1
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-23-1951
Reported in : [1951]2SCR747
Kania, C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the President of India under article 143 of the Constitution asking the Court's opinion on the three questions submitted for its consideration and report. The three questions are as follows :- '(1) Was section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, or any of the provisions thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent ultra vires the Legislature which passed the said Act ?' 2. Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, mentioned in the question, runs as follows :- 'The Provincial Government may, by notification in the official gazette, extend with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit to the Province of Delhi or any part thereof, any enactment which is in force in any part of British India at the date of such notification.' '(2) Was the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, or any of the provisions thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent ultra vires the Legislature which passed the said Act ?' 3. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-18-1951
Reported in : AIR1953P& H134
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed in execution by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, dismissing the execution petition of Ratan Lal on the ground that Rs. 5,000/- worth of 12 years Post-Office National Savings Certificates deposited by the judgment-debtor with the Central Public Works Department as security were evacuee property.2. The Custodian Evacuee Property, Delhi, applied to the executing court on 8-10-1949, in which he stated that Nur Mohammad had become an evacuee and the property lying in Court was, therefore, evacuee property. In order to determine whether it is evacuee property or not it is necessary to briefly state the facts of the case. These certificates were deposited with the Central Public Works Department as security. On 12-6-1946, Ratan Lal decree-holder got these 12 year Post Office National Savings Certificates attached at a time when no evacuee legislation existed. On 18-5-1949, the Court was informed that these certificates had been deposit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-13-1951
Reported in : AIR1952Mad613; (1952)IMLJ557
1. (C. M. P. No. 2591 of 1951):--This and the other connected petitions relating to the Guruvayur temple and the Chidambaram temple were heard together as they all raised the question of the validity of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, Act II of 1927 (hereinafter called the 'earlier Act'). While these petitions were pending, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Act XIX of 1951) (hereinafter called the new Act) which repealed the earlier Act was brought into force by the Madras Government on 30th September 1951 by a notification in the Fort St. George Gazette- Leave to amend the petitions was granted to the petitioners and they have been permitted to canvass the validity of the new Act as well. Mr. M. K. Nambiyar who appeared for the trustee of the Guruvayur temple argued his petition first and Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar and the learned Advocate-General replied to that petition after which the petition relating to Guruvayur temple was allowe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-22-1951
Reported in : AIR1952Mad419; (1952)IMLJ308
1. The third defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The facts are not seriously in dispute and are not complicated. The question raised is also a simple one, though the arguments before us ranged and covered a wider ground not strictly germane to the disposal of the case. The case itself was heard in the first instance by Panchapagesa Sastri J. who directed the papers to be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the case to be heard either by a Bench or a Full Bench in view of the conflicting decisions relating to the method of adjusting the equities between the alienee and the non-alienating coparcener under a sale, part of the consideration of which was applied for purposes binding on the family. The case then came up for hearing before a Full Bench of three Judges who referred the case to a fuller Bench of five Judges. When the matter was referred to the Fuller Bench, the case itself and not any particular question was referred and therefore the scope of the hear...
Tag this Judgment!