Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC46; [1967]66ITR590(SC); [1967]3SCR821
Shah, J.1. A business of manufacture and sale of tents was commenced in 1940, in the name and style of Messrs. Jawahar Tent Factory, Agra, in partnership. There were four partners in the firm -Jawahar Lal, Shiam Lal, Radha Raman and Radha Krishan. Jawahar Lal represented his Hindu undivided family and his share in the profit & loss was - /8/-(eight annas) in a rupee. The share of other partners was - /2/8 (two annas eight pies) each. The firm was registered under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and tax was assessed on the income of the firm in accordance with section 23(5) (a) of the Act. The partnership was, according to the Income-tax Officer, dissolved on October 23, 1946. 2. This appeal relates to the tax liability of Jawahar Lal in respect of the income from the firm for the assessment years 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48. The tax attributable to the share of Jawahar Lal, which it is claimed could not be recovered from him, is sought to be recovered from his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC19; 1968CriLJ86; [1967]3SCR828
Hidayatullah, J.1. Kamla Prasad Singh the appellant had filed three complaints in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, (judicial) Varanasi for the prosecution of Harinath Singh (respondent No. 1) under s. 218 Indian Penal Code. In each of these complaints Harinath was a co-accused with another. In one it was Mangla Prasad Pandey, Ahlmed, Court of Tahsildar, Sadar Varanasi, in another it was Ramchander Lakhpal of Village Balua and in the third it was Ram Samravlal Lekhpal of Village Cholapore. In each case Harinath Singh was said to have abetted the offence committed by his co-accused. The circumstance in which the complaints were lodged were common and may now be briefly stated. 2. Certain Bhumidari lands in these villages were the property of Nankoo s/o Mehar Singh and Sumitra window of one Ajudhia Singh On December 4, 1962, Nankoo sold his half share to Kamla Prasad Singh and some others. Kamla Prasad's complaint is that Harinath Singh in conspiracy with the two Lekhpals ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Kapur, J.(1) The following question has been referred to the Full Bench:-'Whether an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, challenging the validity of an award on the ground of non-existence of the arbitration agreement, is governed by Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (previously Article 158 of the Limitation Act, 1908)?'(2) On June 22, 1962, Shri Kundan Lal, pleader purporting to act as the sole arbitrator made an award whereunder the appellant and his guarantor J.N. Khanna were held jointly and severally liable to pay to Messrs. Security and Finance (Private), Limited, New Delhi, respondent (hereafter referred to as the company) a sum of Rs.15,786.85 paise and were also to return vehicle No. MPE-187 (Commar 1956 Model) or in default to further pay an amount of Rs.10,000 being the assessed market value. The arbitrator filed the award in Court at the instance of the company and notice was given to the parties of filing thereof. The notice was served on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1967]66ITR622(SC)
Ramaswami, J. 1. This appeal is brought on a certificate by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated July 15, 1963, in Income-tax Reference No. 108 of 1952. 2. Prior to January 1, 1939, the respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') purchased 1,500 shares of Bally Jute Company Limited. During the accounting year ending on March 31, 1947, the respondent was the managing agent of Bally Jute Company Limited. On April 1, 1946, the respondent transferred these shares to one Giridhari Lal Mehta at the rate of Rs. 136 per share. The market value of the shares on that date was Rs. 620 per share. Giridhari Lal Mehta has been described as the beneficial owner of the respondent as he purchased all but five shares of the respondent. On the same date, i.e., April 1, 1946, Giridhari Lal Mehta sold the shares to Jardine Skinner & Co. at the rate of Rs. 100 per share. Giridhari Lal Mehta retained the share scrips with blank t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC70; [1967]66ITR596(SC); [1967]3SCR813
Sikri, J.1. These appeals by certificate granted by the Bombay High Court under section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - hereinafter referred to as the Act - are directed against its judgment in Income-tax Reference to it by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the National Storage Ltd., Bombay hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'. The following questions were referred to the High court by the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I, Bombay : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the vaults were used for the purposes of the business and income arising therefrom is assessable under section 10 2. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, whether the income is assessable under section 9 or section 12 ?' 2. The relevant facts and circumstances are as follows : The assessee was promoted because the Government of India promulgated the Cinematograph Film Rules, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1968]21STC63(SC)
S.M. Sikri, J. 1. These two appeals raise a common question and can be conveniently disposed of together. Civil Appeal No. 1397 of 1966, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Sales Tax Reference No. 267 of 1954. The Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, U.P., had referred the following question under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act :'Whether on the facts proved in this case the turnover in dispute can be held to be the turnover of confectionery sold in sealed containers ?'2. In order to appreciate the point arising in the case it is necessary to give a few facts. M/s. G.G. Industries, Belanganj, Agra, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, is a firm which carries on, inter alia, the business of manufacture and sale of confectionery such as chocolates, lollipops, lemon-drops etc. For the assessment year 1949-50, the Sales Tax Officer overruled the contention of the assessee that sales of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC53; (1968)70BOMLR141; 1968CriLJ92; [1968(16)FLR25]; 1968LabIC92; (1968)ILLJ12SC; [1967]3SCR808
Hidayatullah, J. 1. The state of Maharashtra appeals against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated November 8, 1963 by which the High Court set aside the conviction of one Purshottam Ranchhoddas (since deceased and represented by his widow) and the fine imposed on him, under s. 92 of Factories Act, 1948 read with r. 3-A of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1950. Only one question arises in this appeal and it is the true construction of s. 85 of the Factories Act on which different views have been expressed by the High Court and the Court below. 2. Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas was a lessee from the Port Trust Bombay of an open plot of land. He established a factory called the Sunderdas Saw Mills. He closed down the factory on April 1, 1957. In July 1957, the ex-workers of the factory combined together to form five partnerships and by agreements of leave and licence, Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas gave in their use the premises of the factory and the machinery installed there. He hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC124; [1967]66ITR604(SC); [1967]3SCR798
Shah, J. 1. In Sundaram & Company (Private) Ltd. - hereinafter called 'the Company' - - the public are not substantially interested within the meaning of s. 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In dealing with the assessment of income of the Company for the assessment years 1946-47 to 1951-52, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, Madras, passed orders under s. 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and directed that the total income of the Company as determined in the years of assessment less tax payable be deemed to have been distributed amongst the shareholders of the Company as on the relevant dates of the General Body Meetings. The following table sets out the relevant details : Assessment year. Amount of dividend Date of order passeddeemed to have under s. 23A deemingbeen declared. dividendto have been declared.-------------------------------------------------------------------1946-47 46,563 March 18, 19521947-48 43,959 --do--1948-49 47,829 --do--1949-50 97,875 --do--1950-51 92,59...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC142; [1967]3SCR789
Bhargava, J. 1. This appeal has come up as a result of a dispute relating to succession to the property of one Sunder Singh. Sunder Singh, on 4th November, 1950, executed a will in respect of his property in favour of his niece, Udham Kaur. Subsequently, on 27th October, 1951, one Tarlok Singh executed a document divorcing his wife, Mst, Angrez Kaur, respondent No. 1 in this appeal, on the ground that she frequently went away from his house without his consent and whenever he made enquiries from her, she became furious with him. In the document, he recited that Mst. Angrez Kaur was no longer his wife and that she had gone to live with Sunder Singh. According to respondent No. 1 on this divorce being granted to her by her first husband, Tarlok Singh, She was married to Sunder Singh by a custom, known as 'Chadar Andazi'. On 7th June, 1952, Sunder Singh revoked his previous will and, in that document, acknowledged Mst. Angrez Kaur as his wife and left the property to her. Sunder Singh die...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
PROHIBITION PARTY OF MICHIGAN v. HARE - 386 U.S. 713 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Reports PROHIBITION PARTY OF MICHIGAN v. HARE, 386 U.S. 713 (1967) PROHIBITION PARTY OF MICHIGAN v. HARE, 386 U.S. 713 (1967) 386 U.S. 713 PROHIBITION PARTY OF MICHIGAN ET AL. v. HARE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. No. 1098. Decided April 24, 1967. Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. James L. Elsman, Jr., for appellants. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Russell A. Searl, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. ...
Tag this Judgment!