text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3, the tax under this Act shall be payable by a dealer or the sale or purchase inside the State of declared goods at the rate and only at the point specified against each in the Second Schedule on the turn over in such goods in each year, whatever be the quantum of turnover... |
Item 4 of the second schedule specifies the rates of tax in accordance with the Central Act. Ratio |
It reproduces Section 14(iv) of the Central Act. Ratio |
On an amendment of Section 14(iv) of the Central Act, serial No. 4 of the second schedule of the Tamil Nadu Act was also correspondingly amended so as to reproduce the sixteen items found in Section 14(iv) of the Central Act. Ratio |
Other provisions only fortify our conclusion. Ratio |
177 The result is that we allow these appeals. Ratio |
We set aside the orders of the High Court and restore the orders of the assessing authorities in cases giving rise to Civil Appeals Nos. 880 883 of 1971. Ratio |
In cases but of which Civil Appeals Nos.58 59 of 1971 arise, we set aside the judgment of the High Court but maintain its order dismissing the Writ Petitions and order that the assessing authorities will now proceed to determine such question of fact and law as still survive for determination after the decision given a... |
The parties will bear their own costs. RPC |
P.H.P. Appeals allowed. RPC |
nder Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights. STA |
K.L. Gauba, (Gopal Singh, with him), for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 337 to 343 and 481 of 1954. FAC |
K.L. Gauba, (section D. Sekhri, with him), for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 344, 446 and 349 of 1954. FAC |
K. L. Gauba, (R. Patnaik and section D. Sekhri, with him), for the Petitioner in Petition No, 345 of 1954, 166 K.L. Gauba, (N. C.Chakravarty and section D. Sekhri, with him) for the Petitioner in Petition No. 347 of 1954. FAC |
K.L. Gauba, (B. Moropant and section D. Sekhri, with him), for the Petitioner in Petition No. 348 of 1954. FAC |
Rajni Patel and M. section K. Sastri, for the Petitioner in Petition No. 364 of 1954. FAC |
Rajni Patel and I. N. Shroff, for the Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 365 and 366 of 1954. FAC |
J.B. Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain, for the Petitioner in Petition No. 690 of 1954. FAC |
M.C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India (P. A. Mehta, R. H. Dhebar for P. G. Gokhale, with them), for the Respondents in all Petitions. FAC |
April 6. FAC |
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. FAC |
These petitions under article 32 of the Constitution are directed against the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953, Bombay Act XXXIX of 1954 which was passed by the Legislature of the State of Bombay to abolish jagirs in the merged territories and merged areas in the State of Bombay. STA |
The Bill was passed by the Legislature on the 22nd September 1953 and received the sanction of the Upper House on the 26th September 1953. FAC |
The President gave his assent to it on the 13th June 1954 and by a notification dated the 15th July 1954 it was brought into effect from the 1st August 1954. FAC |
In view of the notification the Petitioners filed these petitions on the 30th July 1954 challenging the vires of the Act (hereinafter called the impugned Act) and asking for the issue of appropriate writs restraining inter alia the State of Bombay from giving effect to its provisions. Ratio |
On applications made to this Court on the 31st July 1954 the operation of the impugned Act was stayed pending the bearing and final disposal of the petitions, 167 The Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 337, 344, 345, 346, 347 and 349 of 1954 are relations of the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Idar. FAC |
The Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 338 and 342 of 1954 are relations of the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Chhota Udaipur. FAC |
The Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 339 and 341 are relations of the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Devgad Baria. FAC |
The Petitioner in Petition No. 343 of 1954 is a relation of the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Rajpipla. FAC |
The Petitioners in Petition No. 340 of 1954 are jagirdars of the erstwhile State of Rajpipla. FAC |
The Petitioner in Petition No. 348 of 1954 is a relation of the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Bansda. FAC |
The Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 365 and 366 of 1954 are jagirdars of the erstwhile States of Idar and Lunawada respectively. FAC |
The Petitioner in Petition No. 481 of 1954 is a relation of the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Mohanpur. FAC |
The Petitioners in Petition No. 690 of 1954 are the holders of personal Inams from the erstwhile State of Rajpipla. FAC |
All the petitioners except the last claim to be hereditary jagirdars under grants made by the respective States for the maintenance of themselves, their families and dependents and hold the jagirs as Jiwai Jagirs. FAC |
The holders of the personal Inams in Petition No. 690 of 1954 used to pay salami to the erstwhile State of Rajpila and are included within the definition of "jagirdar" being holders of agir villages within the meaning of the definition thereof contained in the impugned Act. FAC |
The Petitioner in Petition No. 364 of 1954 claims to be the owner of 60 villages in the patta or territory of Moti Moree comprised in the erstwhile State of Idar as the Bhumia or under lord and contends that his holding does not fall within the definition of jagir as given in the impugned Act and that therefore in any ... |
All these Petitioners have challenged the vires of the imapugned Act mainly relying upon the agreements of merger entered into by the Rulers of the respective States with the Dominion of India on or about the 19th March 1948 and the collateral letters of guarantee 168 passed by the Ministry of States in their favour on... |
The merger agreements were in the form given in Appendix XIII to the White Paper at page 183: "FORM OF MERGER AGREEMENT SIGNED BY RULERS OF GUJARAT AND DECCAN STATES AGREEMENT MADE THIS day of between the Governor General of India and the of Whereas in the immediate interests of is desirous that the administration of t... |
The of hereby cedes to the Dominion Government full and exclusive authority, jurisdiction and powers for and in relation to the Governance of the State and agrees to transfer the administration of the State to the Dominion Government on the day of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the said day"). FAC |
As from the said day the Dominion Government will be competent to exercise the said powers, authority and jurisdiction in such manner and through such agency as it may think fit. FAC |
ARTICLE 2. FAC |
The shall with effect from the said day be entitled to receive from the revenues of the State annually for his privy purse the sum of rupees free of taxes. FAC |
This amount is intended to cover all the expenses of the Ruler and his family, including expenses on account of his personal staff, maintenance of his residences, 169 marriages and other ceremonies, etc. FAC |
and will neither be increased nor reduced for any reason whatsoever. FAC |
The said sum may be drawn by the in four equal instalments in advance at the beginning of each quarter by presenting bills at the State Treasury or at such other Treasury as may be specified by the Dominion Government. FAC |
ARTICLE 3. FAC |
The shall be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from State properties) belonging to him on the date of this agreement. FAC |
The will furnish to the Dominion Government before the day of 1948 an inventory of all the immovable property, securities and cash balance held by him as such private property. FAC |
If any dispute arises as to whether any item of property is the private property of the or State property, it shall be referred to such officer with judicial experience as the Dominion Government may nominate and the decision of that officer shall be final and binding on both parties. Ratio |
ARTICLE 4. FAC |
The shall be entitled to all personalprivileges enjoyed by them whether within or outside the territories of the State, immediately before the 15th day of August 1947. FAC |
ARTICLE 5. FAC |
The Dominion Government guarantees the succession, according to law and custom, to the gadi of the State and to the personal rights, privileges, dignities and titles. FAC |
In confirmation whereof Mr. Vapal Pangunm Menon, Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of States, has appended his signature on behalf and with the authority of the Governor General of Indiab and has appended his 22 170 signature on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors, of Dated Secretary to the G... |
The letters of guarantee subsequently executed by the Ministry of States in favour of the respective Rulers contained the following guarantees: "(1) Your privy purse will be fixed in accordance with the formula applied in relation to the fixation of the privy purse of the Deccan States Rulers whose States have merged i... |
The amount will be fixed in perpetuity to you, your heirs and successors, and will neither be increased nor reduced for any reason whatsoever. FAC |
It will be free of all taxes, whether imposed by the Government of Bombay or by the Government of India and it will not be taken into account in the assessment of your world income to income tax or super tax. FAC |
(2) The cash balances and other assets of your State on the day you transfer the administration of your State to the Dominion Government will, as far as possible, be spent for the benefit of the people of your State. FAC |
(3) You will be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all Darbari or private properties (as distinct from State Properties) belonging to you on the date of your making over the administration of your State to the Dominion Government. FAC |
Darbari properties will include palaces, houses, residences, guest houses, stables, garages, quarters, outhouses, etc. FAC |
which are at the date of transfer of administration in bonafide personal use or occupation of the Ruler or members of his family or personal staff, irrespective of whether the property is situated in the Capital, or at any other place in the State, or in Bombay, or anywhere else outside. FAC |
(4) The continuation in service of the permanent members of the public services of your State is hereby guaranteed on conditions which will be no less advantageous than those on which they were serving 171 on 1st April 1948. FAC |
In the event of continuation of service not being possible in any case, reasonable compensation will be paid. FAC |
(5) Pensions, gratuities, annuities, and allowances, granted by the State to the members of its public services who have retired or have proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement before 1st April 1948 as also the enjoyment of the ownership of Khangi villages, lands, jagir, grants, etc. FAC |
existing on 1st April 1948 are hereby Guaranteed. FAC |
This guarantee is without prejudice Co the right of Government of Bombay to issue any legislation which does, not discriminate against the states and their subjects. FAC |
(6) All emblems, insignia, articles and other Paraphernalia of the Ruler will be considered as belonging to, and be regarded as his private property. FAC |
(7) No order passed or action taken by you before the date of making over the administration to the Dominion Government will be questioned unless the order was passed or action taken after the 1st of April 1948 and is considered by the Government of India to be palpably unjust or unreasonable. FAC |
The decision of the Government of India in this respect will be final. FAC |
(8) No enquiry shall be made nor shall proceedings lie in any Court in India against you, whether in a personal capacity or otherwise, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by you or under your authority during the period of your administration of the State. FAC |
(9) Every question of disputed succession in regard to a Gujarat State which has signed an agreement integrating the administration of the State with that of the Province of Bombay shall be decided by a Council of Rulers of Gujarat States after referring it to the High Court of Bombay and in accordance with the opinion... |
All questions relating to the rights, dignities and privileges of the Ruler will also be considered by the Council of Rulers who shall make suitable recommendations to the Government of Bombay and the Government of India. FAC |
The Council shall consist of the Rulers of all 172 full jurisdictional Gujarat States, whether salute or non salute. Ratio |
No ruler who is less than 21 years of age shall however be a member of the Council. FAC |
The Council will elect one of its members to be the President of the Council. FAC |
The President and the members of the Council will hold office for a term of five years from the date on which they enter upon the duties of their respective offices. FAC |
2.The contents of this letter will be regarded as part of the merger agreement entered into by you with the Governor General of India". FAC |
The contention which has been urged before us by the Petitioners relying upon clause 5 of the Letters of Guarantee aforesaid is that the enjoyment of the ownership of the jagirs existing on the 1st April, 1948 was guaranteed, that this guarantee was binding on the State of Bombay, that the State of Bombay and therefore... |
It was contended on the other hand on behalf of the State of Bombay that the agreements of merger and the letters of guarantee were executed by the Dominion of India and were not binding on the State of Bombay, that the Petitioners were not parties to the agreements of merger and letters of guarantee and that they were... |
Once that position was established it was further urged that the jagirs in question were estates within the definition of the expression in article 31 A(2) (a) of the Constitution and the impugned legislation being a legislation providing for the acquisition by the State of the estates and the rights therein or for the... |
It was also urged that none of the provisions of the impugned Act were confiscatory or in any manner whatever discriminatory, fair and adequate compensation having been provided for the abolition of the jagirs and the States and their subjects not having been dealt within any discriminatory manner as compared with the ... |
As regards the contention that the agreements of merger and the letters of guarantee were executed by the Dominion of India and were not binding on the State of Bombay it was urged on behalf of the Petitioners that the Government of the Dominion of India was certainly bound by those guarantees and this obligation of th... |
It was further urged that the State of Bombay was thus bound by all the obli gations which bad been undertaken by the Dominion Government under the agreements of merger and letters of guarantee above referred to, and it could not lie in the mouth of the State of Bombay to repudiate the same. ARG |
This argument is not without force, but we do not consider it necessary to decide this question because even assuming that the State of Bombay was bound by these obligations, the question still remains how far the Petitioners before us are entitled to enforce these obligations against the State of Bombay. Ratio |
The Petitioners were certainly not parties to these agreements of merger and letters of guarantee eo nominee. Ratio |
They could only claim to be parties to the same by reason of the fact that the Rulers of the erstwhile States did not negotiate these agreements of merger or obtain the letters of guarantee only in respect of their personal rights and properties but also represented the States and their subjects in the matter of obtain... |
It is therefore arguable that the Rulers 175 of the erstwhile States as also their subjects would be in a position to enforce these obligations. Ratio |
This position was however sought to be negatived by relying upon the following observation of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Vajesingji Joravarsingji vs Secretary of State for India in Council(1) at page 360: "But a summary of the matter is this: when a territory is acquired by a sovereign state for the first ... |
It matters not how the acquisition has been brought about. PRE |
It may be by conquest, it may be by cession following on treaty, it may be by occupation of territory hitherto unoccupied by a recognized ruler. PRE |
In all cases the result is the same. PRE |
Any inhabitant of the territory can make good in the municipal Courts established by the new sovereign only such rights as that sovereign has, through his officers, recognised. PRE |
Such rights as he had under the rule of predecessors avail him nothing. PRE |
Nay more, even if in a treaty of cession it is stipulated that certain inhabitants should enjoy certain rights, that does not give a title to those inhabitants to enforce these stipulations in the municipal Courts. PRE |
The right to enforce remains only with the high contracting parties". PRE |
These observations were quoted with approval in Secretary of State vs Sardar Rustsam Khan & Others(2) at page 124. PRE |
It was therefore urged that it will be the high contracting parties, viz., the Rulers of the respective States who would be in a position to enforce these obligations and not the Petitioners for whose benefit these obligations were undertaken by the Dominion Government. PRE |
We do not feel called upon to pronounce upon the validity or otherwise of these contentions also for the simple reason that the Petitioners would be out of Court either way. PRE |
If they were deemed to be parties to the agreements of merger and letters of guarantee they would be faced with the bar to the maintainability of the petitions under article 363 of the Constitution which lays down that neither the Supreme (1) 51 Indian Appeals 357.(2) 68 Indian Appeals 109.176 Court nor any other Court... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.