Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC908; 1973(0)BLJR741; 1973CriLJ347; [1973(26)FLR77]; (1972)2SCC890; [1973]1SCR1004
J.M. Shelat, J.1. Section 66 of the Mines Act, 1952 provides that any person omitting -inter alia to furnish any return, notice etc. in the prescribed form or manner or at or within the prescribed time required by or under the Act to be made or furnish shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. l.OOO/-. Section 79 however lays down that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act unless a complaint thereof has been made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed or within six'months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector, whichever is later. The Explanation to the section provides that if the offence in question is a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the said offence continues. Under Regulation 3 of the India Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1926, an owner, agent or manager of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)1CTR(SC)327
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. - The assessee and his wife owned a large number of shares in a private limited company engaged in the business of running hotels. By virtue of Art. 109 of the Articles of Association of the said company, the assessee became the first Managing Director on terms and conditions agreed to and embodied in an agreement dated November 20, 1955 between himself and the company. Under the said agreement, the assessee was to receive Rs. 2,000/- per month, a fixed sum of Rs. 500/-p.m. as car allowance, 10 per cent of gross profits of the company and he and his wife were entitled to free board and lodging in the hotel. For the assessment year 1956-57 for which the accounting year is the year ending 30th September 1955, the assessee was assessed in respect of Rs. 53,9131/- payable to him as 10% of the gross profits of the company which he gave up soon after the accounts were finalised but before they were passed by the general meeting of the shareholders. The above amount was g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1973)2SCC327
D.G. PALEKAR, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Appeal No. 491 of 1966 arising out of Original Suit No. 113/1950 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruchirapalli. The suit was filed by K.S. Srinivasan who is Respondent 1 before us. He was a minor at that time represented by his next friend and natural father Rajagopala Iyengar. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff was the adopted son of one Singam Iyengar (Jr.) and that he was entitled to joint management with the first defendant K. Srinivasa Iyengar of the suit trust, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Pathashala Trust’.2. A few facts will be necessary to be stated. The Pathashala Trust which was known as the “Tennacharya Sampradaya Vidya Pathashala Dharmam” was founded by one Singam Iyengar (Sr.), a very rich and pious Vaishnavite Brahmin, on April 24, 1913. The founder had only one son Kuppuswamy from whom he was divided, af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC566; (1973)4SCC89; 1973(5)LC258(SC)
Dua, J.1. This is a plaintiff-lardlord's appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is directed against the judgment of a learned Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dismissing revision application No. 393 of 1963 treated by the High Court to be under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 57 of 1947 hereinafter called the Act.2. The plaintiff a public trust-instituted a suit for possession of the premises in question against the tenants (who are respondents in this Court) on the ground inter alia of failure to pay rent. That suit was dismissed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad on the ground that the notice given by the landlord was defective. It is unnecessary for our present purpose to go into other details or the history of the suit proceedings in the trial court.3. The City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (VII Court, dismissed the appeal on January 15, 1963. The plaintiff-appellant thereupon mov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2548; 1973CriLJ33; (1972)2SCC692; [1973]1SCR1010; 1973(5)LC350(SC)
S.N. Dwivedi, J.1. The respondent, Lt. Col. S.K. Loraiya, is in the army Service. In November-December, 1962, he was posted as Commander, 625, Air Field . Engineers, Tejpur. He was charged under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(l)(e) and (d) and Section 5(2) the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 467 and 471 I.P.C. by the Special Judge, Gauhati, appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed by him in November-December, 1962, as Commander, 625. Air Field Engineers. Teipur.2. The trial started on June 7. 1966, but the charges were framed against him by the Special Judge on January 7, 1967. The respondent filed a revision against the framing of the charge in the High Court of Assam and Nagaland. The High Court allowed the revision and quashed the charges. Hence this appeal by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, New Delhi, by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.3. The High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2464; (1972)2SCC874; [1973]1SCR959; 1973(5)LC320(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 13 January, 1961 of the High Court at Patna dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants against the award dated 25, May, 1956 of the Arbitrator under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 1952 Act).2. The appellants mother purchased the property known as 'the Crove' situate on Station Road at Patna on 18 September, 1944. The appellants' mother thereafter made a trust deed in the year 1946 in respect of the property in favour of the appellants.3. The property was requisitioned by the Government of India with effect from 17 July, 1942 under Rule 75(A) of the Defence of India Rules. The Government was in possession of the property until the Government decided to acquire the property in the year 1953. The Central Government gave notice under Section 7 of the 1952 Act to acquire the property. The property was acquired in 1953.4. The Government thereafter offe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1200; 1973CriLJ926; (1973)3SCC55; 1973(5)LC254(SC)
Shelat, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is by Chander Singh, one of the five persons who were tried for the offence punishable under Section 396 of the Penal Code by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Hardoi. Of the Five accused put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, two, Ganga Ram & Lal Singh, were acquitted, while the appellant and two others were found guilty and were convicted under Section 396 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Their appeal before the High Court failed and was dismissed.2. There was no dispute that on the midnight between 19th and 20th of January, 1966 a dacoity took place in the house of the deceased Munshi Lal in the village Bejha Basti Nagar. District Hardoi, in the course of which property belonging to Munshi Lal was looted and one of the culprits sprinkled kerosene on the person of Munshi Lal and set fire to his body Munshi Lal died the next day as a result of severe burns while he was being removed to the District Hospital, Hardoi. The house was bei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2607; 1973CriLJ49; (1972)2SCC637; [1973]1SCR923; 1973(5)LC356(SC)
J.M. Shelat, J.1. In March 1967, the appellant was an employee in a sweetmeat shop, known as Bengal Sweet Shop being shop No. 6, Sector II, in Ramakrishna Puram, New Delhi. The shop was owned by one Budh Ram and one A.K. Bhattacharya.2. On March 1.5, 1967, wit. F. Dean, a Food Inspector in the employment of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, went to the said shop and purchased 'patisa' which were sold to him by the appellant. These were sold to him from a lot exposed for sale. The Food Inspector then divided the patisa into three portions and packed each of them into sealed bottles, one of which was handed over by him to the appellant.3. On an analysis of the sample by the Public Analyst appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, XXXVII of 1954 it was found that the patisa were prepared with unpermitted coal tar dye, and therefore, were adulterated food stuff. A complaint to that effect was filed before the Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi, who, after recording evidence, fou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1011; [1972]86ITR19(SC); (1972)4SCC28; [1973]1SCR928
K.S. Hegde, J.1. These are appeals by certificate from the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in a Reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Allahabad bench) referred to tine High Court for its opinion the following questions :(1) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs. 35,01,000/- constituted income liable to tax under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act?(2) Whether it was competent to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to invoke the provisions of Section 12-B for the assessment of Rs. 35,01,000/- when the Income-tax Officer had assessed the amount under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act ?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the receipt of Rs. 35,01,000/- was taxable under Section 12-B of the Income-tax Act ?3. The High Court answered the first and the second question in favour of the Revenue and on the third question it rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2679; 1973CriLJ59; (1972)2SCC640; [1973]1SCR964; 1973(5)LC294(SC)
I.D. Dua, J.1. This appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated May 16, 1969 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowing in part the State appeal from the order of Shri Kartar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur, acquitting the five accused charged under Sections 302, 302/34, 120B and 302/309, I.P.C. and convicting on appeal Trilok Singh and Pala Singh, appellants the former under Section 302, I.P.C. and the latter under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. They were both sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are that Atma Singh, resident of Basti Danish Mandan, Jullundur City had purchased a plot of land measuring 58 kanals and 10 marlas in the aforesaid Basti in the year 1959 for a sum of about Rs. 16,000 from the Government at a public auction. This piece of land was at that time being cultivated by Hazara Singh, one of the five co-accused in the tri...
Tag this Judgment!