Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2194; [1979]118ITR583(SC); (1977)4SCC606d; 1977(9)LC486(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated March 2, 1972 rejecting an application filed by the appellant, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad, under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asking that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer a certain question of law to the High Court.2. The Tribunal has set aside the penalty of Rs. 7,500/- levied on the assessee by the Income tax Officer and confirmed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, following a judgment of this Court in CIT v. Anwar Ali : [1970]76ITR696(SC) ,. We see the plausibility of Mr. Ahuja's submission on behalf of the appellant, that the Tribunal appears to have overlooked the amendment made by Act 5 of 1964 to Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The word 'deliberately', which occurred in the unamended section was omitted by the amendment and an explanation was added to that section which was previously not there. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2183; (1977)4SCC374; 1977(9)LC502(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The appellants are owners of a house situated at 1204/23, Shivaji Nagar, Poona. They filed a suit against the respondent for possession of a block of three rooms and a verandah let out to him as a monthly tenant. After considering the requirements of the appellants and on consideration of the question of comparative hardship to the parties, the Trial Court passed a decree for possession in favour of the appellants. That decree was confirmed in appeal by the learned Joint Judge, Poona whereupon the respondent filed a petition in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. By a judgment dated February 12, 1976 the High Court allowed that petition, set aside the judgment of the Joint Judge and remanded the appeal to him for a decision in the light of the observations contained in its judgments. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court.2. Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2185; 1977CriLJ1891; (1977)79PLR695; (1977)4SCC137; [1978]1SCR222
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave involves an important question as to the interpretation scope, ambit and connotation word 'interlocutory order' as appearing in Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the CrPC 1973. For the purpose of brevity, we shall refer to the CrPC, 1898 as 'the 1898 Code', to the CrPC, 1898 as amended in 1955 as 'the 1955 Amendment' and to, the CrPC, 1973 as 'the 1973 Code'. The appeal arises in the following circumstances.2. An incident took place in village Amin on April 23, 1976 in the course of which three persons died and, F. I. R. No. 139 dated April 23, 1976 was filed at police station Butana, District Kamal at about 5-30 P. M. The F. I. R. mentioned a number of accused persons including the appellants as having participated in the occurrence which resulted in the death of the deceased. The police, after holding investigations, submitted a charge-sheet against the other accused persons except the appellants against whom the police opined t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2226; 1977CriLJ1897; (1977)3SCC562; 1977(9)LC546(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. In this appeal by special leave filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, there are three respondents-(1) Mohammad Musheer Khan; (2) Mohammad Shamim Khan and (3) Siraj Ahmad Khan. All the three were tried by the Sessions Judge of Sultanpur for the offence of committing the murder of Nirmaljeet Singh, brother of Bimaljeet Singh, P.W. 1. Respondent No. 1 was convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to death. The other two respondents were convicted for the said offence with the aid of Section 34 and each of them was awarded a sentence of life imprisonment. The respondents filed an appeal in the Allahabad High Court and a reference for the confirmation of the death sentence imposed upon respondent No. 1 was also made by the Sessions Judge. The High Court has rejected the reference allowed the appeal and acquitted all the three respondents. Hence this appeal by the State.2. There is a college known as B.P. Intermediate College at Kurwar, P.S.Kotwali, in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2021; [1977]47CompCas666(SC); (1977)4SCC9; [1978]1SCR218; 1977(9)LC499(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The two appellants and the six respondents were partners of a firm called 'Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works.' The appellants as plaintiffs instituted civil suit No. 9 off 1974 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nagpur, for dissolution of the partnership and accounts. The reliefs asked for included a declaration that the firm stood dissolved on and from January 9, 1974. It appears that thereafter the original defendants who are the respondents before us were transposed as plaintiffs and the appellants who were originally the plaintiffs were transferred to the category of defendants. The transposed defendants raised an objection that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Part X he Companies Act, 1956. The trial court rejected the application The defendants then moved the Bombay High Court, Nagpur in revision. The High Court having dismissed the revision on the present appeal has been filed with special leave granted is Court.2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1992; (1977)4SCC153; [1978]1SCR208; 1977(9)LC528(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of an election to the U.P. Legislative Council held on April 28, 1974, from the Local Authorities' Constituency, Faizabad. We are concerned here with Kshettra Samitis which are the local authorities (see Fourth Schedule of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, Uttar Pradesh). Besides the appellant, ten candidates (respondents 1 to 10) filed their nomination papers. Six of them (respondents 5 to 10) had withdrawn their candidature. Out of the five left there was no contest worth the name from respondents 2. 3 and 4. The principal contest, therefore, was between the appellant and respondent No. 1 (hereinafter to be described only as respondent). The last date for submission of nomination papers was April 2, 1974. At the poll the appellant secured 927 votes and the respondent 909, the difference being only of 18 v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2171; 1977(2)KarLJ355; (1977)4SCC16; [1978]1SCR193
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Four heavy volumes of case records confronted us in this appeal, as counsel opened the arguments, but some Socratic processing seemed to condense the controversy and forensic prolixity so much so we first thought the case had shrunk to such small dimensions as to be disposed of in a short judgment. But what we initially felt, when the brief narration of facts was given, proved a snare. For, when we read out in court our opinion on the only crucial aspect of the case, counsel for the 1st respondent hopefully insisted that the factual grounds, requiring our ploughing through ponderous tomes of testimonial collection, pleadings and what not, should be investigated as he expected to sustain the invalidation of the election by the High Court on the score of corrupt practice and the consequential disqualification of the rival candidate i.e., the appellant before us. He was entitled to press that part of his case and so we agreed to hear both sides extensively thereon....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1985; (1977)3SCC515; [1976]SuppSCR486; 1977(9)LC485(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. Even after hearing an interesting argument from Mr. Nariman, who appears on behalf of the respondent-landlord, we are left in no doubt that the High Court, inspite of several decisions of this Court, has manifestly exceeded the limits of its narrow jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. We are unable to appreciate that the High Court should have persuaded itself to accept the contention of the landlord in the teeth of the concurrent finding of the Rent Controller and the Collector that the tenant was not a habitual defaulter. Normally, a monthly tenant is under an obligation to pay the rent from month to month but this obligation is subject to a contract to the contrary. Such a contract need not be reflected in a formal document and can be spelt out from the conduct of the parties, spread over a fairly long period of time. The evidence in the case, which was believed by the two tribunals of fact, shows that the tenant has been paying rent at an inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2191; (1977)3SCC496; [1978]1SCR188; 1977(9)LC487(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave by the land 3ady of a shop situated in Timber market in the town of Hissar in the State of Haryana. Respondent took the shop on rent of Rs. 175/-per month plus the taxes on the basis of a Rent Note executed by him in favour of the appellant on November 2, 1962. On November 24, 1967, he filed an application under Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949-hereinafter called the Act, for fixation of the fair rent of the building. The Senior Sub-Judge, Hissar acting as the Rent Controller under the Act, found the evidence adduced by the respondent insufficient to enable him to fix the basic rent under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. In that view of the matter, he upheld the contractual rate of rent of Rs. 175/- per month and adding to that Rs. 10.15 paise on account of tax fixed the fair rent at Rs. 185.15 per month. The respondent went up in appeal before the District Judge, Hissar who by his order dated J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2010; [1977]110ITR672(SC); (1977)3SCC557; 1977(9)LC491(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The assessee-firm, which is the appellant before us, does business in brass and copper scrap on a wholesale basis. It purchased metal scrap during the assessment year 1970-71, for which it paid a sum of Rs. 2,46,625/- consisting of various items, each one of which exceeded Rs. 2,500/-. It claimed these amounts as allowable deductions, whereupon a question arose whether payments made in cash in excess of Rs. 2,500/- at a time could be claimed as deductions in view of the provisions contained in Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Revenue Authorities and the Appellate Tribunal rejected the assessee's claims, holding that the case fell squarely within the terms of Section 40A(3) and that none of the Exceptions contained in Rule 6DD was attracted. 3. The assessee asked the Appellate Tribunal to make a reference to the High Court which the Tribunal declined to do on the ground that its judgment did not give rise to any question of law. The assessee then...
Tag this Judgment!