Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 1964 Page 4 of about 56 results (0.103 seconds)

Sep 11 1964 (SC)

Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-11-1964

Reported in : AIR1965SC1288; [1965]35CompCas378(SC)

sarkar, j. 1. by a policy dated may 1, 1947, the respondent insured the appellant as the mortgagee and a firm of the name of bombay import and export agency as the owners against loss suffered by the destruction of or damage to certain goods by fire between march 20, 1947, and march 20, 1948. for the period covered by the policy prior to its date presumably there existed provisional policies but with these, if any, we shall not be concerned. the insurance was subject to various conditions and stipulations printed in the policy of which clause 10 was in the following terms :' 10. this insurance may be terminated at any time at the request of the insured, in which case the company will retain the customary short period rate for the time the policy has been in force. this insurance may also at any time be terminated at the option of the company, on notice to that effect being given to the insured, in which case the company shall be liable to repay on demand a rateable proportion on the premium for the unexpired term from the date of the cancelment. '2. the word ' company ' in this clause refers to the insurer, the respondent. originally the policy did not afford any insurance against loss caused by persons taking part in riot or civil commotion but by subsequent agreements made from time to time it was extended to cover these riot risks. one of such agreements covered the riot risks occurring between july 18, 1947, and august 17, 1947.3. it is not in dispute that from early 1947 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1964 (SC)

Jyoti Prokash Mitter Vs. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Himansu Kumar Bose, Chief ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-09-1964

Reported in : AIR1965SC961; [1965]2SCR53

gajendragadkar, c.j. 1. the short question which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the order passed by the president of india on may 15, 1961, approving the action which was proposed to be taken against the appellant, jyoti prokash mitter, amounts to a decision on the question about the appellant's age as a judge of the calcutta high court under art. 217(3) of the constitution. in the note placed before the president along with its accompaniments it was proposed that the appellant should be informed that his correct date of birth had been determined to be december 27, 1901, and so, he should demit his office of puisne judge of the calcutta high court on december 26, 1961 on which date he would attain the age of 60. the draft of the letter which was intended to be sent to the appellant in that behalf was also placed before the president. on the file, the president made an order, 'approved'; and the question is whether this is an order which can be related to art. 217(3). it is true that this order was passed on may 15, 1961, whereas clause (3) of art. 217 which was added in the constitution by the constitution (fifth amendment) act, 1963, came into force on october 5, 1963. section 4(b) of the amendment act, however, provides that the said clause shall be inserted and shall be deemed always to have been inserted in the constitution. in other words, in terms, the insertion of the relevant clause is made retrospective in operation. that is how it has become .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1964 (SC)

income-tax Officer, Kolar and anr. Vs. Seghu Buchiah Setty

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-11-1964

Reported in : AIR1964SC1473; [1964]52ITR538(SC); [1964]7SCR148

civil appellate jurisdiction: civil appeals nos. 221 & 222 of 1963. appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated april 16, 1959 of the mysore high court in writ petitions nos. 138 and 139 of 1956. n. d. kharkhanis and r. n. sachthey, for the appellants (in both the appeals). k. srinivasan and r. gopalakrishnan, for the respondent (in the appeals). march 11, 1964. sarkar j. and hidayatullah j. delivered separate opinions dismissing the appeals. shah j. delivered a dissenting opinion allowing the appeal. sarkar j.-the question in these two appeals is whether certain proceedings for the recovery of tax from the assessee under the income-tax act, 1922, were invalid and should be quashed as the assessment order on which they were based had been revised in appeal. the high court of mysore held them to be invalid and quashed them. the revenue authorities have now appealed to this court against that decision. i think it will be helpful to set out the facts chronologi- cally. the tax sought to be realise a became due under two assessment orders passed by an income-tax officer on march 23, 1955, in respect of the years 1953-54 and 1954-55 finding that the assessee's income for the earlier year was rs. 61,000/-on which a tax of rs. 19,808-1-0 was due and that for the other year was rs. 1,21,000/- creating a tax liability of rs. 66,601-3-0. notices of demand under s. 29 of the act were issued in respect of these dues. the assessee tiled appeals to the appellate assistant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1964 (SC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. A. Gajapathy Naidu

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-16-1964

Reported in : AIR1964SC1653; [1964]53ITR114(SC); [1964]7SCR767

subba rao, j. 1. this appeal by certificate is preferred against the order of the high court of judicature at madras holding that a sum of rs. 12,447/- received by the respondent from the government during the accounting year 1950-51 was not assessable to tax for the assessment year 1951-52. 2. gajapathy naidu, the respondent, was supplying provisions to the government stanley hospital, royapuram, madras. during the financial year april 1, 1948 to march 31, 1949, he entered into a contract with the government for the supply of bread to the said hospital at the rate of rs. 0-4-6 per 1b. as the respondent was maintaining his accounts on mercantile basis, it is common case that the amount due from the government under the terms of the said contract was credited in the accounts of the respondent for that year. for the assessment year 1949-50 the income-tax officer assessed the respondent to income-tax on the basis of the accounts so made. it appears that some time after march 31, 1949, representations were made to the government for relieving the respondent from the loss sustained in the supply of bread to the hospital. the government by its order dated november 24, 1950, directed payment of compensation for the loss sustained by the respondent in respect of the supply of bread to the hospital during the year 1948-49 under the said contract. the respondent received on that account payment of rs. 12,447/- during the year of account 1950-51. in the assessment year 1951-52 the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 1964 (SC)

Ramesh R. Saraiya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-22-1964

Reported in : AIR1965SC1263; [1965]35CompCas251(SC); [1965]55ITR699(SC); [1965]1SCR307

sikri, j. 1. this judgment will dispose of 12 appeals from the judgments of the high court of bombay, dated march 17, 1958, whereby the high court answered the questions referred to it partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the department. the four questions answered by the high court are : '1. whether the initiation of action under section 34 for the purpose of bringing to tax the net dividend income of rs. 579 (suitably grossed) was valid 2. whether the said `p. portion of the dividend income' forms part of the assessee's total income as that term is defined in section 2(15) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 3. whether, having regard to the provisions of the indo-pakistan agreement, the assessee is entitled to any `relief' on the said `p. portion of the dividend income' 4. d. whether the other moiety of the dividend of rs. 1,71,992 declared by the company on october 14, 1952, is properly includible in the total income of the assessee of the previous year s. y. 2008 for the assessment year 1953-54 ?' (the figures in these questions are in respect of shri purshottamdass thakurdass.) 2. in c. a. 709/63 and c. a. 713/63 questions 1, 2, and 3 arise. only questions 2 and 3 arise in c. a. 710/63, c. a. 711/63, c. a. 704/63, c. a. 707/63, c. a. 714/63 and c. a. 706/63. question 'd' arises in c. a. 712/63, c. a. 705/63, c. a. 708/63, c. a. 712/63 and c. a. 715/63. the appeals involving question 'd' are by the commissioner of income- tax and appeals involving .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 1964 (SC)

A. Venkata Subba Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-14-1964

Reported in : AIR1965SC1773; [1965]2SCR577

civil appellate jurisdiction : civil appeals nos. 101,. 131, 168 to 171, 259 to 260, 302 to 303, 306 to 309, 310, 644 and 837 to 857 of 1962 and 325, 437 to 441 and 996 of 1963. appeals from the judgments and decrees dated 8.3.58, 18.2.59, 15.7.58, 22.2.60, 22.8..58, 25.8.58 and 1.7.59 of the andhra pradesh high court in appeal suits nos. 33 and 62 of' 1953, 672 to 675 of 1954, 29 and 30 of 1953, 956 of 1953, 551 of 1954, 201, 45, 822, 823 and 54 of1953, 470 of 1955,368, 34, 821, 766, 650, 764, 769, 631, 646,647,648,649,765 and 892 of 1953, 352, 353, 354 and 346 of1954, 644, 700 and 701 of 1953 and 321 of 1954 respectively. k. r. chaudhuri, for the appellants (in c. as. nos. 101, 168, 169, 171 and 310 of 1962 and 438 of 1963). a. v. viswanatha sastri, a. r. vedavalli and a. v. rangam, for the appellants (in c.a. nos. 131 and 170 of 1962). t. v. r. tatachari, for the appellants (in c.a. nos. 259 to 260 of 1962, 325, 437, 349, 440, 441 and 996 of 1963). r. gopalakrishnan, for the appellants (in c.a. nos. 302 and 303 of 1962). a. v. viswanatha sastri and t. v. r. tatachari, for the appellants (in c.a. nos. 306 to 309 of 1962). lakshmi devi and t. satyanarayana, for the appellants (in c.a. no. 644 of 1962). a. v. viswanatha sastri, n. r. rao and b. parthasarathy, for the appellants (in c.a. no. 837 to 857 of 1962). c. b. agarwala, r. ganapathy iyer and b. r. g. k. achar, for the respondents (in c.a. no. 306 to 309 and 837 to 857 of 1962). r. ganapathy iyer, yogeshwar prasad and b .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1964 (SC)

Murarilal Vs. Dev Karan

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-08-1964

Reported in : AIR1965SC225; [1964]8SCR239

gajendragadkar, c.j.1. this appeal by special leave arises out of a redemption suit filed by therespondent dev karan against the appellant murarilal. the mortgage sought to beredeemed was executed on the 19th march, 1919 for a sum of rs. 6,500. themortgaged property consisted of a shop which was delivered over in thepossession of the mortgagee after the execution of the mortgage deed. themortgage deed had provided that the amount due under the mortgage should berepaid to the mortgagee within 15 years, whereupon the property would beredeemed. it had also stipulated that if the payment was not made within 15years, the mortgagee would become the owner of the property. the mortgagor wasmangal ram who died and the respondent claims to be the heir and legalrepresentative of the said deceased mortgagor. in the plaint filed by therespondent, it was averred that the transaction was, in substance, a mortgageand the mortgagor's right to redeem was alive even though the stipulated periodof 15 years for the repayment of the loan had passed. on these allegations, therespondent claimed a decree for redemption of the suit mortgage on payment ofrs. 6,500. it appears that the original mortgagee gangadhar had also diedbefore the institution of the suit, and so, the appellant murarilal wasimpleaded as the defendant on the basis that he was the only heir and legalrepresentative of the deceased mortgagee gangadhar. 2. the claim for redemption thus made by the respondent was resisted by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 1964 (SC)

Gyarsi Bai and ors. Vs. Dhansukh Lal and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-18-1964

Reported in : AIR1965SC1055; [1965]2SCR154

subba rao, j. 1. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of adivision bench of the rajasthan high court in s.b. civil revision no. 181 of1956. 2. the plaint-schedule properties originally belonged to one noor mohammad,his wife and son. on september 14, 1936, they mortgaged the said propertieswith possession to b. f. marfatia for a sum of rs. 25,000. on february 22,1938, the said mortgagors executed a simple mortgage in respect of the sameproperties to one novat mal for rs. 5,000. on december 21, 1942, radha kishan,har prasad and pokhi ram acquired the equity of redemption in the saidproperties in an auction sale held in execution of a money decree against themortgagors. on february 14, 1950, and march 13, 1950, seth girdhari lal, thehusband of appellant no. 1 herein, purchased the mortgagee rights of novat maland marfatia respectively. on may 1, 1950. girdhari lal was put in possessionof the mortgaged properties. on july 22, 1950, respondents 9 to 11 purchasedthe equity of redemption of the mortgaged properties from radha kishan. harprasad and pokhi ram. on august 10, 1950, girdhari lal instituted civil suitno. 739 of 1950 in the court of the senior subordinate judge, ajmer, forenforcing the said two mortgages. in the suit he claimed rs. 48,919-12-6 as theamount due to him under the said two mortgages. on april 25, 1953, the seniorsubordinate judge, ajmer, gave a preliminary decree in the suit for therecovery of sum of rs. 34,003-1-6 with proportionate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 1964 (SC)

K.L. Johar and Company Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-10-1964

Reported in : [1965]2SCR112

wanchoo, j.1. these two appeals on certificates granted by the madras high court raisecommon questions and will be dealt with together. the appellant is a financingcompany consisting of a number of partners. its main business is to advancemoney to persons who purchase motor vehicles but are themselves not in aposition to find ready money to pay the price. the course of business followedby the appellant is to enter into hire-purchase agreements with those who wantto purchase motor vehicles. it is necessary to refer to the terms ofhire-purchase agreements which are on a set pattern in order to understand thepoints raised in these appeals. 2. any person desirous of acquiring a motor vehicle makes the selection ofthe make and type and fixes the price therefore with the motor dealer. suchperson then approaches the appellant for financial assistance on ahire-purchase basis. sometimes an initial payment is made to the motor dealerwhich is taken into account at the time of the hire-purchase agreement while atothers the payment is made in a number of instalments to the appellant. ineither case the appellant pays the price or the balance thereof to the dealerand thereafter the hire-purchase agreement is entered into between theappellant and the person who wants to purchase the motor vehicle. the appellantis described in the agreement as the owner of the vehicle and the person whowants to purchase it as the hirer. 3. the material terms of the agreement may be summarised here. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 1964 (SC)

Patel Chunibhai Dajibhai Etc. Vs. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and an ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-03-1964

Reported in : AIR1965SC1457; (1965)GLR742(SC); [1965]2SCR328

civil appellate jurisdiction : civil appeals nos. 791- 798 of 1964. appeal by special leave from the judgment and orders dated november 4/5, 1963 of the gujarat high court in special civil applications nos. 428 to 430 and 432 to 436 of 1961. i. n. shroff, for the appellants (in all the appeals) s. g. patwardhan and a. g. ratnaparkhi, for the respondents (in all the appeals). sarkar j. delivered a dissenting opinion. the judgment of rajagopala ayyangar and bachawat jj. was delivered by bachawat j. sarkar j. the appellants are tenants against whom orders for ejectment had been passed at the instance of the landlord. they contend that in view of a certain amendment of s. 32 of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948, these orders were illegal and had rightly been set aside by the collector under s. 76a of that act. the questions that arise in these appeals depend on the interpretation of these two sections. there were eight tenants and each of them has filed an appeal. we have thus eight appeals before us. as the landlord was the same person, the respondent in each appeal is the same. the landlord took steps under ss. 14, 31 and 29 of the act against each tenant and these have led to the present proceedings. section 14 gives a landlord power to terminate a tenancy on the ground inter alia of the tenant's failure to pay rent by giving the tenant a notice informing him of his intention to terminate the tenancy. section 31 provides that notwithstanding anything .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //