Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1023; [1972]86ITR621(SC); (1973)3SCC157; [1973]2SCR215
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. These appeals are by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland. Appeal No. 1136 of 1969 is of Mahadeo Mrigendra Jalan, by Mahadeo Prasad as the karta of Hindu undivided family, while appeal No. 1135 of 1969 is by him in his individual capacity. In both these appeals, the Hindu undivided family as well as the individual were holding shares in five companies in respect of which shares, dividend was being declared. The Wealth-tax Officer computed the valuation of those shares on the basis of the break-up value and included them in their total wealth. In Appeals Nos. 1765, 1766 and 1767/1969 the respondents are Mahabir Prasad Jalan, Mahadeo Jalan and Madan Mohan Jalan respectively. Ali these appeals pertain to assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. In respect of these years the value of the shares in private limited companies were included in the total wealth of the respective assessees on the basis of their yield though some of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2661; 1973CriLJ179; (1972)2SCC749; [1973]2SCR197
I.D. Dua, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appellant Gurcharan Singh, his servant Shri Sanjha Ram, Dalip Singh, his wife Smt. Surjit Kaur and under the latter section to rigorous imprisonment for four Sessions Judge. Karnal on charges Under Sections 366, 368 and 376, Indian Penal Code. Gurcharan Singh appellant, with whom alone we are concerned in this appeal was charged with commission of offences Under Sections 366 and 376. IPC. The trial court acquitted Phullan and Surjit Kaur but convicted Gurcharan Singh, appellant, Under Sections 366 and 376. IPC sentencing him under the former section to rigorous imprisonment for three years and under the latter section to rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs. 200. with further rigorous imprisonment for six months in the event of default in payment of fine. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. Sanjha Ram was convicted Under Section 376. IPC and sentenced to rigorous ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2330; [1972]86ITR439(SC); (1973)3SCC76; [1973]2SCR207
K.S. Hegde, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, declining to call upon the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Calcutta to state a case as desired by it, the assessee has brought this appeal by special leave. The question for decision is whether any question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal which required the Tribunal to state the case for the opinion of the High Court. 2. The assessee is a registered firm of three partners, Madanlal Bagaria, Bajranglal Bagaria and Sohanlal Bagaria, each having a 1/3rd share in the partnership. The partners are brothers. Its business is that of manufacture and sale of aluminium utensils. Upto the assessment year 1962-63, the firm was making its sales direct to the customers. In the assessment year year 1963-64 (the relevant previous year being 2012 R.N. 13-4-1963 to 1-4-1964) the assessee claimed to have paid Rs. 31,684/- to Messrs. Eastern Sales Corpn. as selling agency commission and claimed deduction of the same Under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC505; 1973CriLJ1; (1973)1SCC451; 1973(5)LC380(SC)
Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dt. 18 July, 1969 of the High Court at Calcutta convicting the appellant under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for one month.2. The appellant was served with a notice on 21 February, 1962 requiring him to leave India within thirty days. He did not do so. He was arrested on 7 May, 1962. He was prosecuted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act for violation of the notice to leave India. The defence of the appellant was that he was not a foreigner but was an Indian citizen. The Magistrate found that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant was a foreigner and acquitted the appellant. The High Court reversed the acquittal.3. Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was an Indian citizen.4. The appellant was born at Sylhet which on the partition of India in 1947 became part of Pakistan. He came to Calcutta in 1914. He obtained a Pakistani passport in 1952.5. It w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC62; 1974CriLJ391; (1973)3SCC401; 1973(5)LC359(SC)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is by certificate against the dismissal in limine of the writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court of Punjab and Harayana. The appellant was convicted under Section 8(2) read with Sections 23-A and 23 B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) on the allegation that the appellant and one Gopal Dass of Delhi were attempting to smuggle Rs. 1,40,000 in currency notes in Rs. 100 denominations across the border. The appellant who is the owner of immovable and movable properties of substantial value was seen along with one Gopal Dass carrying a tin box and approaching a customs cum-police raiding party also termed as nakabandi party near the borders of Pakistan, a little distance away from the village Valtoha on the night of September 25, 1961 at about 9 p.m. When they reached the nakabandi point probably noticing the party in binding they turned back and started running towards the house of the appellant and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC563; (1973)1SCC480
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by M/s. Fonseca Pvt. Ltd. and others challenging an order made by Shri L. C. Gupta, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, purporting to have been made under Rule 155 of the Defence of India Rules read with Section 8(48) of the Defence of India Act, 1971 directing the said company and others who 'may be in occupation', to vacate the building known as 1, Man Singh Road, New Delhi, within seven days from the date of the notice. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.2. It is not necessary to state the facts in detail. In our opinion the matter could be disposed of on one ground and it was wholly unnecessary for the High Court to have decided the other points which were raised before it.3. The impugned order dated December 18, 1971 which was addressed to M/s. Fonseca Pvt. Ltd. through its Directors and to other persons mentione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1973]87ITR349(SC); (1973)3SCC133; [1973]2SCR184
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This judgment would dispose of civil appeals No. 1133 and 1134 of 1969 which have been filed by special leave by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in two references Under Section 66 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the question which arises for determination is whether there was relevant material before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to hold that the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 in fixed deposit in the name of Biswanath Gupta (Bhuwalka) was the concealed income of the respondent firm for the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1946-47. Appeal No. 1133 relates to the sum of Rs. 4,50,000 out of the above sum of Rs. 5,00,000, while appeal No. 1134 relates to the remaining sum of Rs. 50,000 out of the sum of Rs. 5,00,000. 2. The assessee firm, who is the respondent in these two appeals, is a registered firm consisting of six partners. The names of the partners and their shares...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC171; (1973)1SCC37; [1973]2SCR172
A. N. Ray, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the Judgment dated 1 March, 1967 of Naik, J. of the High Court at Bombay allowing Civil Revision Application Under Section 115 of the CPC filed by the respondent Dr. Deshpande.2. The principal question which falls for consideration in this appeal is the construction of Section 42A of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (referred to as the 1882 Act) incorporated by Maharashtra Amendment Act 1963. The section is set out hereunder : 42A. Procedure where occupant contests as a lawful tenant, etc. - (1) If in any application pending in the Small Cause Court immediately before the date of the commencement of the Presidency Small Cause Courts (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1963 (Mah. XLI of 1963) or made to it on or after such date, the occupant appears at the time appointed within the meaning of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bom. LVII of 1947) and in consequence whereof he is entitled to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC178; (1973)3SCC104; [1973]2SCR157
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in an election petition filed by the appellant Prahladdas Khandelwal one of the candidates for the Mid-term election to the Lok Sabha from the Betul Parliamentary Constituency No. 26 in the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging the election of the respondent Narendra Kumar Salave-the returned candidate. 2. Some of the material dates may be noticed. The notification calling for the election was issued on January 27, 1971. The last date for filing the nomination paper was February 3, 1971; the scrutiny was to take place on February 4, 1971. The election was to be actually held on March 4, 1971 and the election result was to be declared on March 11. 1971. 3. The appellant filed his nomination paper on February 2, 1971. An acknowledgement of the receipt of the nomination paper was given by the Assistant Returning Officer. The Assistant Returning Officer gave a certificate under Article 84 of the Constitution...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC66; (1973)1SCC51; [1973]2SCR166
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab for the issue of an appropriate writ or order quashing a notice dated June 21, 1961, issued Under Section 4(1) of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959, hereinafter called the 'Act', directing the 2nd appellant to show cause why an order of eviction should not be passed against him in respect of the premises in question.2. The appellant's case was as follows. On the demise of the late Maharaja Bhupinder Singh, his eldest son, Maharaja Yadavindra Singh succeeded to the gaddi of the erstwhile State of Patiala which subsequently merged with the State of Punjab. Maharaja Bhupinder Singh, along with his sons including the appellants, constituted a joint Hindu family. The appellants along with the other sons of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh had an interest, by virtue of their being coparceners, in all the properties of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh. The appellants, along with the...
Tag this Judgment!