Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC251; 1976LabIC162; (1976)ILLJ10SC; (1976)2SCC231; [1976]2SCR42; 1975(7)LC842(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J. 1. This appeal is by special leave granted by this Court against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar at Patna in reference No. 54 of 1966 made by the Government of Bihar on 25th November, 1966. The special leave granted is limited only to the question whether there should be a contributory provident fund scheme on the basis of basic wages or total wages. It was noted at the time of granting the special leave that the appellant Board is willing to extend that scheme to all the workers except the Government servants who are on deputation and those to whom the Employee's Provident Fund Act applies. Therefore the only item in reference No. 54 of 1966 which is relevant for the purpose of this appeal is the following: Whether the benefit of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 should be extended to any additional categories of workmen? If so, what should be the terms and conditions and from what date? 2. The Employees' Provident Fund Act applied only to establi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC294; 1976CriLJ295; 1976MhLJ174(SC); (1976)78PLR194; (1976)1SCC727; [1976]2SCR11
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Delhi upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161, Penal Code. The facts are these:2. On 16-1-1970, Ramesh alias Kaka (PW 1), Mst. Maya (PW 2) and Jayna (PW 8) went to the Railway Station to receive one Mst. Mumtaz, who was expected from Bombay by 1.45 p. m. train. Finding them loitering there, a constable of the Railway police took them to the appellant at the Railway Police Post where he was posted as an Assistant Sub-Inspector. The appellant gave a beating to Ramesh and demanded an explanation as to why they had come to the Railway Station. Ramesh said that they had come to receive 6ne Mst. Mumtaz, who was expected from Bombay by train at about 1.45 P. M, The appellant questioned if Mumtaz was being brought to Delhi for prostitution. Ramesh and his companions refuted the insinu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC143; (1976)1SCC124; [1976]2SCR38; 1975(7)LC835(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. On 15-7-1974 the appellant applied for a licence under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) places of Public Resort Act, 1888 for conducting games of skill and dances and other quality performances in a village adjoining the district headquarters' town of Nellore, with its 12 cinema theatres, in Andhra Pradesh. That Act has been extended to this Panchayat. On 25-9-1974 the licence was refused by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat. Its grant had been objected to by the Superintendent of Police as also two associations called Mitramandali and town Yuvajanasangham. But on appeal to the village Panchayat as provided in Section 129 of the Panchayat Act a licence was granted to 1st October, 1974. The Mitramandali made a representation to the Chief Minister and the District Panchayat Officer, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Superintendent of Police, the Tehsildar, and the Revenue Divisional Officer also reported against the grant of licence. On 21st January, 197...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC140; [1975]101ITR465(SC); (1976)1SCC241; [1976]1SCR1017; 1975(7)LC838(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Politics and philanthropy may well fall victim to the construction of Section 5(a) and (j) of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1958 (the Act, for short) if we fall victim to the submission naively made, at the first stage, by counsel for the State. In fairness to him, we must state that later he retracted from that position, and rightly so, for the Act, in spirit and letter, does not in-tend this blow on profession of the politics or the disposition for donations. 2. A fair reading of the provisions in question convincingly excludes from 'taxable expenditure' sums wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of a profession or occupation carried on by the assessee and no modern man may dispute that politics is a profession or occupation. Likewise, expenditure by way of gift or donation incurred by the assessee is also excluded and no politically conscious soul will deny that donation to a party in democracy squarely comes within this exclusionary provision. The factu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(SC)53
Krishna Iyer, J. - Politics and philanthropy may well fall victim to the construction of section 5 (a) and (j) of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1958 (the Act, for short) if we fall victim to the submission naively made, at the first stage, by counsel for the State. In fairness to him, we must state that later he retracted from that position, and rightly so, for the Act, in spirit and letter, does not intend this blow on the profession of politics or the disposition for donations.2. A fair reading of the provisions in question convincingly excludes from taxable expenditure sums wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of a profession or occupation carried on by the assessee and no modern man may dispute that politics is a profession or occupation. Likewise, expenditure by way of gift or donation incurred by the assessee is also excluded and no politically conscious soul will deny that donation to a party in a democracy squarely comes within this exclusionary provision.The factual matr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC394; 1976CriLJ336; (1976)1SCC412; [1976]2SCR1
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. It arises out of these circumstances:On Jan. 8, 1969, B. R. Kochhar, Food Inspector. purchased 600 grams of Kaju-Tukra (cashewnut pieces) as sample for analysis from the grocery shop of Kacheroo Mal, Respondent in Khari Baoli, Delhi The sample was divided into three equal parts and sealed into three bottles. An inventory was prepared which was read over and explained to the respondent, who thereafter signed it One of these bottles was given to the respondent, one was retained by the Inspector, while the third was handed over to the Public Analyst on the following day for examination. The Public Analyst has reported:Date of Analysis:10-1-1969. Insect-infested pieces of Kajus: 21.9% and I am of the opinion that the same is adulterated due to insect infested pieces of Kajus to the extent of 21.9%.2. On the preceding facts, the Food Inspector filed a complai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC309; (1976)1SCC91; [1976]2SCR32; 1975(7)LC832(SC)
A. Alagiriswami. J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution by which it not only set aside the ex-parte decrees passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bombay in a suit for eviction and rent but dismissed the suit itself. The facts are as follows:2. The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant-respondents for recovery of possession of the property leased to them as also rent and means profits in March 1968. It was alleged that the defendants were in arrears of rent from 1st March 1966 and that the rent was Rs. 385/- a month. On 30th January, 1968 a notice to quit was given to the defendants and the notice was served on 1st February 1968. On 20th February 1968 they file an application under Section 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 for fixation of standard rent. It was thereafter that the suit was filed in March 1968. On 23rd November 1968 the suit came...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2076; [1976]103ITR797(SC); (1976)1SCC814; [1976]1SCR1014; 1975(7)LC830(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This is really a case where litigation would have been avoided, had the concerned Income-tax Officer carried out the directions issued by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, with quick dispatch to determine the ownership of the deposit in the Bank account as between the-respondent before us and his nephew Madanlal.The Facts2. There was a bank account in which a huge sum as lying in deposit The assessing authority proceeded on the footing that the amount represented the income of one Madanlal, in whose name the Bank account stood. He contested his ownership and urged that really this sum belonged to his uncle who is the respondent before us. Any way his contention was over-ruled by the Income-tax Officer, but, in appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the order and directed that the Income-tax Officer do determine the real ownership of the bank deposit. This was done in September 1970. It is admitted before us that, although we are in October 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC826; 1976CriLJ634; (1976)1SCC665; 1975(7)LC863(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan reversing the acquittal of the appellant by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chittorgarh.2. The prosecution case against the appellant, as unfolded in the evidence of the witness of the prosecution, was as follows: The appellant was connected with the firm of M/s. Dhanalal Shankarlal of Jaura and acting on behalf of that firm, he applied on 7th June, 1965 to the Collector, Chittorgarh for a permit to transport sixty bags of rice from Kenera to Chittorgarh Kenera is in the State of Rajasthan near its border with the State of Madhya Pradesh and Chittorgarh is also in the State of Rajasthan, but for going from Kenera to Chittorgarh one has to pass through the territory of the State of Madhya Pradesh for a few miles. The application for a permit had to be made because it appears that there was a prohibition against transport of food grains from one part of Rajasthan to anothe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC701; (1976)4SCC348
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The appellant, who was accused No. 1, was tried along with accused No. 2 by the Sessions Court, Kottayam, for offences under Sections 302 and 326 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code on the allegation that in pursuance of the common intention of both, the appellant caused the death of one Thomas by inflicting on him three injuries with a malappuram knife, M.O. 1 and the second accused caused grievous hurt to one Mathew, P.W. 2 by inflicting two injuries on him with a similar knife, M.O. 2, on the mid night between 8th/9th March, 1970. The Sessions Court acquitted the appellant and the second accused but, on appeal by the State, the High Court found that the prosecution case was established beyond reasonable doubt and it accordingly convicted the appellant of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing the death of Thomas and accused No. 2 of the offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to Mathew P...
Tag this Judgment!