SHRI BALWANTRAI CHIMANLAL TRIVEDI versus M. N. NAGRASHNA AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1961] 1 S.C.R. 113 · Decided: 03-08-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
113 
trading with persons other than its members subject 
to conditions and . restrictions, vide s. 31 of the 
Co-operative Societies Act. This has, in fact, been 
done here. 
Once there is this extension of the business of a 
Co-operative Society, the general words of the notifica-
tion include the profits from such business within the 
exemption",a.nd it would require more than a supposed 
underlying intention to negative the exemption. To 
Hoshiarpur 
CentYal 
co.operative 
Bank Ltd. 
v. 
Commissioner of 
lncome·lax, 
Simla 
gather the meaning of the notification in the light of Hidayatull•h J. 
an alleged intention is to reverse the well-known canon 
of interpretation. In our opinion, the profits were 
exempt under the notification, and the answer to the 
question ought to have been in the affirmative. 
In the result, we allow the appeal with costs here 
and in the High Court. 
Appeal allowed. 
SHRI BALWANTRAI CHIMANLAL TRIVEDI 
v. 
M. N. NAGRASHNA AND OTHERS. 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L, KAPUR, 
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAB, K. SuBBA RAo and 
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Supreme Court-Appeal by special leave-Question of jurisdic-
tion of inferior court-Court not bound to decide where there is110 
failure of justice-Review-Constitution of India, Art. z36. 
Where at the hearing of an appeal filed by special leave 
from a decision of the High Court in a Writ Petition filed there 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India against an order of 
the Payment of Wages Authority, the Court constdered that 
there was some force in the contention relating to the jurisdic-
tion of the Authority concerned but did not decide that question 
on the view that as there had been no failure of justice the 
Court would not interfere under its powers under Art. 136, and 
the appellant applied for a review of the judgment:-
15 
r960 
August 3. 
Trit.·tdi 
v. 
l\"agras}n1a 
114 
SUPRE:~fE COCRT HEPORTS 
[1961] 
Held, that wide as arc the powers of the Supreme Court 
under Art. x36 of the Constitution, its powers arc discretionary 
and though special leave had been granted the Court was not 
bound to decide the question of jurisdiction of the inferior tri-
bunal or court where the decision of the inferior tribunal or 
court had been taken to a higher tribunal which undoubtedly 
had jurisdiction and from the decision of which the special leave 
was granted if on the facts and circumstances of the case it came 
to the conclusion in dealing with the appeal under that Article 
that there was no failure ol justice. 
A. M. Allison v. Ii. L. Sen, [1957] S.C.R. 359, relied on. 
C1v1L APPELLATE JumsDJCTION: 
Review Petition 
No. 37 of 1959. 
Petit.ion for Review of this Court's judgment and 
order dated October 29, 1959, in Civil Appeal No. 38 
of 1958. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. Sen, 
J.B. Mehta and J.B. Dadachanji, for the petitioner. 
N. C. ChaUerjee and S.S. Shulda, for respondents. 
J. JJ. Mehta and J.B. Dadachanji, for intcrveners 
Nos. 1 to 13. 
J.B. Dadachanji, for interveners Nos. 14 to 19. 
1960. August 3. The Judgment of the Cou~t was 
t 
delivered by 
Wa•cnoo J. 
WANCHOO J.-This is an application for review of 
the judgment dolivered by this Court, to which three 
of us were party, on October 29, 1959. The ground on 
which review is sought is that there arc mistakes and/ 
or errors apparent on the face of the record and there-
fore the judgment in question should be reviewed. The 
petitioner contends further that the judgment under 
review had dealt with the matter of iBBue of writs by 
High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution and 
this involved a. question which could only have been 
dealt by a bench of not less than five judges-and that 
is why the review application has been placed before 
a. bench of five judges. Lastly it is contended that this 
Court should have decided the question of jurisdiction 
as various other parties had agreed to be governed by 
the decision in this case a.nd that would have saved 
multiplicity of proceedings. 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
115 
Before we deal with the points urged in support of 
the petition we should like to state what exactly has 
been decided by the jndgment under review. The 
appeal in which the judgment under review was given 
came up before the Court on special leave granted 
under Art. 136 of the Constitution from a decision of 
the Bombay High Court in a writ petition filed there 
under Art. 226 against an order of the Payment of 
Wa

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