LAXMANAPPA HANUMANTAPPA JAMKHANDI versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 21-10-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
769 
counsel for acting wrongly under an erroneous impres-
sion of their rights and privileges. 
For the reasons given above we allow this appeal to 
the extent that the sentence of fine passed on both the 
appellants is set 
aside, 
and the unqualified apology 
given by them to this 
Court .and the High Court is 
accepted. We also desire to issue a strong admonition 
and warning to the two 
counsel for their conduct. 
There will be no order as to costs in these proceedings 
throughout. 
Appeal allowed. 
1954 
M. r. Shareef 
and Another 
v. 
The Hon'bie 
Judges of the 
High Court of 
Nagpur, 
LAXMANAPPA 
HANUMANTAPPA 
JAMKHANDI 
1954 
(I. 
'I'HE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 
;MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., s. R. DAS, GHULAM 
HASAN, IlHAGWATI and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Arts. 31(1), 32, 265-Deprivation of pro-
·t>erty-Otherwise than by imposition or collection of tax-Right con-
ferred by Art. 265-Whether can be enjorced by Art. 32. 
Held, that as there is a special provision in Art. 265 of the 
Constitution that no tax shall be levied or collected except by 
authority of law, clause ( 1) of Art. 31 must be regarded as con-
cerned with deprivation of property otherwise than by the imposi-
tion or collection of tax and as the right conferred by Art. 265 is 
!l-Ot a fundamental right conferred by Part III of the Constitution, 
it cannot be enforced under Art. 32. 
Ramjilal v. Income-tax Officer, 
Mohindcrgarh ([1951] S.C.R 
t , 
127) followed. 
Suraj Mal Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri (A.LR 
1954 S.C. 545) referred to. 
OmcJNAL JuRrsmcTioN : Petition No. 492 of 1954. 
Petition 
under article 32 of the Constitution for 
the e,nforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
B. Sen, l. N. Shroff and B. P. 
Singh for the 
petitione1 . 
.._ 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General 
for 
India, and 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (G' N. foshi. 
October 21 
1954 
Laxmanappa 
Hanumantappa 
V, 
Union of India 
and Anot/zn 
Mahqjan C. J. 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
r 19551 
P. A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with them) for the 
respondents. 
1954. October 21. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MEHR 
CHAND 
MAHAJAN C.J.-This 1s a 
petition 
under article 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforceme<J,t of fundamental rights under articles 31(1) 
and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and for the issue of 
writs in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari and 
for suitable directions restraining the respondents from 
interfering with the petitioner's properties in violation 
of his fundamental rights. 
The petition anses 
m these 
circumstances. 
The 
petitioner, along with his 
brothers, used to carry on 
the business of toddy and liquor vendors. 
In addition 
to this, one of the brothers used to run a bus service 
and <lealt m cotton and money-lending also. All the 
brothers owned 
extensive 
properties, both 
agricultural 
and non-agricultural. Though prior to the assessment 
year 1926-27 all the brothers were assessed to income-
tax as a Hindu undivided family, since then up to the 
year 1946 they were assessed separately on account of 
a partition alleged to have been made between them. 
In December, 1946, the Income-tax Officer commenced 
proceedings 
against them 
under section 34 on the 
ground that the case of partition set up by them was 
not correct and as a matter of fact there had been no 
part1t10n 
between them and they were carrymg on 
business jointly. 
As a result of these proceedings 
an 
assessment under section 34 was made 
on the four 
brothers jointly, treating 
them as 
an association of 
persons, 
for the year 1942-43. 
Similar assessment pro-
ceedings were taken against them in respect of the 
years 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1943-44. 
In December, 1947, the Central 
Government, under 
the bona fide belief that the petitioner's brothers had 
made huge profits during the war and had evaded tax, 
made five 
references to the Income-tax Investigation 
Commission under section 5 ( 1) 
of the Taxation on 
Income 
(Investigation Commission) Act, 1947. Refer-
ence No. 175 concerned all the brothers as an associa-
tion of persons while the other four references related 
• 
' , 
• 
• 
.. 
• 
s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
771 
to the brothers individually._ As a result of the pro-
z9s1 
ceedings before the ., Investigation Commission, the 
Commission made a report to the Central Government 
Laxmanappa 
H anumantappa 
on the 26th of September, 1952, estimating the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.