Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1387; 1981CriLJ1009; (1981)3SCC72
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Part of the sample of groundnut oil purchased by the Food Inspector from the appellant was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst. According to the report of the Public Analyst the Butyro-refractometer reading at 40C was 57.5 instead of the prescribed standard, '54.0 to 57.1.' The appellant challenged the opinion of the Analyst and requested the Court to send the part of the sample kept with the local authority to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory was that the article of food was adulterated as Bellier test (turbidity temperature - acetic acid method) revealed 37.90C whereas the standard was 39C to 41C. Butyro-refractometer reading at 40C, however, was 56.0C, which was within the prescribed limits. In the Trial Court, an objection was taken that the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory should be excluded from consideration as the Director had reported that 'the spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC790; (1982)3SCC215
R.S. Pathak, J.1. Special leave granted2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The judgment dated Oct. 1, 1980 made by the High Court does not consider the proviso to Section 21(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The consideration of the proviso was mandatory because the High Court was making an order for ejectment of the tenant on an application made by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. It is not necessary for us, however, to send the case back to the High Court for this purpose as learned Counsel for the parties are agreed before us that in accordance with the proviso the appellant should be entitled to compensation in an amount equivalent to two years' rent. The judgment of the High Court is modified accordingly. Further, learned Counsel for the parties are agreed, and we order, that the appellant shall not be evicted from the premises for a period of six months from today provided the appellant furnishes an undertaki...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1401; 1981(1)SCALE930; (1981)3SCC94; [1981]3SCR590
1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment dated May 21, 1970 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana accepting a Letters Patent Appeal and holding that in view of the provisions of Sections 5, 5-A and 5-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the concerned Collector had no jurisdiction to vary the reserved area of a land-owner by including therein the lands sold by him to others.2. Most of the relevant facts are undisputed and may be briefly stated thus. Sadh Singh, respondent No. 3, who is a displaced person from Pakistan, was allotted more than 60 standard acres of land in village Karyam, Tehsil Nawanshehar, District Jullundur, in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. He also owned a little more than 1 standard acre of land in village Surwind Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar. About 3 years after the Act came into force, i e., on March 9, 1956, respondent No. 3 made an oral gift of some of his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1385; 1981CriLJ1044; 1981(1)SCALE807; (1981)3SCC74
1. We are afraid we have to voice our grave concern and express our serious displeasure at the course of events in the High Court in the present case. We consider it our duty to do so. We are not a little disturbed by what has been done in the High Court. The High Court, some weeks after pronouncing its judgment in a Criminal appeal, altered a conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code which it had confirmed to one under Section 304 Indian Penal Code, ostensibly exercising its power to correct clerical errors but ignoring Section 362 of the CrPC 1973 which expressly provides 'Save as otherwise provided by this Cede or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.'2. Naresh, one of the appellants, was convicted by the Trial Court of an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and the rest of the appellants were convicted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1263; (1981)22CTR(SC)118; [1981]129ITR404(SC); 1981(1)SCALE786; (1981)3SCC181; [1981]3SCR576; 1981(13)LC513(SC)
1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether under Section 52 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Central Government is bound to accept in satisfaction of the whole or any part of the duty payable under the Act at such price as may be agreed upon between the Central Government and the person accountable for estate duty any property passing on the death of the deceased when an application is made for that purpose by such person.2. On the death of Lala Beni Madho Agarwal which took place on September 29,1964 his son Prayag Dass Agarwal, the respondent herein filed a statement of account under the Act of the estate passing on the death of the deceased. The estate duty payable in respect of the estate in question was determined at Rs. 3,37,543.40 by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Allahabad by his order dated November 30, 1970. When the appeal filed against the said order was still pending, the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1981(1)SCALE883; (1981)3SCC143; 1981(13)LC533(SC)
1. This appeal by certificate is directed against an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta allowing an appeal against a decision of a single Judge which quashed and set aside a notice dated 28th March 1968 issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking to reopen the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1959-60. The facts giving rise to the appeal are a little important and they may be briefly stated as follows.2. Prior to March 1947, one Deo Datt Sharma carried on business in Delhi in the name of Sharma Trading Company. The business was quite a prosperous one and the record shows that Deo Datt Sharma was making an average profit of about Rs. 36000/- per year. In March 1947, the assessee was incorporated as a private limited company with Ganga Saran Sharma as its managing director and it took over the business of Sharma Trading Company as a going concern in consideration of allotment of 1703 shares in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1363; (1981)22CTR(SC)112; [1981]130ITR1(SC); [1981]3SCR564
1. This appeal by certificate is directed against an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta allowing an appeal against a decision of a Single Judge which quashed and set aside a notice dated 28th March 1968 issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking to reopen the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1959-60. The facts giving rise to the appeal are a little important and they may be briefly stated as follows.2. Prior to March 1947, one Deo Datt Sharma carried on business in Delhi in the name of Sharma Trading Company. The business was quite a prosperous one and the record shows that Deo Datt Sharma was making an average profit of about Rs. 36,000 per year. In March 1947, the assessee was incorporated as a private limited company with Ganga Saran Sharma as its managing director and it took over the business of Sharma Trading Company as a going concern in consideration of allotment of 1703 shares in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1462; (1981)83BOMLR395; (2009)22CTR(SC)106; [1981]130ITR28(SC); 1981(1)SCALE679; (1981)3SCC308; [1981]3SCR542; 1981(13)LC507(SC)
1. These appeals by special leave raise the question : 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee-Council could be taken to be a body intended to advance any object of general public utility falling within Section 2(15) for purposes of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid question may briefly be stated. The respondent assessee-Bar Council of Maharashtra is a body corporate established under the Advocate's Act, 1961 (Act 25 of 1961) which came into force on December 28, 1961. During the accounting periods relevant to the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 the assessee derived income from securities (interest) and other income by way of enrolment fees particulars whereof, are as follows :Assessment year Interest on securities Other Income 1962-63 Rs. 3,779 Rs. 28,035 1963-64 Rs. 8,629 Rs. 3 ,04,103 1964-65 Rs. 9,356 Rs. 96,3223. The Income Tax Officer subjected to tax the income from both the sources fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1450; 1981(1)SCALE739; (1981)3SCC173; [1981]3SCR553; 1981(13)LC572(SC)
1. Mst. Bibi Rahmani Khatoon and others filed Title Suit No. 3/70 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge I, Gaya for declaration of their title and for recovery of possession of agricultural lands admeasuring 4 acres 29 gunthas comprised in two holdings bearing khata nos. 458 (nakdi) and 459 (Bhouli) in Touzi No. 7535 situated in village Parsain. The defendants in the suit were the present respondents and three others defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7. One Brahmadeo was defendant 7 claiming an interest in khata No. 458 on the basis of a sale deed executed on March 31, 1959, by one Deonandan Singh who was defendant 5 in the trial court. It must be made distinctly clear that Brahmadeo claimed interest in khata No. 458 while the present respondents claimed interest in khata No. 459 only. The trial court decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiffs were the owners of both the khatas and were entitled to recover possession of the same.2. Title Appeal No. 7/74 was preferred in the court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1382; 1981CriLJ1029; 1981(1)SCALE767; (1981)3SCC166; [1981]3SCR536
Chandrachud, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, ('the Act',) against the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated November 17, 1980 in Contempt Case (Criminal) No. 7 of 1980, whereby the appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200.2. The appellant practises as an Advocate at Solan which is a district place in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It appears that only one court generally sits at Solan which is that of the Senior Sub Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Judge, who presides over that Court, also exercises the powers of a Rent Controller and of the Court of Small Causes. On June 18, 1980, Shri Kuldip Chand Sud, who was the Presiding Officer of the Court, was hearing a petition under the Rent Act in which the petitioner was represented by the appellant. When the case was called out for hearing, the learned Judge noticed that the petitioner had not paid the process fee, ...
Tag this Judgment!