Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC178; (1968)70BOMLR134; 1968CriLJ231; 1968MhLJ371(SC); [1967]3SCR415
Hidayatullah, J.1. On November 16, 1964, the shop of the appellant Govani situated in Sukalji Street, Bombay was searched by the Enforcement Branch of the Reserved Bank of India. Nothing incriminating from the pint of view of the Reserve Bank was found in the shop but a large number of watches, clocks, cigarette lighters, cameras, transistors, tape recorders, etc., were found. The officers of the Enforcement Branch appear to have informed the customs authorities. The Assistant Collector of Customs thereupon issued a warrant for the search of the premises under s. 105 of the Customs Act, 1962. This warrant was made out in the name of Preventive Additional Chief Inspector R. C. Dutta, Preventive Inspector P. N. Ramchandani and Preventive Officers Ranade. Thakur and Menon. It was stated in the warrant that there were reasons to believe that prohibited and dutiable goods liable to confiscation and documents and things useful for and relevant to the proceedings were secreted in the shop. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1581; (1967)69PLR781; [1967]3SCR399
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1101 of 1965. Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 22, 1963 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 16 of 1960. A. K. Sen and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants. Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents. The Judgment of SUBBA RAO, C.J., SHELAT AND VAIDIALINGAM, JJ., was delivered by SHELAT, J. The dissenting Opinion of HIDAYATULLAH and BACHAWAT JJ., was delivered by BACHAWAT, J. Shelat, J. This appeal, by certificate, is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab dismissing the appellants' writ petition which challenged the validity of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, XXXI of 1959. In or about September, 1953, the State of Punjab leased the "Mount View Hotel" at Chandigarh to the appellants for a period of six years commencing from September 24, 1953 at an annual rent of Rs. 72,000/- subsequently reduced to Rs. 50,0001-. The deed of lease of the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1545; [1967]65ITR607(SC); [1967]3SCR388
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated April 14, 1964, in Referred Case No. 46 of 1962. 2. The respondent, hereinafter called the 'assessee', was a Hindu undivided family consisting of K. Ankineedu and his two sons. For the assessment year 1949-50 corresponding to the previous financial year ending March 31, 1949, the assessee submitted a return in response to a notice sent to him. The Income-tax Officer computed his total income as Rs. 2,429 only which was below the taxable limit and so the assessee was declared not liable to pay income-tax. Subsequent to the assessment, the Income-tax Officer had information that the assessee had done some business as procurement agent for the Government and in this business he has earned large profits which has escaped assessment. Accordingly, he issued a notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the 'Act') on March 22, 1957. In response to the n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC75; [1967]66ITR373(SC); [1967]3SCR393
Shah, J.1. The Bangalore Transport Company Ltd., hereinafter called 'the company', operated a public motor transport service in the town of Bangalore for several years. The legislature of the State of Mysore enacted the Bangalore Road Transport Service Act, 1956 (Mysore Act VIII of 1956), with a view to provide for the acquisition of the undertaking of the company. By virtue of section 3 of the Act the undertaking, assets and documents of the company vested in the Government of Mysore, on October 1, 1956, and the company was paid Rs. 15,50,000 as compensation for the loss of its undertaking, assets and documents. 2. In respect of the previous year ending March 31, 1957, the company submitted a return under the Income-tax Act, claiming that it had earned no income from its business, since its undertaking and business was taken over by the Government of Mysore on October 1, 1956. The Income-tax Officer, Urban Circle, Bangalore, brought to tax Rs. 4,01,954 disclosed by the company's audit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1554; [1967]65ITR611(SC); [1967]2SCR356
Ramaswami, J. 1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Madras High Court dated October 25, 1961, in T. C. No. 62 of 1958. 2. The assessee, the East India Industries Limited, paid a donation of Rs. 7,500 to a trust called 'the Agastyar Trust' and claimed exemption from tax under section 15B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the 'Act'. The trust had been created by the partners of a business firm, K. Rajagopal and Company. This firm had been carrying on business in waste paper. Under the terms of the partnership it was setting apart 80 per cent. of the profits for charitable and religious purposes. On July 1, 1944, a trust deed was executed by Venkatarama Chetty. The claim of the assessee to exemption from tax was rejected by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the trust did not fulfil the conditions laid down under section 15B of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner to whom an appeal was preferred took the same view. The matter w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1968MhLJ164(SC); [1967]3SCR365
Mitter, J. 1. This is an appeal by a certificate against a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court at Chandigarh in Letter Patent Appeal No. 212 of 1961. The High Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the application out of which it arose was incompetent as barred by limitation and in our opinion it did so correctly. The short question before us is whether application leading to this appeal was one under s. 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and as such having been mad beyond the period of 21 days from the date of the act of the receiver complained of was cover by the proviso to that section? In substance the argument on behalf of the appellant was that the application was one under s. 4 of the Act in which there is no mentioned of any period of limitation. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows : Brij Lal and Hans Raj were brother. On an application having been made by the creditors of Brij Lal in the year 1949 that insolvency Judge Barnala...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1857; [1971(21)FLR59]; (1968)ILLJ257SC; [1967]3SCR377
Bhargava, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is Electricity Board of Rajasthan Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') a body corporate constituted on 1st July 1957, under the Electricity (supply) Act, 1948 (No. 54 of 1948) Before the constitution of the Board the supply of electricity in the State of Rajasthan was being controlled directly by a department of the State Government named as the Electrical and Mechanical Department. Respondent No. 1 Mohan Lal as well as respondents 4 to 14 were all permanent employees of the State Government holding posts of Foremen in the Electrical and Mechanical Department. On the Constitution of the Board the services of most the employees including all these respondents were provisionally placed at the disposal of the Board by a notification issued by the Government on 12th February 1958 purporting to exercise its power under section 78A of Act 54 of 1948. In this notification a direction was included that the Board was to frame its own new gr...
Tag this Judgment!