Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC517; (1979)4SCC458; [1980]1SCR792; 1979(11)LC839(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order date 27th December 1977 made by the State of Madhya Pra-desh granting a licence for a quasi-permanent cinema to; respondent No.3 Prem Narayan son of Ganpatlal Chouksey, proprietor, Chitra Talkies, Lalbagh, Burhanpur (M.P.) against which a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioners was dismissed in limine by a speaking order by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on 6th March 1978.2. Third respondent made an application on 5th December 1975 for grant of a licence for a temporary cinema and the District Magistrate having jurisdiction issued a no, objection certificate vide his order dated 10th February 1976 for, a period of six months. This licence was renewed upto 30th June 1976 and there was a further renewal up to 30th September 1976. A subsequent application for renewal was turned down by the Distt. Magistrate by his order dated 29th June 1977 on the ground that Paras Talkies w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC271; (1980)2SCC410; [1980]1SCR804
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. These cases relate to the validity of certain provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and are directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated June 12, 1978,by which the validity of those provisions has been upheld. We have heard these cases together and shall deal with them in this judgment.2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be convenient to make a brief mention of the background of the Act.3. The Legislature of the Kerala State wanted to impose a tax on buildings, and passed the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1961, which came into force on March 2, 1961. Its validity was challenged, and by his judgment dated November 20, 1964, a learned Single Judge of the High Court held it to be invalid and unconstitutional. The division) bench took the same view in its judgment dated July 7, 1966, and dismissed the appeal of the State. The matter came to this Court, and it also dismissed the appeal by its judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC138; (1980)1SCC125; [1980]1SCR836; 1980(12)LC196(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 4th November, 1976 dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant before the High Court. 2. This case has rather a chequered career and travelled through various stages and finally when it came to the High Court the case was remanded and after remand another revision petition was filed before the High Court which was heard by a Single Judge who referred it to a Division Bench as in his opinion a substantial question of law was involved in the case. When the case went before the Division Bench, consisting of Pandit and B. S. Dhillon, JJ. the two Judges differed from each other and the case was referred to a third Judge, namely, Mittal, J. who agreed with Pandit, J. and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.3. In order to understand the point of law involved in this case, it may be necessary to give a brief resume of the facts leading to the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1658; (1980)1SCC454; 1980(12)LC129(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. These three appeals arise out of a suit in which the plaintiff who happens to be the appellant ia all these appeals, ask for the following reliefs:(a) a declaration that he is the owner of the property in suit measuring about 27000 square yards of land in Bangalore City under a will dated July 9, 1959 executed by one Sripada Rao; (b) a declaration that the compromise deed dated August 26,1959 executed by and between Sripada Rao, defendants 1 to 4 and the father of defendants 5 and 6 was null and void and that the real as well as the beneficial interest in the property in suit continued to vest in Sripada Rao; (c) recovery of possession of the property from the defendants and mesne profits, or2. Alternatively, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the property is liable to be attached and sold for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 19,850/- decreed in his favour by the Additional Civil Judge. Bangalore in O.S. NO. 451 PM 2/21/06 No. 74 of 1960 upon a promissory note state...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC286; (1980)1SCC223; [1980]1SCR769; [1980]45STC36(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This phalanx of appeals, over 200 strong, has stagnated for eight years and slowed down other disposals, which is unfortunate. .2. We believe that the price of healthy justice from the highest Bench is eschewal of all but those cases which possess the twin attributes of (i) substantial question of law of general importance (ii) which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court itself, whether the jurisdiction be under Article 133, 134 or 136. Such being the jurisdictional dynamics of the Supreme Court, save in exceptional cases of appalling injustice, we hope the Bar will share this concern and avoid a breakdown for, truly, the question today is : To be or not to be.3. All these appeals spring from a common demand for tax by the State of Uttar Pradesh from a number of sugar mills on the purchase of sugarcane at a rate regulated by weight, not value, a pragmatic novelty in the sales tax pattern which has provoked an argument about its validity. Legal ingenuity, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1871; (1979)4SCC701; [1980]1SCR759
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J. 1. An unusual grievance of a Government Pleader, the petitioner, ventilated in a writ petition, was given short shrift by the High Court in a laconic order, but undaunted by this summary brevity the petitioner has pursued his case to this Court under Article 136. In utter nudity, his case is a claim of monopoly of all government cases in the Patna District, including lucrative land acquisition litigation, as part of the professional 'estate' of a Government Pleader. The, prospective cash value of this heavy crop of cases 'is estimated by him to be around one lakh of rupees and this secret is perhaps at the back of this lawyer's litigation. Sri Govindan Nair, appearing for him, has, however, argued that his client's claim as the sole representative of Government in courts is not a legal cover for seeking lucre but for vindicating the inviolability of the high public office of Government Pleader by politicking men in the Secretariat or by practitioners of favou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC235; [1979]120ITR480(SC); (1980)1SCC214; [1980]1SCR723; 1979(11)LC919(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. These appeals by special leave raise a common question whether on proper construction of the Agreement dated November 10, 1955, entered into by the assessee with Kamala Mills Ltd., the latter was the 'manager' Of the assessee within the meaning of Section 384 read with Section 2(24) of the Companies Act, 1956 and if so, whether the remuneration paid by the assesses to the latter in the two calendar years 1957 and 1958 relevant to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 cannot be allowed as business expenditure under Section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 2. The facts giving rise to the question may briefly be stated as follows : The assessee (M/s. Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Ltd.) is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacture and sale of' yarn and has its registered office at Alagappa Nagar in Kerala State, It entered into an Agreement dated November 10, 1955 with Kamala Mills Ltd. Coimbatore for financing and managing the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC563; (1980)ILLJ7SC; (1980)2SCC15; [1980]1SCR736
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. These two appeals (one by the State of Andhra Pradesh and the other by the Union of India) by certificate are directed against a Division Bench Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 17-11-1977 confirming the decision of a Single Judge by which an order passed by the Central Government compulsorly retiring M.E. Reddy, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as Reddy) from service in public interest was quashed in a writ petition filed before the High Court.2. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass particularly in view of the fact that we have decided not to go into the question of malafide alleged against respondent No. 3, Mr. K. Brahmanand Reddy before the High Court because Reddy in a previous writ filed in the High Court against the order of suspension had expressly withdrawn all the allegations against Mr. K. Brahmanand Reddy, respondent NO. 3 in the High Court. We shall, however, touch the fringes of this question so far as it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC176; (1979)12CTR(SC)415; [1979]120ITR49(SC); (1979)4SCC766; [1980]1SCR696
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. These appeals by special leave raise an inter-feting question of law whether the distribution of assets of a firm consequent on its dissolution amounts to a transfer of assets within the meaning of the expression 'otherwise transferred' occurring in Section 34(3)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, having regard to the definition of transfer in Section 2(47) of the Act2. The facts giving rise to the question lie in a narrow compass. The appellant (M/s. Malabar Fisheries Co.) is a dissolved firm represented by one of its erstwhile partners. The firm as originally constituted on April 1, 1959 consisted of four partners and carried on six different businesses in six different names and styles, namely, (a) Malabar Fisheries Co., (b) Coastal Engineering Co., (c) Cochin Tin Factory, (d) Goodwill Industries, all at Falluruthy, (e) Combine Steel Industries at the Industrial Estate at Alavakkot and (f) Life Metal Industries at Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh. The firm ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC340; (1979)13CTR(SC)179; [1979]120ITR549(SC); (1980)1SCC540; [1980]1SCR711; 1980(12)LC72(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. These appeals by special leave involve a common question regarding the taxibility of certain amounts received by the appellant company (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') during the three accounting years, namely, 1359 B.S., 1360 , B.S. and 1361 B.S. relevant-to the assessment years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56 and the question is whether those amounts represented business income or receipts of a capital nature 2. The facts giving rise to the question may briefly be stated : The assessee was incorporated on July 3, 1920 for the purpose of taking over the Zamindari properties pertaining the Ukhara Estate which belonged to Rai Pullin Behari Singha Bahadur and the late Gosta Behari Lal Singha. Therefore, on incorporation, by an Indenture dated July 5, 1920 the assessee took a lease of the extensive Zamindari pertaining to the said Estate for a term of 999 years and also took an assignment of movables, including Government promissory notes and jewellery belon...
Tag this Judgment!