Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC148; (1977)1SCC257; [1977]1SCR993; 1976(8)LC926(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal by certificate is from the judgment dated 16 June 1966 of the High Court at Bombay (Nagpur Bench).2. The respondent filed this suit against the State claiming that the order dated 1 March, 1955 in Revenue case declaring Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan of Mangrul-Dastagir to be a public trust be set aside. The plaint was filed under Section 8(1) of the Public Trust Act (M.P. Public Trusts Act 1951) against the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Registrar of Public Trust, Amraoti. It is admitted by the parties that no notice under Section 80 of the CPC was given.3. The defendants took the plea that the suit was liable to be dismissed by reason of no notice under Section 80 of the CPC having been given. The Additional District Judge by his order dated 26 March, 1957 held a notice under Section 80 of the CPC was necessary and the suit was not maintainable and ordered the dismissal of the suit.4. The respondent filed an appeal. The learned Single Judge agreed with the vie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1792; (1976)4SCC762; 1978(10)LC83(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave limited only to the question of sentence Since the offence for which appellants 2 and 4 are convicted, is under Section 302 and and that for which the rest of the appellants are convicted, it under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the special leave though limited only to the question of sentence must obviously carry with it leave also as regards the nature of the offence arising from the homicidal death of Chandu, the deceased. But the special leave granted by this Court being limited to the question as to the nature of the offence, we cannot permit the appellants to go behind fine findings of fact recorded by the High Court. It is only on the basis of the findings of fact reached by the High Court that it would be open to the appellants to argue that the offence committed by the appellants is not under Section 302 or Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code but a lesser offence But hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC308; (1976)4SCC622; [1977]1SCR1017; 1976(8)LC956(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated September 26, 1968 setting aside the appellate order or the Second Additional District Judge, Indore, dated October 29, 1966 and remitting the matter to the Municipal Commissioner for a fresh determination of the annual value of the building.2. The building in question is known as 'Viram Lodge', on Ravindra Nath Tagore Marg, Indore. It belongs to the respondent and has been used by them as a hotel. The annual gross rental value of the building was determined at Rs. 6600/ in 1956. It was revised by the Assessment Officer on June 3, 1965 and was raised to Rs. 43,405.20. The respondents filed objections to the valuation, but the Municipal Commissioner fixed the annual value at Rs. 43,405.20. He held that, in view of the 'non-obstante' clause in Section 138 (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act, there was no justifi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC879; (1977)1SCC643; [1977]1SCR1002; [1977]39STC340(SC)
M.H. Beg, J.1.The eight appeals before us by special leave arise out of four Sale 'Tax References, under Section 23(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Six common questions arose here relating to assessments for different periods on identically similar facts stated below. Five of these were decided by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. As it answered the main question determining liability to pay the sales tax under the Act against the State, there are four appeals against it by the State. The sixth question, which was one of law only, was referred by the Division Bench to a Full Bench, and, this was determined in favour of the State. There are, therefore, four appeals by the assessee against the Full Bench decision.2. M/s. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., the assessee, has its Head Office in London. It carries on business on an extensive scale. It owns 22 manganese ore mines in Madhya Pradesh from where ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(SC)56
Beg, J. - The eight appeals before us by special leave arise out of four Sales Tax References, under Section 23(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Six common questions arose here relating to assessments for different periods on identically similar facts stated below. Five of these were decided by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. As it answered the main question determining liability to pay the sales tax under the Act against the State, there are four appeals against it by the State. The sixth question, which was one of law only, was referred by the Division Bench to a Full Bench, and, this was determined in favour of the State. There are, therefore, four appeals by the assessee against the Full Bench decision.2. M/s. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., the assessee, has its Head Office in London. It carries on business on an extensive scale. It owns 22 manganese ore mines in Madhya Pradesh from where manganes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC282; 1976(0)KLT810(SC); (1976)4SCC634; [1977]1SCR996; 1977(9)LC16(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 3 June, 1974 of the High Court of Kerala.2. The respondent filed a petition under Sections 10 and 16(5) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 claiming compensation against the appellant.3. The Kerala State Electricity Board is constituted under Section 5 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The Board cut and removed some trees standing on the property of the respondent for the purpose of laying electric line from Calicut to Cannanore. The Board assessed the compensation at Rs. 1619.90.4. On 10 March, 1972 the respondent filed a petition before the District Judge, Tellicherry under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 claiming an enhanced compensation of Rs. 19,367.60. The Board raised several objections. One of the objections was that the petition was barred by time Under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Board contended. that the notic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(SC)39
Ray, C.J. - This appeal is by special leave from the judgement dated September 10, 1975 of the Delhi High Court.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of dry battery cells. In October 1969 the appellant received a consignment of ten metric tons of manganese dioxide. The Assistant Collector levied duty on the consignment under tariff item 28. The appellant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Collector confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector. The appellant thereafter made an application to the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority held that the goods should be assessed under Tariff Item 26 and ordered refund of duty.The appellant asked for refund and sent reminders to Customs Authorities for refund.On October 3, 1974 the appellant give a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code for institution of a suit for recovery of refund.On February 10, 1975 a notice under Section 131 (3) of the Customs Act, 1962 referred to as the Act was given to the appellant for revision of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC456; 1983(13)ELT1596(SC); 1977LabIC20; (1976)4SCC677; [1977]1SCR983; 1976(8)LC990(SC)
A.N. Ray C.J.1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 10 September 1975 of the Delhi High Court.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of dry battery cells. In October 1969 the appellant received a consignment of ten metric tons of manganese dioxide. The Assistant Collector levied duty on the consignment under Tariff Item 28. The appellant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Collector confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector. The appellant thereafter made an application to the Revisional Authority.The Revisional Authority held that the goods should be assessed under Tariff Item 26 and ordered refund of duty.3. The appellant asked for refund and sent reminders to Customs Authorities for refund.4. On 3 October 1974 the appellant gave a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code for institution of a suit for recovery of refund.5. On 10 February 1975 a notice under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act 1962 referred to as the Act was given to the appellant for revis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2201; (1977)2SCC165
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. We heard these appeals for some time and as we were coming to the end of the arguments. Mr. Gobind Das appearing for the appellants, the State of Orissa stated that the Government would have no objection to producing the particular file in the Court for the inspection of the learned Munsif. In view of this statement it is unnecessary to go into the merits of these appeals. 2. We direct that the Government of Orissa will produce file learned Counsel 1-M- 33-64 in the trial Court for the inspection of the learned Munsif. If after inspecting the file, the learned Munsif finds that there is any noting or endorsement in the file showing that the then Deputy Chief Minister or the then Inspector-General of Police or both had given any assurance to the plaintiff of the kind mentioned in paragraph 16 of the plaint, that portion of the file and that alone shall be disclosed to the plaintiff. Since the suits are not before us and we are only concerned in these appeals with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC394; (1976)4SCC626; [1977]1SCR988; 1976(8)LC923(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirming on second appeal the decision of the trial court and the first appellate court whereby suit for possession of the land in dispute had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant.2. Laxmi Dayal died in 1952 leaving the lands in dispute and some other properties. He was succeeded by his two widows, Shantibai and Bindumati. In 1954 Chandanbai, widow of brother of Laxmi Dayal, filed civil suit No. 34A of 1954 against Shantibai and Bindumati in respect of the property left by Laxmi Dayal. During the pendency of that suit, a deed of partition was executed by Shantibai, Bindumati and Chandanbai, as a result of which each one of them was stated to have become full owner of the property which fell to . her share. The partition deed was got registered and necessary mutation entries were made in accordance with that deed. On September 8, 1955, Sh...
Tag this Judgment!