Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2279; (1977)4SCC98; [1978]1SCR338; [1977]40STC497(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This bunch of appeals brought by the State of Gujarat by certificate has a pan-Indian impact, as the sale-tax project which has been struck down by the High Court may adversely affect cousin provisions in like statutes in the rest of the country. Contradictory verdicts on the constitutionality of a certain pattern of salestax legislation, calculated to counter consumer victimisation by dealers, have been rendered by different High Courts and what complicates the issue is that reasonings in the prior rulings of this Court on the topic have been pressed into service by both sides. This slippery legal situation makes it necessitous for the Constitution Bench of this Court (numerically expanded, almost to breaking point, by the recent 42nd Constitution Amendment) to declare the law with relative certitude, reviewing, in the process, its previous pronouncements and over-ruling, if required, the view of one High Court or the other so that the correct position may fina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(SC)354
Krishna Iyer, J. - This bunch of appeals brought by the State of Gujarat by certificate has an Indian impact, as the sales-tax project which has been struck down by the High Court may adversely affect cousin provision in like statutes in the rest of the country. Contradictory verdicts on the constitutionality of a certain pattern of sales-tax legislation, calculated to counter consumer victimisation by dealers, have been rendered by different High Court and what complicates the issue is that reasonings in the prior rulings of this Court on the topic have been pressed into service by both sides. This slippery legal situation makes it necessitous for the Constitution Bench of this Court (numerically expanded, almost to breaking point, by the recent 42nd Constitution Amendment) to declare the law with relative certitude, reviewing, in the process, its previous pronouncements and over-ruling, if required, the view of one High Court or the other so that the correct position may finally be r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2209; (1977)4SCC407; 1977(9)LC578(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the summary dismissal of the appellant's writ petition by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on June 1, 1977 and the rejection of his review application on the following day.2. The admitted facts of the same are enough for its disposal. Appellant Randhir Singh is an Ex Emergency Commissioned Officer of the Indian Army. He was employed as Tehsildar at Ambala which was stated to be his 'correspondence' address for purposes of the present controversy. His son Vikash, aged about 51/2 years, appeared in a competitive test for admission to Class I of the Kamia Nehru School (Junior Wing) against the beats reserved for children of Armed Force Personal and ex servicemen. In all 25 children were to be admitted for the term which was to start in July 1977. Vikash passed all the tests, and the respondents have clearly stated in their counter-affidavit that, if he was found fit by the Medical Board, he was 'eligible for admissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2230; [1977]109ITR730(SC); (1977)4SCC184; [1978]1SCR329; 1977(9)LC580(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. Two questions arise for consideration in this appeal one of them being subsidiary to the other. The main question is whether a Hindu female who is a member of an undivided family can blend her separate property with joint family property.2. The appellant, Pushpa Devi, is a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of herself, her husband, her father-in-law, her mother-in-law, her minor son and three daughters. On June 19, 1958 the appellent, in her individual capacity and with the aid of her personal assets, entered into a partnership with her father-in-law, Gur Narain Khanna, in the name and style of Gur Narain Jagat Narain & Co. Her minor son, Ravi Narain Khanna, was admitted to the benefits of that partnership. Each of the three partners had a one-third share in the profits of the partnership, while the appellant and her father-in-law had an equal share in the losses.3. The firm owned two cinema houses: Nishat Talkies, Kanpur and Novelty Talkies, Lucknow. Sepa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2211; [1977]109ITR527(SC); 1977(0)KLT761(SC); (1977)4SCC75; [1978]1SCR319; 1977(9)LC571(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The assessee in these appeals is a company which was registered under the Cochin Companies Act and later under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The sources of income of the assessee are interest on securities, income from property and kuries or chit funds. For the assessment years 1952-53 to 1956-57, in making its returns of income, the assessee did not show the income from kuries on the ground that it was exempt under Section 4(3) (i) of the Income Tax Act 1022 and that the proviso to that section had no application as the business of kuries was not carried on 'on behalf of a religious or charitable institution' but was the trust business of the assessee itself. This contention was rejected by the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal but on reference under Section 66(1) of the Act of 1922, the High Court of Kerala in Dharmodayan Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala : [1962]45ITR478(Ker) . held that the business ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2218; (1977)4SCC12; [1978]1SCR315; 1977(9)LC568(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. On her application made under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the respondent was granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi on August 27, 1973. A little over two years after that decree was passed, on October 28, 1975 she presented a petition under Section 13(1A)(ii) of he Act in the Court of:he Additional District Judge, Delhi, for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. Section 13(1A)(ii) as it stood at the material time reads:Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition the dissolution of tha marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground-(i) x x x(ii) that there has been no restitution or' conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of two year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.The provision was amended in 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC59; 1978CriLJ177a; (1977)4SCC420
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This is an appeal under the Enlargement of Supreme Court Jurisdiction Act read with Section 378 of the Cri. P.C., 1973. Although it was not necessary yet the appellants appear to have moved the High Court of Allahabad for a certificate which was granted by the said Court as an appeal as of right lay, to this Court under the aforesaid provisions.2. The appellants were tried before the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao for charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 302 and 307. The trial Court after considering the evidence led before it came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the appellants of all the charges framed against them. Thereafter the State of Uttar Pradesh went up in appeal before the High Court against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court however has taken a different view and reversed th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1977(35)FLR319]; (1977)IILLJ254SC; (1978)1SCC101
ORDER1. We have heard learned counsel for bath the sides in the special leave petition. One of the main arguments advanced by Mr. Pai, to behalf of the petitioner-the American Express International Banking Corporation, is that, in view of the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it is not open to the petitioner-Ban to pay in excess of six per cent the bonus to the respondents and the other employees even if such bonus is payable under an agreement between UK Bank and its employees. We would like to clarify that, in view of the judgment dated March 30, 1977 of the Industrial Tribunal against which the petitioner has filed the special leave petition, the directions, if any, issued by the Reserve Bank cannot stand in the way of petitioner in making the payment of bonus in excess of six per cent. 1 he Tribunal has held that the Bank is liable to pay the bonus in accordance with the agreement and, therefore, the directions of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2236; 1977CriLJ1921; (1977)4SCC44; [1978]1SCR301
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This appeal involves an issue of criminal culpability presenting mixed questions of fact and law and a theme of juvenile justice, a criminological Cinderella of the Indian law-in-action.2. Hiralal Mallick, the sole appellant before us, was a 12-year old lad when he toddled into crime, conjointly with his two elder brothers. The three, together, were charged with the homicide of one Arjan Mallick which ended in a conviction of all under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial judge impartially imposed on each one a punishment of imprisonment for life. On appeal by all the three, the High Court, taking note of some pecularities, directed the conversion of the convictions from Section 302 (read with Section 34) (sic) 34) IPC and, consequently, pared down the punishment award-(sic) the co-accused into rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. The third (sic), the appellant before us, was shown consideration for his tender age of 12 years (at the time of commission ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2014; 45(1978)CLT246(SC); (1977)3SCC535; [1978]1SCR285; 1977(9)LC563(SC)
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., (a Government of Orissa undertaking) by special leave against the judgment and decree dated February 20, 1976 of the High Court of Orissa whereby the High Court upheld the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Rourkela refusing to set aside the award of the arbitrator directing payment of certain moneys to the respondent herein.2. The respondent is a partnership firm carrying on business of transport, mining loading and unloading etc. with its office at Rourkela. The appellant called for a tender for the work of raising of iron ore in Khandadhar Mines and transporting it to Barsuan Railway siding, including wagon loading. An agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent for a period of one year with effect from May 25, 1971. The estimated value of the contract was Rs. 6.77,040. The respondent under the terms of the contract was required to work in quarry Nos. 1 and 2 in Khandadhar Min...
Tag this Judgment!