Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1408; (1976)3SCC790; [1976]3SCR971; 1976(8)LC444(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. These two appeals are on certificate by the Calcutta High Court from its common judgment of April 6, 1967, in Appeal Nos. 175 and 177 of 1963. Respondent No. 1 prior to its liquidation was a private limited company carrying on business as an importer and dealer in sewing machines. On or about April 16, 1958, the respondent was granted an import licence by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, by which it was authorised to import industrial sewing machines together with spare parts to the extent of 5 per cent of the total value of the goods to be impored. The total value of the imports authorised was Rs. 47,406/- The respondent could under the licence import the goods through any port in India. Out of the permitted value under the licence goods worth about Rs. 9,918/- were imported by the respondent through the Bombay port. The respondent then wanted to arrange the rest of the import through the Calcutta port. At the request of the respondent the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1204; (1976)3SCC404; [1976]3SCR980; 1976(8)LC442(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises a short question as to whether the Watan held by the respondent at the date of coming into force of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 was a Watan of the soil, or a Watan of land revenue only in respect of certain lands situate in village Shirambe Taluka Koregaort, District North Sahara. If the Watan was in respect of the soil, the respondent would not be entitled to any compensation for the resumption of the Watan land's, but if it was a Watan of land revenue only, the respondent would have a claim for compensation for 'a sum equal to ten times the amount of such land revenue' under Section 6(2) of the Act. The respondent claimed that the Watan was of land revenue only and not of the soil and he was, therefore, entitled to compensation as provided in Section 6(2) of the Act and filed a suit far recovery of Rs. 15,074-4-0 by way of compensation against the State of Maharashtra the High Court affirmed the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1836; [1976]103ITR777(SC); (1976)3SCC378; [1976]3SCR947; 1976(8)LC436(SC)
M.H. Beg, J.1. These appeals by special leave are from the judgment dated 26 May, 1970 of the High Court of Delhi.2. The question referred to the High Court Under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 referred to as the Act was as follows:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the income of the trust which was spent on 'he religious and charitable purposes within the taxable territories was exempt under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.3. The main judgment was delivered in Income Tax Reference No. 40 of 1965.4. The High Court answered the question in the negative. 5. The trust in Income Tax Reference No. 40 of 1965 was taken as typical of all cases. The deed of trust dated 12 April, 1948 was made by Ramakrishna Dilmia. The trust was called 'Jaipur Charitable Trust.' In Jaipur Charitable Trust Rs. 10,000 was given on trust on the terms and conditions set out in the deed.6. The objects of the trust in Clause 5(a) are, inter alia, as follows:(i) To...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1519; 1976CriLJ1186; (1976)2SCC788
R.S. Sharkaria, J.1. Jayaraj, appellant (A-1), and six others (to be hereinafter called A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7) were tried by the Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli for causing the death of Pattu Nadar and attempting the murder of Cruz Manickam. In Addition, A-2 to A-7 were charged under Section 147 and A-1 under Section 148, Penal Code. The trial Judge, acquitted all the accused of all the charges framed against them.2. On appeal by the State, the High Court of Madras, set aside the acquittal of A-1 and convicted him under Section 302, Penal Code for the murder of Pattu Nadar and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High Court maintained the acquittal of A-2 and A-3 on the murder charge but convicted each of the two under Section 323, Penal Code, the former causing simple hurt to the deceased and the latter for causing simple hurt to PW 3, and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- or, in default to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment. The acquittal of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1753; [1976]103ITR437(SC); (1976)3SCC757; [1976]3SCR956
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This appeal on certificate is against the Full Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court whereby on petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the respondent that Court by majority quashed notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued by appellant No. 2 (Income-tax Officer E Ward, Hundi Circle, Calcutta) (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) for the purpose of reopening assessment of the income of the respondent for the assessment year 1958-59.2. The respondent was assessed for the assessment year 1958-59 under Section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 on June 14, 1960. His total income was assessed to be Rs. 37.872. While making the assessment the Income-tax Officer allowed deduction of a sum. of Rs. 15,991 by way of expenses claimed by the respondent. The expenses included Rs. 10,494/4 As/3 pies by way of interest. According to the respondent, he produced through his authorized repr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1561; (1976)4SCC431; [1976]3SCR966; [1976]37STC583(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. Five quarters of assessment of sales tax are involved in these five appeals, by special leave, the period commencing from January 1, 1959, to March 31, 1960. This judgment will govern all these appeals involving a common question.2. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack, included in the turnover of the respondent the sale price of jeera, dhania (coriander), panmohuri, methi, postak and pipali and levied 5 per cent sales tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (briefly the State Act). On appeal the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Puri, allowed the claim of the respondent and held that the above items are oil-seeds within the meaning of Section 14(vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act and gave the respondent the benefit of a lower tax of 2 per cent on the sales turnover of those goods instead of 5 per cent under the State Act. On appeal by the State of Orissa to the Sales Tax Tribunal claiming 5 per cent on the sales turnover thereof under the provisions of the Central S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(SC)286
Goswami, J. - Five quarters of assessment of sales tax are involved in these five appeals, by special leave, the period commencing from January 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960. This Judgment will govern all these appeals involving a common question.2. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack, included in the turnover of the respondent the sale price of jeera, dhania (corinder), panmohuri, methi, postak and pipali and levied 5 per cent sales tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (brieflan the State Act). On appeal the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Puri, allowed the claim of the respondent and held that the above items are oil-seeds within the meaning of Section 14(vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act and gave the respondent the benefit of a lower tax of 2 per cent on the sale turnover of those goods instead of 5 per cent under the State Act. On appeal by the State of Orissa to the Sales Tax Tribunal claiming 5 per cent on the sale turnover thereof under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1988; (1976)3SCC726; [1976]3SCR942; 1976(8)LC433(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises a short, though important question under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 13 of 1972.2. Respondents 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act for the 'release' of certain residential premises of which the appellants claim to be their tenants. Respondent 1, acting as a Rent Controller, directed a Senior Inspector to inspect the premises and make a report. Accordingly, the Senior Inspector inspected the premises and submitted a report : on April 9, 1974 stating: 'After hearing the parties it would be proper to take further action'. The Senior Inspector seems to have found that the premises were in occupation of three persons two of whom claimed to be partners of the appellant-firm M/s. Tirlok Singh & Co. On receipt of the report respondent I passed the impugned order, 'Let the vacancy be notified', admittedly without granting any hearing to the appellants.3. On May 23, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2028; (1977)4SCC602c
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. These appeals are by certificate from the Judgment dated 18th May 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.2. The dispute between the parties was whether the Medical Store Depot. of the Union is a dealer with in the meaning of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Union contended that the Depot. is not a dealer. The State on the other hand contended that the Depot. is a dealer within the meaning of the State Act.3. The High Court came to the conclusion that the petitions were not maintainable by reason of Article 131 of the Constitution.4. Both Counsel state before us that the parties never raised any question as to Article 131 in the High Court. They further state that the question in issue does not fall within Article 131 of the Constitution but would turn on the provisions of the. State Act.5. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion at this stage on6. We are of opinion that the question which was raised in the High Court has to be decided by the Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2118; (1976)3SCC183; [1976]3SCR919
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Three civil appeals, stemming from three revision petitions to the High Court of Orissa under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act I of 1952) (for short, the Act) have reached this Court thanks to special leave granted to the appellant, who is common in all the cases. The High Court, after deciding various issues remanded the cases to the Compensation Officer under the Act, after overruling most of the contentions pressed before it by the appellant.2. Shri Achutanda Purohit, appellant, was the intermediary in respect of vast forests and other lands comprised in the estate of Jujumura in the district of Sambalpur. This estate vested in the State on April 1, 1960 by force of the Act and the crucial question agitated before us, consequently, turns on the quantum of compensation awardable under Chapter V of the Act. The appellant has received around Rupees 3,00,000/- but much more, according to him, is due and this controversy can be settled by examini...
Tag this Judgment!