Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2106; [1975]100ITR706(SC); (1975)2SCC538; [1976]1SCR126
K.K. Mathew, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a reference made at the instance of the assessee M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (here-inafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act. The Question referred was:Whether the inference of the Tribunal that the profit of Rupees 2,13,150/- arising from the sale of 1,58,200 shares of the Gwalior Rayon Silk -., is assessable as business profit is correct?.2. When the reference cams up for hearing before the High Court, the High Court found that although the Tribunal was of the view that the question referred was a mixed question of law and fact, it had not stated all the facts and circumstances on which it based its conclusion that the profit of Rs. 2,13,150/- was a business profit and so the Court called for a supplementary statement of the case and a supplementary st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1854; (1975)4SCC477; 1975(7)LC580(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The narrow question for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether in the exercise of its revisional powers under Section 439 of the CrPC, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was justified in ordering a re-trial of the appellants. The revision application before the High Court was filed by a private party in a case which was not instituted upon a complaint.2. It is alleged that on the night of June 26, 1972 the appellants committed the murder of one Tata and caused grievous injuries to seven others. The Learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, acquitted the appellants of all the charges leveled against them. As against the order of acquittal. Peda Appadu, a brother of the deceased filed a revision application in the High Court. Taking the view that the learned Sessions Judge had wholly overlooked the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 8 and 12 to 15 and that he had wrongly treated the First Information Report, as a piece of substantive evidence in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1975(31)FLR173]; (1975)IILLJ352SC; (1976)3SCC71; [1976]1SCR119; 1975(7)LC590(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the award of the Labour Court, Poona directing the reinstatement of the respondent in the service of the appellant company. 2. The respondent was a watchman in the factory of the appellant at Chinchwad, Poona. A domestic enquiry was held against him in respect of an incident on the night of 15-16 December, 1963 and following the enquiry he was dismissed from service on the 7th January 1964. His appeal was dismissed after a personal hearing by the Appellate Authority. Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act came into force on 1st December 1965 and on 23rd June 1967 a reference was made by the Government of Maharashtra regarding the dismissal of the respondent to the Labour Court, Poona and the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry held against the respondent was defective, that the charges against the respondent had not been made out and directed him to be reinstated. 3. There were four charges framed against the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1856; [1975(31)FLR178]; 1975LabIC1429; (1975)IILLJ319SC; (1976)1SCC63; [1976]1SCR110
S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the award dated October 22, 1969 by Mr. R. Medhi, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Gauhati on a reference made to the Tribunal by the Government of Assam by virtue of its notification No. FLR. 46/61/194 dated July 14, 1965, in view of an industrial dispute having existed between the parties. The appellant is the management of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. which has undertaken what is known as the Assam Oil Refineries situated at Gauhati. The reference to the Tribunal was made by the Government in the following circumstances:By virtue of a notification dated September 3, 1957, the Central Government granted compensatory allowance according to certain rates to all Central Government employees posted throughout Assam. The appellant set up the refinery some time in the year 1059 and in view of the circular of the Central Government referred to above the management thought it fit in the circumstances to grant comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1994; (1975)2SCC526; [1976]1SCR105; 1975(7)UJ582(SC)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 185 of 1973.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 25th April, 1972 of the Calcutta High Court in Second Appeal being appeal-No. 859 of 1969. Sachendra Chowdhary, S. K. Dholakia and R. C. Bhatia for the appellant.P. Chatterjee and Rathim Das, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Goswami, J.-In this appeal by special leave directed against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court the only question that arises for106consideration is whether the respondent is a thika tenant under section 2(5) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act 1949. On June 1, 1956, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants (the latter, hereinafter to be described as the landlord) gave the land with which we are concerned in this appeal to the respondent (hereinafter to be described as the tenant) for occupation as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- for one year. One of the conditions of the tenancy was that "the premises...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1975)2SCC430
P.N. BHAGWATI, J.1. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal are in material respects identical with those in Indian Aluminium Company v. Kerala State Electricity Board1 which we have disposed of by a judgment delivered this morning. The judgment in Indian Aluminium Company v. Kerala State Electricity Board will, therefore, govern the decision of the present appeal as well.2. We accordingly issue a writ quashing and setting aside the notification dated November 28, 1969 insofar as it seeks to make the tariffs specified in it applicable to the appellant and declare that the Board is not entitled to claim from the appellant anything more than the charges specified in the agreement dated October 26, 1964. We also issue a writ restraining the Board from enforcing the notification dated November 28, 1969 against the appellant or claiming from the appellant anything more than the charges specified in the agreement dated October 26, 1964. The appeal is accordingly allowed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1867; (1975)2SCC352; [1976]1SCR102; 1975(7)LC595(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. A spiral of reversals is the fate of this litigative battle between the appellant and the first respondent over a permit to ply a bus on the route between Madurai and Paramakkudi, in Tamil Nadu. While its admission into this Court was by special leave, the first round or the contest was fought before RTA (Regional Transport Authority) which, on an evaluation of the relative merits and demerits of the rivals, granted the permit to the present appellant, but this victory was short-lived because, at the second stage of the legal bout, the STAT (State Transport Appellate Tribunal) held that the respondent before us had better claims. The worsted appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and the learned Single Judge, who heard the petition, re-judged the relevance and weight of the points, pro and con, and as a result of this adjudicatory exercise on facts, demolished the order of the STAT. The learned Judge disagreed with the conclu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1975)2SCC436
P.N. BHAGWATI, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is brought against an order of the High Court of Orissa dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing a press note dated February 1, 1971, levying a coal surcharge at the rate of 0.62 p. per unit on electricity supplied by the Orissa State Electricity Board from the Talcher-Hirakud grid. The writ petition came to be filed by the appellant in the following circumstances.2. The appellant is a limited liability company carrying on business of manufacture of board and paper. The appellant wanted to set up its factory at a place which would be convenient from the point of view of availability of facilities such as electric power. The State of Orissa had, about this time, commissioned hydroelectric station at the site of Hirakud dam with a view to stepping up the production of electricity and making it available for industrial purposes. It offered to supply electricity to the appellant at reasonable rates as also to make oth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1967; (1975)2SCC414; [1976]1SCR70
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The short but important question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether a State Electricity Board has power to enhance the rates for supply of electricity notwithstanding an agreement binding it to supply electricity at certain rates where it finds that the contractual rates are less than the cost of generation, distribution and supply of electricity and in the result there is loss to the State Electricity Board in its operations. In order to appreciate how the question arises, it is necessary to state a few facts giving rise of the appeal. 2. The petitioner is a limited liability company which carries on business of manufacturing aluminium. The manufacture of aluminium involves three processes, viz., mining of bauxite ore, dressing it and converting it into alumina and reduction of alumina into aluminium, The petitioner carried on bauxite mining at the quarries in Bihar and also set up its factory in Bihar for dressing Bauxite ore and converting i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1975)2SCC431
P.N. BHAGWATI, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order of the High Court of Orissa allowing a writ petition filed by the first respondent for quashing a press note dated February 1, 1971 levying a coal surcharge at 0.62 p. per unit of electricity supplied by the Orissa State Electricity Board to the first respondent. The writ petition came to be filed by the first respondent in the following circumstances.2. The first respondent is a limited liability company carrying on business of manufacturing aluminium. It has several factories at different places in the country where it carries on one or the other processes involved in the manufacture of aluminium. It was desirous of setting up another factory and for that purpose it was looking for a place where it would be able to secure at reasonable rates electrical energy which is a primary raw material in the method of electrolysis employed for the purpose of converting alumina into aluminium. The State of Orissa ha...
Tag this Judgment!