Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1634; (1976)1SCC304; [1975]3SCR783
1. There were three candidates to contest the election to the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh from the Bhainsdeshi Assembly (Reserved) Constituency in the last general elections. The appellant in this appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act; 1951-hereinafter referred to as the Act, was declared elected to the seat defeating the other two candidates who are respondents 2 and 3. Respondent No. 1 filed an Election Petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the election of the appellant on serveral grounds. The election of the appellant has been declared void by a learned single Judge of the High Court on one ground only. It has been held that he indulged in a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Act. We shall confine the statement of facts in this case to the only ground on which the appellant's election has been set aside.2. Respondent No. 1 stated in paragraph 6 of his election petition :(iv) That after the date o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1017; (1975)4SCC16; [1975]3SCR735; 1975(7)LC275(SC)
1. These six appeals by certificates granted by the High Court of Delhi arise out of six writ petitions filed by the respondent before us challenging the validity of six notices dated September 7, 1965 issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The notices relate to the assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52, the corresponding accounting years ending on the 30th September of 1948, 1949 and 1950 respectively. Three of the notices were issued to the petitioner in his individual capacity and the other three were served on him as a member of an association of persons. The petitioner had been assessed as an individual for the aforesaid assessment years in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Income-Tax Act 1922. Thereafter a Commission known as Vivian Bose Commission was appointed to enquire into the affairs of various companies with which the appellant was alleged to have been associated. On the facts disclosed in the report of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1039; (1975)4SCC22; [1975]3SCR743; [1975]35STC413(SC); 1975(7)LC267(SC)
1. The common question of law for determination in these appeals by special leave is : Whether 14(2) of the Limitation Act, in terms, or, in principle, can be invoked for excluding the time spent in prosecuting an application under Rule 68(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules for setting aside the order of dismissal of appeal in default, under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, the Sales-tax Act) from computation of the period of limitation for filing a revision under that Act?2. It arises out of these circumstances.3. The respondent, M/s. Parson Tools and Plants (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) carries on business at Kanpur. The Sales-tax Officer assessed tax for the assessment years, 1958-1959 and 1959-60, on the assessee by two separate orders. The assessee filed appeals against those orders before the Appellate Authority. On May 10, 1963, when the appeals came up for hearing, the assessee was absent. The appeals were, therefore, dismissed in default by virtue of Rule 68(5)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1549; (1975)2SCC22; [1975]3SCR753; [1975]35STC571(SC)
1. These appeals raise the question as to whether the assessees under the Central Sales. Tax Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Central Act could be made liable for penalty under the provisions of the State Sales Tax Act hereinafter referred to as the State Act. The penalty imposed under the State Act is for default in payment of taxes within the prescribed time.2. The Central Act states Section 9(1) that thetax payable by any dealer under the Central Act on sales of goods effected by him in the course of inter-state trade or commerce shall be levied by the Government of India and the tax so levied shall be collected by that Government in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) in the State from which the movement of goods commenced.3. Section 9(2) of the Central Act is as follows : -Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, the authorities for the time being empowered to assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1525; (1975)2SCC361; [1975]3SCR709
1. There is a building bearing No. 24/6, Tulsa Kothi, situated at Mall in the City of Kanpur. The appellant in this appeal filed by certificate of the Allahabad High Court is the owner of the said building. He lives in the upper floor of the building with his son and other members of the family. There are two shops in the ground floor in which tenants had been inducted. One of the shops has been coining in possession of Raghunath Prasad Mehrotra, respondent No. 3 and his brother Kanahyalal Mehrotra who have been carrying on the business of Druggists and Chemists in the said shop as partners of the firm Pioneer Drug Stores. The other shop was in the tenancy of Bata Shoe Company Ltd. Since the said Company had taken another shop on rent sometime in the year 1961 it was about to vacate the shop in the building of the appellant. He, therefore, filed an application on 7-11-1961 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (for brevity, Rent Controller) with a copy to the District Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1290; (1975)1SCC815; [1975]3SCR726; 1975(7)LC260(SC)
1. Premises No. 4-A, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, belonged to the appellant Gopal Krishna Das and four others, each having an undivided one-fifth share therein. In 1951, one Ganga Prosad Gupta obtained two money-decrees against the appellant and another person in the total sum of Rs. 12,378. In execution of these decrees, the undivided one-fifth share of the appellant was put to sale on June 16, 1954 and was purchased by Pashupati Nath Biswas, the father of the first respondent, for Rs. 77,040. Pashupati Nath Biswas deposited Rs. 19,260 in the court, being 25% of the purchase price and later he deposited a further sum of Rs. 15,000. He however, failed to pay the balance of the purchase price whereupon the appellant made an application that the property be put to a fresh sale. Accordingly, the property was put to sale on March 20, 1957 and once again Pashupati Nath Biswas was the highest bidder. But whereas in the first sale he had offered a bid of Rs. 77,040 this time the sale was knock...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1975)4CTR(SC)65
Sarkaria, J. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment, dated 24-1-1969, of the High Court of Delhi answering in the affirmative the following question referred to in under s. 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (for short, the Act) by the Commissioner of Income-tax :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the capital loss of Rs. 28,662/- could be determined and carried forward in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 when the provisions of section 12B of the Income-tax Act, 1922 itself were not applicable in the assessment year 1955-56.'2. The assessee (respondent) is a Private Limited Company. The assessment year under reference is 1955-56 and the relevant previous year is from 1-5-1953 to 30-4-1954. On 10-1-1952 the assessee purchased 1124 shares of M/s. Intercontinent Travancore Pvt. Ltd. at a cost of Rs. 1,12,400/- from M/s. Escorts (A.M. Ltd. In the relevant accounting year ending on 30-4-1953 the assessee re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1282; [1975]99ITR118(SC); (1975)3SCC868; [1975]3SCR696
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment, dated 24-1-1969, of the High Court of Delhi answering in the affirmative the following question referred to it under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (for short, the Act) by the Commissioner of Income-tax-.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the capital loss of Rs. 28,662/- could be determined and carried forward in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, when the provisions of Section 12B of the Income-tax Act, 1922 itself were not applicable in the assessment year 1955-56. 2. The assessee (respondent) is a Private Limited Company. The assessment year under reference is 1955-56 and the relevant previous year is from 1-5-1953 to 30-4-1954. On 10-1-1952 the assessee purchased 1124 shares of M/s. Intercontinental Travancore Pvt. Ltd. at a cost of Rs. 1,12,400/- from M/s. Escorts (A&M;) Ltd. In the relevant accounting year ending on 30-4-1953 the assessee receive...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1058; (1976)1SCC377; [1975]3SCR705; 1975(7)LC257(SC); 1975()WLN52
1. By the above Writ Petitions the Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Cash Jagirs Abolition Act, 1953 (Act No. 29 of 1958) is challenged as violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights, under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution.2. The facts of Writ Petition No. 610 of 1970 may alone be sufficient. The petitioner states that in view of the near relationship as well as in lieu of her husband's share in the parental jagir of Riri the Maharaja of Bikaner sanctioned a separate cash grant to her husband, Maharaj Chander Singh ji, of Rs. 1200/- per annum on May 23, 1942. This amount was continuously paid to her husband by the State of Bikaner and was later raised to Rs. 2400/- per annum with effect from February 2, 1943. This grant of Rs. 2400/- with an addition of Rs. 600/- as clearness allowance was shared between her and her husband under the order of the Prime Minister of Bikaner State dated September 18, 1942. This payment of Rs. 1500/- per annum was continued to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1303; (1975)1SCC565; [1975]3SCR686; 1975(7)LC235(SC)
1. This judgment will govern Writ Petitions Nos. 517 of 1972 and 240 of 1973.2. The applications are directed against what is described as a Housing Accommodation Scheme sanctioned by the Indore Improvement Trust (briefly the Trust) under the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act 1960 (briefly the Act). Brief facts of Writ Petition No. 517 of 1972 may alone be sufficient. There was an earlier attempt to acquire the land of the petitioner by sanctioning a scheme in July 1961 but the same was cancelled some time in September 1962. The petitioner personally wanted to develop his land for industrial purposes and with that end in view obtained No Objection Certificates from various Government Departments as well as from the Trust. The petitioner also succeeded in converting his patta from agricultural purpose to industrial purpose, subject, inter alia, to the limitation that the construction work on the land shall be carried out in accordance with the plans sanctioned by the same Improv...
Tag this Judgment!