Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-23-1955
Reported in : AIR1956SC231; (1956)ILLJ227SC; 2SCR1315
bose, j.1. we are concerned here with three appeals. they arise out of a dispute between the j.k. iron and steel company limited and the iron and steel mazdoor union. we will call them the company and the mazdoor union respectively. the facts are as follows. 2. the company had its factory and other works at kanpur in uttar pradesh. on 10-4-1948 the ministry of commerce in the government of india ordered the company to shift its jute baling hoops factory from kanpur to calcutta. 3. as no land was available in calcutta no effect could be given to this order till the year 1950-51. on 19-3-1951 the iron and steel controller ordered the company to stop the rolling of jute baling hoops at once. accordingly, the production of these hoops was stopped from that date. 4. at the same time there was scarcity of scrap iron and the company's case is that that forced it to reduce the working of its furnace from three shifts a day to one. 5. the company states that because of these two causes it was obliged to retrench its staff. therefore, it issued the following notice, dated 15-5-1951 to 128 of its workers : 'consequent to transfer of the rolling mill to calcutta and want of scrap to furnace department in full, the services of the persons as per list attached are dispensed with from today. their wages and other dues in full settlement will be paid after 2 p.m.' 6. twenty-five of the 128 accepted their wages and other dues in full settlement but the remaining 103 refused. their cause was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-19-1955
Reported in : AIR1955Kant137; AIR1955Mys137
padmanabhiah, j.1. this is a petition filed by the petitioner under article 226, constitution of india, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other direction or order quashing the order of the respondent-government bearing g. o. no. 7012-7016/l. r. 345-49-2, dated 20-1-1950, ordering the compulsory retirement of the petitioner or, in the alternative, to sanction the full pension as ordered in g.o. no. 2722-26/l. r. 118-53-2, dated 26-5-1953.2. the facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as under.3. the petitioner was an amildar in the state service. in their order no. r. 7012-7016/l. r. 345-49-2, dated 20-1-1950, the government directed the compulsory retirement of the petitioner on the ground that the officer was found corrupt and guilty of misconduct. they, however, on the representations made by the petitioner directed in their order no. r. 2722-26/l. r. 118-53-2, dated 26-5-1953, that the petitioner should be paid his full pension, but the accountant-general took objection to the grant of pension to the petitioner on the ground that the order offended the provisions of article 223, mysore service regulations, and observed that the petitioner was only entitled to compassionate allowances as pro-vided therein. thereupon the government modified the original order and withdrew, in their order no. g. 11972-76/l. r. 118-53-4, dated 23-10-1953, the pension previously ordered, and allowed compassionateallowances permissible under article 223, mysore .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-02-1955
Reported in : AIR1956SC140; 2SCR1029
bose, j. 1. the appellant was a candidate for the office of president of the municipal committee of damoh. the respondents (seven of them) were also candidates. the nominations were made on forms supplied by the municipal committee but it turned out that the forms were old ones that had not been brought up to date. under the old rules candidates were required to give their caste, but on 23-7-1949 this was changed and instead of caste their occupation had to be entered. the only person who kept himself abreast of the law was the first respondent. he struck out the word 'caste' in the printed form and wrote in 'occupation' instead and then gave his occupation, as the new rule required, and not his caste. all the other candidates, including the appellant, filled in their forms as they stood and entered their caste and not their occupation. the first respondent raised an objection before the supervising officer and contended that all the other nominations were invalid and claimed that he should be elected as his was the only valid nomination paper. the objection was overruled and the election proceeded. 2. the appellant secured the highest number of votes and was declared to be elected. the first respondent thereupon filed the election petition out of which this appeal arises. he failed in the trial court. the learned judge held that the defect was not substantial and so held that it was curable. this was reversed by the high court on revision. the learned high court judges .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-21-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Mad529; 28ITR561(Mad)
rajagopala ayyangar, j. - in this reference under section 66 (1) of the indian income-tax act, the income-tax appellate tribunal has referred the following questions for our decision :1. whether the trust deed dated 9th may, 1946, is covered by the provisions of section 16 (1) (c) of the act and the income received from messrs. narayanan & co. was not includible in that of the assessee ?2. whether the document dated 9th may, 1946, in respect of the royalties from the gramophone co., ltd., is covered by the provisions of section 16 (1) (c) and the income received therefrom was not includible in that of the assessee ?the questions however as drawn up do not bring out the actual controversy between the assessee and the department as will be seen from our discussion of the points involved in assessment.the assessee, srimathi m. s. subbulakshmi, is a musician and cinema actress in south india. this reference is concerned with the assessment of this assessee for four years from assessment years 1946-47 to 1949-50. she acted the title role in a motion picture called 'meera'. this film was produced by a concern by name chandra prabha cinetone of which her husband sri sadasivam was the sole proprietor. on 11th september, 1943, an agreement was concluded between the assessee and her husband, the latter as the proprietor of chandra prabha cinetone, under the terms of which the assessee agreed to play the part of the title role in that film. this agreement is appended to the statement of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-15-1955
Reported in : 28ITR252(AP)
subba rao, c.j. (1) the income-tax appellate tribunal, madras bench 'b' referred the following questions under s. 66 (1), indian income-tax act to the high court of judicature, madras(i) 'whether there was definite information in the possession of the income-tax officer in consequence of which he could have discovered that there was an under-assessment within the meaning of section 34 as it stood before its amendment in 1948? (ii) whether the re-assessment of rs.11,185/- is a vliad.'the said reference was tranferred to this court afterits constitution.(2) the facts that gave rise to the reference may be breiefly stated. m. m. a. k. mohiddin thumby and co., was a firm having four tanneries at eluru and one at guntur. its head office was situated at eluru. the following were the six partners of the firm:1. m. m. mohamed mama labbai, 2. m. k. a. s. syed mohammad. 3. vavoo mohammad hasana labbai. 4. o. m. ahmed mohideen sadaktulla. 5. velak mohammed shekna labbai. 6. velak mohammad mohideen.though they were carrying on business at eluru, they were permanent resident of kayapatnam village in tinnevelly district. for the assessment year 1940-41 the assessee filed a return showing a total income of rs.21,420/- durin tghe scrutiny of the accounts, the income-tax officer came across a transfer of rs.1,15,000/- from the account of v. syed moahmed ali of calcutta to the accounts of the following four partners of the assessee firm:1. m. m. mohammad mama labbai rs. 25,000/-2. a. k. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-08-1955
Reported in : AIR1957AP513
bhimasankaram, j.1. this is an appeal against the decision of our learned brother umamaheswaram j., in w. p. no. 375 of 1955, declining to issue a writ of mandamus or any either appropriate writ restraining the district magistrate, anantapur, from issuing a licence to the first respondent under section 4 of the cinematograph act, ii of 1918 (hereinafter called 'the act').2. the facts material for the determination oft the questions of law raised before us are simple. the appellant is the proprietor of a theatre called 'vauhini kala mandir' in the municipal town of tadipatri. he has a licence under section 4 of the cinematograph act to exhibit cinema shows in that theatre. the 1st respondent purchased a building in 1949 in which cinematograph films were being exhibited upto the year 1940 under a licence till then in force. as a result of certain defects pointed out by the executive engineer such exhibition was stopped in the year 1940. but before the defects were rectified, the government requisitioned the building and handed it over to a local co-operative stores which was using it as godown till the year 1953. the building was however vacated by the stores in that year and early in the year 1954, the 1st respondent applied to the local district magistrate for the issue of a licence under section 4 of the act. as he received no reply, he presented a petition to the local government on 29th may, 1954. the appellant who came to know of this filed a memo., dated 8th july, 1954, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-02-1955
Reported in : AIR1956All156; 30ITR647(All)
mootham, c.j.1. these are six applications under section 24 (4), u. p. agricultural income-tax act arising out of the refusal of the revision board to state a case for the opinion of this court. these six applications are based on the same facts and purport to raise common questions of law.2. one sri mahadeo prasad was in the year 1355 fasli the manager of a joint hindu family consisting of himself, his wife, his widowed mother and his three sons, and in that year he was assessed to agricultural income-tax as the head of the family. in the following year sri mahadeo prasad filed an application before the collector, gorakhpur, who was the assessing authority, alleging that a separation had taken place in the family and that the shares of the members had been declared by a decree of the civil court dated 12-12-1948.the collector was satisfied that there had been a disruption of the joint family, and by an order dated 15-10-1949, he transferred the case to the assistant collector directing him to assess separately each of the six members of the family, the assistant collector- did so on 25-10-1949, when he passed a separate assessment order in respect of each of the six members of the family.3. on 6-12-1950, the state filed an application in revision against the orders of the col- lector and assistant collector dated respectively the 15th october and 25th october, 1949. it seems that the only prayer was that the assessment orders be set aside and it appears -that sri mahadeo .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-12-1955
Reported in : AIR1955All573
randhir singh, j. 1. this is an appeal against the order of the additional civil judge of gonda dismissing an application under section 14 of the indian arbitration act which was treated as a suit, for the filing of an award and for a decree on the basis of the award.2. the plaintiffs appellants and the defendant are own brothers, being the sons of patan din. they formed a joint hindu family and were possessed of business and movable and immovable properties. disputes arose amongst the brothers and ultimately itwas agreed that the properties be partitioned. anagreement was executed on the 8th october, 1946, by means of which the parties appointed six arbitrators, including a sarpanch, for the partitioning of the properties and for settling, the dispute.the arbitrators then entered upon their duty and after examining the parties and their evidence gave an award on 13-1-1947. the award was registered. on 14-7-1947, an application was made by the plaintiffs appellants purporting to be one under section 14 of the arbitration act, though it was wrongly described as an application under section 51 of the act, praying that the arbitrators be directed to file the award and a decree be passed on the basis of the award.notices were then issued to the respondent and the arbitrators; and bechchu lal the sarpanch filed the award in court along with the registered agreement on 25-8-1947. objections were, however, raised on behalf of the respondent challenging the validity of the award on .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-25-1955
Reported in : (1956)IILLJ11All
mootham, c.j. 1. i had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my brother; i agree with his conclusion for the reasons which he has given and there is little that i can usefully add. the principal question is whether the findings of the industrial court can be enforced as an award under section 6 of the uttar pradesh industrial disputes act, 1947. that section deals with awards and the action to be taken on them, and it is to be noted that the word 'award' is not defined in the act, nor is it used elsewhere in the act than in this section. the word must there-fore bear its ordinary meaning which is defined by murray as ' a decision after examination of a judicial sentence, especially that of an arbitrator or umpire' and in webster's international dictionary as 'judgment,' sentence or final decision, specially the decision of arbitration in a case submitted. the question is therefore whether the finding of the industrial court under clause 13 of the government notification dated 10 march, 1948, is an award as so defined.2. that notification refers both to 'findings' and 'an award' and in my opinion both expressions are used in the same sense. sub-clause (1) of clause 7 requires a conciliation board to record its findings on each issue; sub-clause (3) and (4) of the same clause refer to these findings as an award and clause 12 provides for an appeal from such award. the notification by clause 13 requires the industrial court after hearing the appeal to do what the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-07-1955
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ119
p.v. rajamannar, c.j.1. the learned district munsif of cannanore has referred the following question for decision by this court:whether the madras shariat (amendment) act (act xviii of 1949) is ultra vires of article 19. clause (1)(f) of the constitution act.the question was raised in a suit pending before the learned district munsif brought by the widow of one deceased abdulla kalpha for partition and separate possession of certain properties, described in schedule a to the plaint. abdulla kalpha was a member of a marumakkathayam tarwad. on 30th october, 1918, the members of the tarwad executed a karar in and by which the main tarwad was divided into three tavazhis. abdulla kalpha was a member of the third tavazhi and was one of the executants of the document. the said karar provided inter alia that in case one tavazhi became extinct, the properties allotted to the said tavazhi would lapse to the other tavazhis. abdulla kalpha was the sole surviving member of the third tavazhi. he died on 10th january, 1952. the main question in the case is whether on his death, the properties of the third tavazhi, which abdulla kalpha died possessed of, lapsed to the second tavazhi, the first tavazhi having become extinct, as per the terms of the karar, or whether the widow and other heirs of abdulla kalpha, according to the muslim shariat, i.e., personal law, became entitled to the said properties. the plaintiff claimed that she and the other personal heirs, defendants 1 to 8, became .....Tag this Judgment!