Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2225; 1976CriLJ1732; (1976)1SCC555; [1976]2SCR933; 1976(8)LC133(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the same facts and it would, therefore, be convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment. The respondent in all the three appeals is one Haridas Mundra. He was at all material time the managing director of Section B. Industrial Development Co. (Private) Limited, who were the managing agents of a company called Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. He had his brother Tulsidas Mundra were also directors of Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Which was the largest share-holder, filed a petition in the High Court of Calcutta being Matter No, 357 of 1957 seeking relief against mismanagement of Richardson & Cruddas Ltd under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent and other directors were impleaded as party-respondents to the petition. The High Court, on the application of the Life Insurance Coporation, made an interim order sometime in December 1957 appointing Sir Dhirendra Mitra as special ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC951; (1976)1SCC750
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. In village Bapla, Police Station Mehal Kalan, District Sangrur a very serious occurrence took place on the 18th September, 1972 in which three persons were killed by fire-arms. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 7.30 A.M. Gidho Puri, P.W. 4, his wife Gurdial Kaur, P.W. 5 and their son Labh Puri--(one of the victims) were present in their house. Appellants Nachhettar Singh, Dalip Gir and Balwant Gir, according to the prosecution case, came from the side of village Seth raising Lalkaras. Nachhettar Singh had a rifle, Dalip a gun and Balwant Gir was armed with a gandasa. They caught hold of Labh Puri, dragged him out of his house and took him to the Court-yard of Balwant Gir across the lane, Gurdial Kaur tried to save him but Nachhattar Singh gave her a blow with the butt end of his rifle on her right shoulder. In the Court-yard of Balwant Gir, Nachhattar Singh is said to have fired his rifle at Labh Puri and caused his death.2. The prosecution story f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(SC)175
Fazal Ali, J. - These two groups of appeals one consisting of six appeals by the firm Balabhagas Hulaschand dealing in jute. Civil Appeal No. 449 of 1971 arises from the judgment of the High Court in S.J.C. No. 41 of 1968 decided on April 22, 1970 in respect of the assessment for the quarter ending June, 1960. The other five appeals are by the same firm in respect of the sales tax levied by the State of Orissa for the quarters ending December, 1959, March, 1960 and December, 1960 to June, 1961, decided by the judgment of the High Court in S.J.C. Nos. 73-77 of 1968 dated April 27, 1970. As all the appeals involve a common point they were consolidated and have been heard together.2. Appeals Nos. 888-890 of 1974 have been filed by the firm M/s. Keluram Ramkaran in respect of the assessment of tax made by the State of Orissa for the quarters ending September 30, 1961, June 30, 1962 and September 30, 1962. These appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court given in S.J.C. Nos. 70-72 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC636; [1976]102ITR531(SC); (1976)1SCC381; [1976]2SCR891; 1976(8)LC118(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Bhupendra Ratilal Thakkar, petitioner No. 1, is the managing partner of the other petitioner M/s. Rajnikant Nareshchandra Shroff, which is a partnership firm carrying on the business of 'Shroffs and bankers'. Its principal place of business is said to be at Mehmedabad, with branches at Surat and Bombay. The petitioners applied for registration of the firm on April 7, 1971, and had time to file their return of income upto June 30, 1972. It has been claimed that the firm had large sums of money in cash as well as 'hundis' and other bills of exchange which formed its stock-in-trade and that there was no justification for thinking that it would not do what was required to be done under the law relating to income tax. The firm had a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- as cash on January 10, 1972 which is said to have been duly entered in its books of account in the Bombay branch office. The grievance of the petitioners is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC437; [1976]102ITR281(SC); (1976)1SCC1001; [1976]2SCR884; 1976(8)LC157(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. The appellant No. 1 is a registered firm and appellants 2 and 3 are the only two partners of that firm. They are assessees under the Income-tax Act Their assessments have been made for a number of years in Nellore District in the usual course. On January 23, 1973, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (briefly the Central Board) sent a notice to (the appellants under Section 127 of the Income-tax, Act, 1961 (briefly the Act) proposing to transfer their case files 'for facility of investigation' from the respective Income-tax Officer at Nellore to the Income-tax Officer, B Ward, Special Circle II, Hyderabad. By this notice they were also asked to submit in writing if they had any objection to the proposed transfer within 15 days of receipt of notice. The appellants made their representation objecting to the transfer and on July 26, 1973, the Central Board the impugned order transferring the cases from Nellore to Hyderabad.2. There is no provision of appeal or revision und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC370; 1976CriLJ328; (1976)1SCC421; 1976(8)LC146(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. By his order dated November 19, 1974 the First Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, allowed the application of the Public Prosecutor, Etawah, to withdraw the prosecution against respondents Chandan Lal and Baldeo Prasad. A revisional application directed against the order was dismissed in limine by the Allahabad High Court. In this appeal by special leave the propriety of the order allowing withdrawal of the prosecution is in question.2. The facts of the case, relevant for the present purpose, are as follows. On the morning of May 27, 1970 two reports concerning the same incident were lodged in quick succession by two persons, the first report was made by one Ram Narayan at 6.15 A.M., and the next at 6.30 A.M. by the appellant Bansilal at Etawah police station. The reports said that respondent Chandan Lal and several others had forcibly caught hold of Bansi Lal's sister's husband Mawa Ram and dragged him inside Chandan Lal's house and when attracted by his screams severa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC222; 1976LabIC222; (1976)ILLJ235SC; (1976)1SCC289; [1976]2SCR872; 1976(8)LC139(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is by Pratap Narain Singh Deo who is the proprietor of two cinema halls in Jeypore, district Koraput, Orissa. It is not in dispute that Sriniwas Sabata, respondent No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was working as a carpenter for doing some ornamental work in a cinema hall of the appellant on July 6, 1968, when he fell down, and suffered injuries resulting in the amputation of his left arm from the elbow. He served a notice on the appellant dated August 11, 1968 demanding payment of compensation as his regular employee. The appellant sent a reply dated August 21, 1968 stating that the respondent was a casual contractor, and that the accident had taken place solely because of his own negligence. The respondent then made a personal approach fur obtaining the compensation, but to no avail. He therefore made an application to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, respondent No. 2, Mating that he was a regular employee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC487; (1976)IILLJ151SC; (1976)1SCC283; 1976(1)SLJ135a(SC); 1976(8)LC112(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. These two appeals by special leave are directed against a common judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland dated August 13, 1971. They arise out of facts which are common, and both the cases have teen argued together by the counsel for the parties. We shall therefore dispose of them by this judgment.2. The facts which have been admitted before us are quite simple and may be stated shortly. Dr. Satyabrata Dutta Choudhury, appellant in Civil Appeal No 1454 of 1972, and Dr. Guru Prand Sarma, appellant in Civil Appea1 No. 1455 of 1972, were appointed as Registrars in Surgery in Government colleges of Assam in 1961, under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951 (herein-after referred to as the Regulations). They were then appointed Assistant Professor of Surgery under Regulation 3(e), and took overcharge on April 23, 1962 Thereafter respondents Dr. Hamiduddin Ahmad, Dr. Pradipta Kumar Das Gupta and Dr. Jot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC424; [1976(32)FLR80]; (1976)1SCC495; 1976(8)LC114(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. The appellants in this appeal by special leave are the State Government of Madhya Pradesh and their Director of Geology and Mining. Ramnaresh Swamy and H P. Pathak are respondents 1 and 2 respectively. Respondent No. 2 made an application to the State Government on May 13, 1966 for a quarry lease in respect of 33.63 acres of land for quarrying limestone for burning. His application was not disposed of within the time allowed by Rule 8(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Mines and Mineral Rule, 1961-hereinafter called the Rules. In the meantime, respondent No. 1 filed an application on January 8, 1968 for grant of a quarry lease to him in respect of Khasra No. 346, area 1.31 acres in Mouza Amehta. This land formed part of the large area in respect of which respondent No. 2 had applied for a quarry lease. His application also was not disposed of in time by the officer concerned. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal under the Rules before the State Government on July 15, 1968. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1003; (1976)1SCC716; [1976]2SCR868; 1976(8)LC137(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 11 December, 1968 in writ petition No. 3838 of 1968 in the High Court at Madras.2. In the present appeal the writ petitions in the High Court were allowed following the judgment of the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition No. 3838 of 1968.3. In Civil Appeals No. 262-273 of 1971 arising out of the Common judgment dated 11 December, 1968 of the High Court at Madras in writ petition No. 3838 of 1968 this Court in the decision in Union of India and Anr. v. Parameswaran Match Works : 1978(2)ELT436(SC) set aside the orders of the High Court and dismissed the writ petitions.4. The present appeals were not heard at that time because service was not complete.5. this Court by order dated 14 July, 1975 directed that these appeals be listed for hearing on 21 November, 1975. The Union made an application for consolidation of appeals, reduction of security and early hearing of the appeals The respondents were served in that applicat...
Tag this Judgment!