Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1952 1952 (5) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 21 to 23 of 23 Records

• 1952 (5) TMI 9
  

  The term "foodstuff" is ambiguous. In one sense it has a narrow meaning and is limited to articles which are eaten as food for purposes of nutrition and nourishment and so would exclude condiments and spices such as yeast, salt, pepper, baking powder and turmeric. In a wider sense it includes everything that goes toto the preparation of food proper (as understood in the narrow sense) to make it more palatable and digestible. Whether the term is used in a particular statute in its wider or narrower sense cannot be answered in the abstract but must be answered with due regard to the background and context.

  ---

• 1952 (5) TMI 8
  
  Issues:
  1. Conviction of the appellant under section 407 of the Calcutta Municipal Act.
  2. Whether a limited company can be charged with a criminal offense.
  3. Interpretation of the term "person" in the context of a limited liability company.
  4. Adulteration of mustard oil under section 407(1)(v) of the Calcutta Municipal Act.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appellant was convicted under section 407 of the Calcutta Municipal Act and fined Rs. 500. The appellant contended that as a limited company, there can be no proprietor, and the person in charge, Shib Kanta Samanta, should have been proceeded against instead. The court acknowledged this argument and directed the matter to be reconsidered, possibly against Shib Kanta Samanta, as he is admitted to be the person in charge of the business.
  
  2. The State contended that a limited company cannot be charged with a criminal offense under Indian law. However, the court disagreed, stating that under the General Clauses Act, a "person" includes a limited liability company. The court highlighted that while there are limitations on trying a limited company in cases where mens rea or imprisonment is essential, there is no general prohibition under Indian law against proceeding against a limited company.
  
  3. The court delved into the interpretation of the term "person" in the context of a limited liability company. Referring to the General Clauses Act, the court emphasized that a limited company can be considered a "person" unless the context of a specific statute prevents its application. The court distinguished an English case where a limited company could not be tried due to specific legal definitions, which do not apply in Indian law.
  
  4. The case involved the adulteration of mustard oil under section 407(1)(v) of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The court noted that for an offense to be committed, the adulteration must involve an oil other than mustard oil derived exclusively from seed. The court highlighted the importance of clarity regarding the adulteration before a conviction can take place, emphasizing the need for further analysis by a Public Analyst.
  
  In conclusion, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the appeal to the Municipal Magistrate for further trial considering the judgment's clarifications. The court recommended the trial to be conducted by a different Municipal Magistrate for impartiality.

  ---

• 1952 (5) TMI 1
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to order confiscation and impose fines.
  2. Allegation of mala fide actions by Customs Authorities.
  3. Validity of the Customs Authorities' determination regarding the excess quantity of goods.
  4. Legality of the sale of goods by the Port Authorities.
  5. Validity of the order of confiscation and imposition of fine after the sale of goods.
  6. Competence of the Customs Authorities to levy wharf rent and other charges.
  7. Appropriateness of the forum for filing the application.
  8. Alleged suppression of material facts by the petitioner.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector of Customs:
  The petitioner argued that the Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraisement lacked jurisdiction to order the confiscation and imposition of fines on goods valued over Rs. 18,000. The Court examined Section 182(b) of the Sea Customs Act and found that the Central Board of Revenue had authorized the Assistant Collectors-in-Charge of Appraisement and Preventive Service to exercise the powers under clause (a) of Section 182. Therefore, the Assistant Collector had the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 23rd April 1951.
  
  2. Allegation of Mala Fide Actions:
  The petitioner claimed that the Customs Authorities acted mala fide. The Court reviewed the correspondence and found that while the Customs Authorities exhibited laches and neglect, there was no evidence of improper motives. The delay was partly due to the petitioner's own dilatory conduct in producing a fresh license. Thus, the charge of mala fide was dismissed.
  
  3. Validity of the Customs Authorities' Determination:
  The petitioner contended that the Customs Authorities wrongly concluded that the excess quantity was not allowable under the license or notifications. The Court held that even if the decision was erroneous, it could not interfere under Article 226, as the Customs Authorities had jurisdiction to decide this matter. The Court cited Lord Esher's formula from Queen v. Commissioners of Special Purposes of Income Tax and a similar precedent from (1947) 1 All. England Rep. 880.
  
  4. Legality of the Sale of Goods by the Port Authorities:
  The petitioner argued that the sale of goods by the Port Authorities was illegal as the goods were detained by the Customs Authorities. The Court reviewed the correspondence and found that the goods were indeed sold on 21st June 1950 after several notices and opportunities for the petitioner to clear them. The Court did not express an opinion on the legality of the sale but acknowledged that the goods were sold.
  
  5. Validity of the Order of Confiscation and Imposition of Fine After the Sale:
  The Court held that the order of confiscation under Section 167(8) was not justified since the goods had already been sold and ceased to be the property of the petitioner. Consequently, the imposition of a fine of Rs. 200 in lieu of confiscation was also deemed illusory and invalid.
  
  6. Competence of the Customs Authorities to Levy Wharf Rent and Other Charges:
  The petitioner argued that the Customs Authorities were not competent to levy wharf rent and other charges. The Court clarified that the order did not purport to levy such charges but merely stated that the petitioner would have to pay the fine in addition to any duty and charges found to be leviable in the future.
  
  7. Appropriateness of the Forum for Filing the Application:
  The respondents argued that the application should have been made on the Original Side of the Court. The Court found that since the goods were outside the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction, the application was correctly moved in the present forum, citing precedents from AIR 1947 Cal. 307 and AIR 1949 P.C. 307.
  
  8. Alleged Suppression of Material Facts:
  The respondents claimed that the petitioner suppressed material facts, such as the notice of auction sale and the fact of the sale. The Court found no substance in this point as the petitioner had annexed a copy of the notice to the petition and did not admit the sale.
  
  Conclusion:
  The petition succeeded in part. The Court quashed the order of confiscation and imposition of a fine of Rs. 200 dated 23rd April 1951 against respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner was awarded costs against these respondents. The rule was discharged against respondents Nos. 1, 2, and 5, with the petitioner required to pay their costs.

  ---

12