Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-29-1963
Reported in : AIR1964SC1305; [1964]4SCR647
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 392 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 13, 1962, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench at Delhi) in Civil Revision No. 427-D of 1957. Bishan Narain, O. C. Mathur, Ravinder Narain and J.B.Dadachanji for the appellants. A.V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. K. Jain, for respondent 1. S. N. Andley, for respondent No. 2. August 29, 1963. The judgment of S. K. Das, Acting C.J. and M. Hidayatullah, J. was delivered by S.K. Das Acting C.J. Sarkar J. delivered a dessenting opinion. S. K. DAS, Acting Chief Justice.--With much regret, we have come to a conclusion different from that of our learned brother Sarkar, J. as respects the true scope and effect of S. 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Control Act of 1958. The Control Act of 1958 repeals the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, hereinafter called the Control Act of 1952, in so far as that Act was applicable to the Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-1963
Reported in : AIR1964SC1317; (1964)66PLR690
Das Gupta, J.1. In a suit for ejectment instituted on September 8, 1958 the plaintiff who is the respondent before us now made an application under Section 13(5) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act No. XXXVIII of 1952). He prayed for an order to be made on defendant-tenant to deposit all the arrears of rent and future monthly rent in accordance with law by the 15th of the following month. The arrears of rent were claimed to be Rs. 722/7/-upto the 30th June 1960. The original rent was stated to be Rs. 64/8/- and with effect from August 1, 1959 the rent was claimed at Rs. 70.95 np.2. This application was resisted by the tenant who in his reply dated August 1, 1960 stated that the rate of rent had continued to be at Rs. 64-8-0 and only Rs. 516/- was due at the rate of Rs. 64/8/- as arrears upto June 30, 1960. He added that he was prepared to deposit it.3. The Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, passed orders on the application on August 1, 1960. The relevant portion of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-26-1963
Reported in : AIR1964Guj59; (1963)GLR1033
Shelat, C.J.1. These two petitions challenge the validity of Sections 2(10a), 59-C and 59-D of the Bombay Prohibition Act, XXV of 1949, certain rules made thereunder, the two notifications issued oy the Government of Gujarat dated April 6, 1962 and the order dated September 26, 1962, refusing the wholesalers licence and the pass to import French Polish and Varnish from outside the State of Gujarat. As both the petitions raise identical questions, it is expedient to dispose of both of them together by a common judgment.2. Both the petitioners carry on business as wholesale dealers in French Polish and Varnish and have been importing for their business these two articles from States such as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, etc. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 996 of 1962 have been importing on an average about 1500 gallons of French Polish per month and have been selling the same both wholesale and retail, the average monthly sale of French Polish coming to about 1500 gall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-19-1963
..... delhi and ajmer-merwara control act 38 of 1952. it provided that no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed by any court in favour of the landlord against the tenant, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or any contract except under circumstances mentioned therein. it was held that the rent control act provided for the complete machinery for obtaining the relief of ejecment and that being so, the provisions of section 106 of the transfer of property act ..... notice in question was a combined notice under the general law (section 106 of the trans-per of property act) and the special law (section 72(1) of the bombay rents hotel and lodging house rates control act, 1947), there under consideration, and this was held to ..... section 12 of the act to mark the terminus from which the increase or decrease in the 'fair rent' is to become effective but there is nothing in that section to show that the legislature wanted to alter the periods for payment of rent from those fixed by the contract. itis also significant to note that most of the clauses of sub-section (1) of section 13 relates to cases where the property has been leased for residential purposes. besides, section ..... argued that the combined effect of section 13 (6) and section 19 (2) of the act was to nullify the provisions of section 106 of the transfer of property act or to treat the same as repealed by implication. to put shortly, counsel argued, a mere .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Mar-15-1963
NAYUDU J.- These civil rules have been heard together as they involve a common question of constitutional law, namely, whether section 37(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act è(Act XI of 1922), infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India in articles 14 and 19(r)(f) and (g) thereof.Before this question is taken up for consideration, it would be useful and necessary that the facts alleged in the petitions are briefly set out.In Civil Rule 195 of 1962, the petitioner is one Senairam Doongarmall Agency (Private) Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Tinsukia, in the Lakhimpur district, of the State of Assam. Shri K.E.Johnson, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, Tripura and Manipur, is impleaded as the first respondent, apparently in his personal capacity. The second respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, Tripura and Manipur, having his office at Shillong, the headquarters of the State of Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-14-1963
Reported in : AIR1964Cal519,(1965)ILLJ387Cal
Bose, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Sinha J. made on a writ petition quashing a notification dated the 16th May, 1960 issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the same.2. On 19th May, 1959 the Government of the State of West Bengal in exercise of its powers under Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 issued a notification, adding the cinema industry in West Bengal in Part 1 of the Schedule 1 to the said Act as one of the scheduled employments. This notification was published in tha Calcutta Gazette on 4th June 1959. On 16th May 1960 the said State Government issued a notification fixing the minimum wages of several categories of employees employed in the cinema industry in West Bengal in exercise-of its powers under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act This notification was published in the Calcutta Gazette-dated the 19th May 1960. On 31st May, 1960 one Surendra Ranjan Sarkar and two others made an application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-26-1963
Reported in : [1963]33CompCas1057(SC); [1964]4SCR99
Sinha, C.J.1. The following questions have been referred to the Special Bench by the Constitution Bench before which these cases came up for hearing : (1) whether the State Trading Corporation, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, is a citizen within the meaning of Art. 19 of the Constitution and can ask for the enforcement of fundamental rights granted to citizens under the said article; and (2) whether the State Trading Corporation is, notwithstanding the formality of incorporation under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, in substance a department and organ of the Government of India with the entirety of its capital contributed by Government; and can it claim to enforce fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution against the State as defined in Art. 12 thereof. 2. The questions were raised by way of preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution. 3. As the whole case is not before us, it is necessary...
Tag this Judgment!