)1. These appeals have been referred by a Division Bench of this Court to a larger Bench as the Division Bench felt that the decision of this Court in Travancore Titanium Product Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax : [1966]60ITR277(SC) .Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, the sum of Rupees 1,59,630/- paid by the assessee as wealth-tax was legally deductible as a business expense in computing the assessee's income from business?2. The High Court, following the decision of this Court in Travancore Titanium case : [1966]60ITR277(SC) , answered the question against the assessee. Having obtained certificate of fitness from the High Court, the assessee has appealed to us.3. Basing himself on Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of I.T. : [1965]56ITR365(SC) it was contended by the learned Counsel for the Revenue that we should not review our decision in Travancore Titanium case : [1966]60ITR277(SC) . Gajendragadkar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC276; 1972MPLJ861(SC); (1973)3SCC715; [1973]1SCR59; 1972(4)LC868(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate. It relates to the elections to Municipal Council, Sidhi. The elections were held in 1969. In that election six persons i.e. four appellants and respondents 5 and 6 in this appeal were elected. Thereafter the first respondent herein an elector and apparently a busy body filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the validity of the election of all the returned candidates on several grounds. The High Court accepted that petition and set aside the election of all the returned candidates. The only ground on which the election of the returned candidates was set aside is that the returned candidates in their nomination papers had merely mentioned the number of the wards for which they were candidates but had failed to mention the names of those wards. It is not the case of the election petitioner nor is it the finding of the High Court that there was any difficulty in identifying th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1579; (1972)2SCC1; [1973]1SCR40
I.D. Dua, J.1. Facts necessary for understanding the short but important point arising for decision in this appeal by special leave are these :The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office in New Delhi. Its entire share capital has been subscribed by the Central Government. Pritam Singh Gill, respondent No. 1, in this appeal was employed by the appellant as Junior Engineer at its Bhopal office with effect from the 9th November, 1962 at Rs. 280/- p.m. as basic salary with other allowances. On October 5, 1964 he was suspended and this order of suspension remained in force till September 18, 1967. He was dismissed from service on September 19, 1967. During the period of suspension, on October 7, 1965, the respondent was transferred to Delhi. On June 15, 1968 the respondent applied to the Labour Court at Delhi under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) for computing the benefits and amount he was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1893; 1972MhLJ813(SC); (1973)3SCC750; [1973]1SCR53
G.K. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the Bombay High Court in a Special Civil Application from a decision of the Court of Small Causes Bombay in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction. The revisional court had reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the matter for disposal of the issues other than issues 2 to 8 tried as preliminary issues and decided in favour of the plaintiffs before the Court of Small Causes.2. The facts are as follows. Respondent No. 1 was the owner of a flat on the second floor of Block No. 8 'Shyam Niwas', Warden Road, Bombay. She was a member of a Co-operative Housing Society and had acquired the flat from the said society. In 1959 she had put the appellant Sabharwal Brothers in possession of the flat for a period of 11 months on payment of Rs. 510/- per month. There was an agreement in writing which purported to show that the possession was to be on leave and licence basis. This agreement was signed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1727; (1972)2SCC613
A.N. Grover, J.1. This Is an appeal by Special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court.2. The facts may Be shortly staled. Harbans Lal deceased, now represented by the respondents, let out certain land to one Mistri Ibrahim in January 1941 at a monthly rent of Rs. 12/-. The rent was later on Increased to Rs. 24/- with effect from February 1948. According to the respondent the present appellant colluded with the tenant, Mistri Ibrahim, and entered into possession of the land sometimes before 1950. Mistri Ibrahim ultimately left for Pakistan and the appellant was recognised as his tenant by Harbans Lal on the same terms and conditions. Harbans Lal died in November 1954 and left a will in which he created a trust known as Harbans Lal Charitable Trust. In 1959 after serving a notice on the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy the respondent filed a suit for ejectment. The Suit was contested by the appellant on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2134; 1972CriLJ1277; (1972)3SCC511; 1972(4)LC826(SC)
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the summary dismissal by the High Court of Bombay of the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of conviction & sentence passed against him by the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. Since the appellant's appeal was rejected in limini, there were two alternatives before us, either to remand the case to the High Court with a direction that it should decide the appeal on merits or to decide it ourselves. We decided to follow the latter course in view of the fact that a long time has already elapsed since the trial of the appellant together with the other accused commenced, and a remand to the High Court would result in still further delay.2. Sadiq Hussain Shah (Original accused 1), Tribhuvan Nath (original accused 2 & the appellant herein), Umesh Pandurang and Rusi Mistry (Original accused 3 and 4) were on trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay on charges under Section 120B read with Section 381...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2112; 38(1972)CLT649(SC); (1973)3SCC739
G.K. Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa directing the State of Orissa and other respondents to the petition filed before the High Court to put the said petitioner in possession of the virgin area of the Ib River Colliery claimed to have been taken possession of on the 28th February, 1970 and further restraining the said respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the said colliery in any manner until evicted in due course of law. The order of the High Court was made on a petition filed by the said petitioner (the main contesting respondent before this Court) for relief against the State of Orissa and some of its officers as also the Wes tern Bengal Coal-fields Ltd., the application being one under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the application are as follows. On October 1, 1917 the Secretary of State for India granted and demised unto one T. P. Yeoman the mines,...
Tag this Judgment!