Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2544; (1975)2SCC688; [1976]37STC527(SC); 1975(7)LC792(SC)
A.G. Gupta, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the only question is whether 'meat on hoof is taxable under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This can be answered only after one is able together the meaning of that expression as used in this case.2. The question arises on the following facts. The appellants are a firm of army contractors, registered as a dealer under the Act as also under the Central Sales Tax Act. Under the contract between them and the army authorities, they had to supply, among other things, meat and meat on hoof. Under Section 6 read with entry 18 of Schedule 8 to the Act no tax is payable on the sale of meat, fish and eggs except when sold in tins, bottles or cartons. For the year 1965 66 the appellants were assessed on the returns filed by them, and the sale of meat to the army, whether in dressed form of as meat on hoof, was not taxed. Subsequently the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, Patiala, issued not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC313; (1975)2SCC736; [1976]1SCR689; [1976]37STC77(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, and the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, a dissolved firm can be assessed or reassessed to sales tax in respect of its pre-dissolution turnover.2. The first appellant-M/s. Murarilal Mahabirprasad was a partnership firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated December 3, 1953. It was doing business at 30, Commercial Chambers, Masjid Bunder Road, Bombay, as importers, commission agents, indenting agents, del credere agents and financiers and also as wholesale dealers in colours, chemicals, dyes, etc. The firm consisted of 5 partners: appellants 2 to 5 and one other who died in 1965. The firm was registered as a dealer under the Acts of 1953 and 1959.3. Under diverse orders of assessment passed prior to its dissolution, the firm was assessed to sales tax for the period July, 1953, to March 31, 1958. On November 10, 1960, the Sales Tax Officer (VIII), Enforcement B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(SC)34
Chandrachud, J. - The question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 and the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 a dissolved firm can be assessed or re-assessed to sales-tax in respect of its predissolution turnover.2. The first appellant M/s. Murarilal Mahabirprasad was a partnership firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated December 3, 1953. It was doing business at 30, Commercial Chambers, Masjid Bunder Road, Bombay, as importers, commission agents, indenting agents, del creders agents and financiers and also as wholesale dealers in colours, chemicals, dyes, etc. The firm consisted of 5 partners appellants 2 to 5 and one other who died in 1965. The firm was registered as a dealer under the Acts of 1953 and 1959.3. Under diverse orders of assessment passed prior to its dissolution, the firm was assessed to sales-tax for the period July, 1953 to March 31, 1958. On November 10, 1960 the sales Tax Officer (VIII), Enforcement Branch, Bom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1156; 1976CriLJ857; (1976)1SCC723; 1975(7)LC735(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The incident out of which this appeal arises, took place at about 9-30 p.m. on 2nd August, 1967 in a village called Charra within the jurisdiction of Sarla Police Station. The genesis of the incident was petty dispute which arose between the first appellant on the one hand and Bhajan Lal, Raghubar Dayal and his brother Shyam Lal on the other. The houses of Bhajan Lal and first appellant are situate adjoining to each other and each of these houses had a Chabutra in front of it. The Chabutra of Bhajan Lal was demolished by the Town Area Committee of Charra for facilitating construction of pacca drain and so also, the chabutras of various other residents of the village but the chabutra of the first appellant was spared. Bhajan Lal carried a feeling that the first appellant was responsible for the demolition of his chabutra and he, therefore, started bearing ill-will against the first appellant, He was supported by Raghubar Dayal and Shyam Lal who took sides with him in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC730; 1976CriLJ583; (1976)78PLR283; (1976)1SCC657; [1976]1SCR663; 1975(7)LC757(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati J.1. The appellant and one Mohd. Yusuf Gulam Mohd. were charged for an offence under Section read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for snatching two sarees from one Govind whilst he was carrying them from the shop of his master to that of a washer and dyer. The learned Presidency Magistrate, who tried the case, accepted the prosecution evidence and found the appellant and Mohd. Yusuf Gulam Mohd. Guilty of the offence under Section 379 read with sec 34 sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. It does not appear from the judgment of the learned Presidency Magistrate that, though the appellant was only seventeen years and three months old at the date of the offence was not punishable with imprisonment for life, the attention of the learned Presidency Magistrate was invited to the provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The appellant preferred on appeal against the order of conviction 'and sentence to the High Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1945; [1952]22CompCas59(SC); [1975]101ITR221(SC); (1975)2SCC691; [1976]1SCR648
S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court of Allahabad dated September 26, 1969 on a reference made to it by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.. Allahabad Bench. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be briefly summarised as follows:The appellant assessee is a public limited company known 'as J. K. Cotton .' and the matter in dispute relates to the assessment year 1944-45. The appellant entered into an agreement with the firm called Juggilal Kamlapat and employed the said firm as the Managing Agents of the Company. The agreement was executed on August 8, 1941 and the Managing Agents were to work for the Company for a period of 20 years and were to charge commission at the rate of 21/2 %. About two years later the appellant decided to terminate the agreement executed in favour of Juggilal Kamlapat and the said Managing Agents readily accepted the offer made by the appellant as a result of which a deed of release was execut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2226; [1975(31)FLR279]; 1975LabIC1608; (1975)IILLJ418SC; (1975)2SCC649; [1976]1SCR667
A. Alagiriswami, J.2. In August 1957 the Hindustan Steel Ltd., the 4th respondent in the appeal, hereinafter called the company, and the appellant, a partnership of a West German Company and an Indian Company, hereinafter called the contractor, entered into a contract for execution of the foundation and civil engineering work of the Hot and Cold Rolling Mills at Rourkela, including the purification and other civil engineering work connect-ed with the water supply to the Rolling Mills. The contract was a cost contract with a target sum plus fixed overheads and fee, that is, the company was to pay to the contractor all costs of construction and in addition pay fixed overhead for the head office general expenses of the contractor plus a fixed fee. The target sum for the work was Rs. 6,62,94,000. The overheads were D. M. 28,00,000/- plus Rs. 21,20,000/- and the fee of Rs. 62,00,000/-. The work was to be carried out as detailed in the drawings, bills of quantities, specifications and other ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2235; (1975)2SCC508; [1976]1SCR636; 1975(7)LC794(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali. J.1. This appeal by special leave against the judgment dated February 14, 1967, of the High Court of Bombay turns upon the interpretation of Clause 3 of the agreement Ext. 30 executed between the parties containing the terms and conditions for which the plaintiff/appellant was to supply electricity to the defendant the Jalgaon Borough Municipality.2. What appears to us to have been a short and simple case has been rendered cumbersome and complicated by somewhat complex and involved process of reasoning adopted by the High Court in interpreting the various clauses of the agreement Ext. 39. The plaintiff/appellant's case was based mainly on Clause 3 of the agreement but the High Court instead of concentrating its attention on the interpretation of the scope and ambit of this particular clause appears to have entered upon a roving inquiry and a detailed determination of the history of the case, the various clauses of the agreement executed, the licence taken by the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC277; [1975(31)FLR316]; 1976LabIC259; (1976)ILLJ1SC; (1975)2SCC517; [1976]1SCR641; 1975(7)LC811(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. The hearing of this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and another by special leave proceeded exparte against the respondents. After examining all the pros and cons of the dispute involved in this appeal with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellants we have come to the conclusion that the appeal should be allowed.2. From time to time Government of Rajasthan fixed or revised the minimum rates of wages for employees in the Mica Mines throughout the State of Rajasthan under Section 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act 1948, (Central Act 11 of 1948 hereinafter called the Act). The employment in the Mica Mines is a scheduled employment within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act. Eventually the minimum of Section 2(g) of the Act. Eventually the minimum rates of wages were fixed by the Government by a, notification dated the 31st July, 1965, the validity of which was challenged in the Rajasthan High Court by several employers in the Mica Mines in Civil Writ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1952; (1975)2SCC810; [1976]1SCR626; 1975(7)LC817(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer J.1. These two appeals turn on the construction of Section 19B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Act X of 1953) (for short, the Act). This legislation was enacted to bring about an agrarian re-ordering so pivotal to the progress of our rural economy. Haryana, happily a granary of our country, is one of the State where land reform laws are likely to generate great changes nut banishing big concentration of Matures bounty in a few feudal hands, creating an enthusiastic sense of distributive justice and exploiting the productive potential of land by the possessive passion of the landless many. So strategic is land reform that special Constitutional concern has been shown for this programme. Naturally, the State enacted the Act whereby ceiling on land-ownership was set, surplus lands were taken over for settling ejected tenants and others and peasant proprietorship created. The scheme of the Act with which we are concerned is fairly simple and somewhat sci...
Tag this Judgment!