Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC148; (1980)19CTR(SC)192; [1980]125ITR525(SC); 1980Supp(1)SCC614; [1981]1SCR587
Venkataramiah, J.1. These two appeals by Special Leave are filed against a common judgment dated November 18, 1971 delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Case Referred Nos. 50 and 52 of 1970.2. Sri Bommidala Kotiratnam (hereinafter referred to as 'the statutory agent') is a dealer in tobacco at Guntur in, the State of Andhra Pradesh. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63, the statutory agent purchased tobacco in India and exported it to Japan, where it was sold through M/s. Toshoku Ltd. (the assessee involved in Civil Appeal No. 782 of 1973 a Japanese Company and admittedly non-resident. Under the terms of the agreement between the statutory agent and the assessee referred to above, the latter was appointed the exclusive sales agent in Japan for selling tobacco exported by the former. The assessee was entitled to a commission of 3% of the invoice amount. The sale price received on the sale of tobacco in Japan was remitted wholly to the statutory age...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1754; (1980)4SCC255; [1981]1SCR594
Chandrachud, C.J.1. A deed of adoption is alleged to have been executed by one Mansaram on August 10, 1944, stating that he had adopted the appellant, Madan Lal. A suit to challenge that deed was dismissed by the trial Court. The learned District Judge, Jodhpur, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court but in second appeal No. 569 of 1965, a learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court set aside the judgment of the Courts below and decreed the suit. By this appeal by special leave, the defendant questions the correctness of the High Court's judgment dated April 30, 1969.2. The principal point of controversy involved in the suit was whether Mansaram was in a fit state of mind when he executed the deed of adoption. This, substantially, is a question of fact but we find that the trial Court and the District Court wholly ignored the weight of preponderating circumstances on the record and allowed their judgments to be influenced by inconsequential matters. The High Court was, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC80; 1980CriLJ1312
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The appellant was convicted of offences under Sections 417, 420 read with Section 511 and Section 471 read with Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine for those offences. Having heard counsel for both sides we do not find any reason to disturb the order of conviction in respect of offences under Sections 417 and 420 read with Section 511 but as regards the offence under Section 471 read with Section 467, I.P.C. we do not think that the two certificates the appellant has been found to have forged to get admission in the Arts and Commerce College affiliated to Poona University could be described as 'valuable security' as the expression is defined in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, alter the conviction under the aforesaid sections to one under Section 471 read with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the sentences passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC297; 1980CriLJ1345
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The appellant was convicted of offences under Sections 417, 420 read with Section 511 and Section 471 read with Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine for those offences. Having heard counsel for both sides we do not find any reason to disturb the order of conviction in respect of offences under Sections 417 and 420 read with Section 511 but as regards the offence under Section 471 read with Section 467, I.P.C. we do not think that the two certificates the appellant has been found t have forged to get admission in the Art and Commerce College affiliated to Poona University could be described as 'valuable security'' as the expression is defined in Section 30 of the Indian Pens Code, We, therefore, alter the conviction under the aforesaid sections to one under Section 471 read with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the sentences passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1980)4SCC551; 1980(12)LC908a(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The appellant was convicted of offences under Sections 417 and 420 read with Section 511 and Section 471 read with Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine for those offences. Having heard Counsel for both sides we do not find any reason to disturb the order of conviction in respect of offences under Sections 417 and 420 read with Section 511 but as regards the offence under Section 471 read with Section 467 I.P.C. we do not think that the two certificates the appellant has been found to have forged to get admission in the Arts the Commerce College affiliated to Poona University could be described as 'valuable security' as the expression is defined in Section 30 of the Indian Panel Code. We therefore alter the conviction under the aforesaid sections to one under Section 471 reads with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the sentences pass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC365; 1980CriLJ1410; (1980)4SCC316; [1981]1SCR580
Gupta, J.1. This appeal preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed against a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by which a learned Judge of that Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 429 of the CrPC, 1898 set aside the order of conviction and the sentences passed on the respondents before us by the Sessions Judge, Chittoor Division. The charge against the respondents was that at about ten on the night of September 5, 1971 Venkataramaiah Chetty and Chakala Giddappa (P.W. 1) were returning to their village Sanganapalle from Kadepalle where they had gone and when they were about a mile from Sanganapalle, respondent No. 1 armed with a bill-hook and respondent No. 2 with a stout stick attacked them and beat Venkataramaiah Chetty severely causing multiple injuries as a result of which he died. The Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of P.W. 1 and the dying declaration said to have been made by Venkataramaiah Chetty in the presence of several witnesses including P.W. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)1SCC415
P.N. SHINGHAL, J.1. After the hearing in this case had proceeded for some time, it was felt that there was force in the first point which was argued by the learned Attorney-General, namely, that if in any bill of the contractor it was expressly stated that the bill was in final settlement of his demand for the work concerned, that would be an admission against its maker who would therefore be bound by it unless he could explain it away satisfactorily. While we found merit in that contention of the learned Attorney-General, we did not find it possible to examine the evidentiary value of the submission as it appeared that the point had not been raised in the High Court.2. The arguments in the case therefore proceeded on other points, when it was suggested by the court that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it would be desirable if the increased excise duty was shared equitably by the parties. That suggestion was accepted by learned counsel for both the parties...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1678; (1980)4SCC271; [1981]1SCR573
Koshal, J.1. By this judgment we shall dispose of Civil Appeals Nos. 143 to 147 of 1970, all five of which have been filed by certificates granted under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution by the High Court of Calcutta and are directed against its common judgment dated the 17th February, 1967 accepting five Letters Patent Appeals and, in reversal of the judgment of a learned Single Judge, issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan and the State of West Bengal to cancel or withdraw a notification dated November 3, 1961 and another containing a declaration dated June 20, 1963 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) respectively.2. The facts leading to the litigation covered by the appeals before us may be briefly stated. On February 12, 1960 a notification (later in this judgment called the first notification) was issued by the Government of West Bengal under Section 4 of the Act stating that a pie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC152; [1980(41)FLR288]; (1981)ILLJ156SC; 1980Supp(1)SCC437; [1981]1SCR558; 1981(1)SLJ40(SC)
Desai, J.1. How technical plea of want of jurisdiction has pushed a petty employee from pillar to post since April 1964 and pilloried him with cost presumably unbearable by him, is shockingly demonstrated in this case.2. First respondent joined service as a petty employee in Cane Development Department of the U.P. State Government somewhere in 1949. On the formation of the U.P. Co-operative Cane Union Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellant'), services of the first respondent stood transferred and were put at the disposal of the appellant and he was styled as Supervisor. At the relevant time he was rendering service under the second appellant, District Co-operative Sugarcane Development Society Ltd. (now designated as Zila Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd.,) Budayun, a federating unit of the first appellant and was incharge of manure godown. He was suspended from service with effect from October 18, 1958. A prosecution was launched against him for embezzlement of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC97; 1980(6)ELT663(SC); (1981)1SCC4; [1981]1SCR513
Bhagwati, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court allowing 12 writ petitions filed by different respondents. Each of the respondents owned at the material time not more than 4 powerlooms and carried on business of manufacturing cotton fabrics on those powerlooms. The case of the respondents was that each of them acquired his powerlooms from person who were or had been licencees and started manufacturing cotton fabrics on those powerlooms prior to 1st April, 1961. The respondents claimed that since each of them had not more than 4 powerlooms in his factory, no excise duty was payable on the cotton fabrics manufactured by him and this claim for exemption was based on a notification dated 5th January, 1957 issued by the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Superintendent of Central Excise, however, rejected the claim for exemption on the ground that thou...
Tag this Judgment!