Court : Supreme Court of India
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC77; [1955]2SCR1117
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property dated the 20th May, 1953, revising an order of the Additional Custodian of East Punjab, Delhi, dated the 20th March, 1952. The two questions raised before us on the facts and circumstances, to be stated, are (1) whether the Custodian-General had the revisional power which he purported to exercise, and (2) was the order of the Custodian-General on its merits such as to call for interference by this Court. 2. The appellant before us, one Mrs. Indira Sohanlal, is a displaced person from Lahore. She was the owner of a house at Lahore known as 5, Danepur Road. Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon of West Pakistan owned 766 bighas of agricultural land in a village called Punjab Khore within the State of Delhi. An oral exchange is said to have taken place between these two, of the said properties, on the 10th October, 1947. In pursuance of that exchange Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon is said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC559; (1956)58BOMLR995; 1956CriLJ1104; [1956]1SCR506
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 272 of 1955. Petition under. Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Purshottam Trikamdas, V. R. Upadhya, J. B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley, for the petitioner. M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents. 1956. May 8. The Judgment of S. R. Das C.J. and Venkatarama Ayyar, B. P. Sinha and Jafer Imam JJ. was delivered by Sinha J. Jagannadhadas J. delivered a separate judgment. SINHA J.-This petition under article 32 of the Constitution challenges the vires of certain provisions of the Bombay Police Act, XXII of 1951, which hereinafter will be referred to as "The Act" with particular reference to section 57 under which the externment order dated the 8th November 1954 was passed against the petitioner by the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch (1), C.I.D., Greater Bombay. The second respondent is the State of Bombay. The petitioner, who cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1402; [1962]1SCR383
Gajendragadkar, J.1. In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur a writ petition was filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the nine respondents who are Khadims of the tomb of Khwaja Moin-ud-din Chishti of Ajmer challenging the vires of the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act XXXVI of 1955 (hereafter called the Act). In this petition the respondents alleged that the Act in general and the provisions specified in the petition in particular are ultra vires and they claimed a direction or an appropriate writ or order restraining the appellants the Durgah Committee and the Nazim of the said Committee from enforcing any of its provisions. The writ petition thus filed by the respondents substantially succeeded and the High Court has made a declaration that the impugned provisions of the Act are ultra vires and has issued an order restraining the appellants from enforcing them. The appellants then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court and it is with the said certifi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1602; [1962]2SCR125
Ayyangar, J.1. These three petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of s. 19 and particularly sub-s. 3, of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 (Central Act 96 of 1956), on the ground that it offends the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed to them by Arts. 14 and 19(1)(f). 2. To appreciate the grounds on which this contention is sought to be sustained it is necessary to set out briefly a few facts. We might however mention that though the constitutional objection, adverted to is common to all the three petitions, it is sufficient to refer to the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 67 of 1959 which is typical of the cases before us. 3. The petitioner - Jyoti Pershad - is the owner of a house in Delhi in which respondents 3 to 11 were tenants. Each of these nine individuals occupied a single room in this house. As the petitioner considered the house to be old and req...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC646; [1962]2SCR947
S.K. Das, J. 1. These are 16 appeals which have been heard together. For facility of considering them on merits, it would be convenient to classify them into three categories. In the first category fall Civil Appeals Nos. 172 to 184 of 1958. In the second category are two appeals, Civil Appeals Nos. 185 and 186 of 1958. In the third category falls Civil appeal No. 171 of 1958. The appeals in the first two categories arise out of a judgment in revision rendered by the High Court of Punjab at Simla on August 26, 1954. That decision was reported in British Medical Stores v. L. Bhagirath Mal I.L.R(1955) . 8 Pun 639. The appeal in the third category arises out of a short order of the said High Court dated March 7, 1956, by which it dismissed an application made by the appellant-tenant under Art. 227 of the Constitution. It appears that the order was based on the decision given by the High Court in the first two categories of cases. The appeals in the first two categories have been brought t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC120; (1963)GLR37(SC); [1963]3SCR312
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Gujarat. 2. The appellant was a tenant of certain residential premises situate at Anand, and belonging to the respondents-landlords. Under a contract between the parties, he held them at Rs. 75/- per mensem according to Indian Calendar. In 1951 the appellant applied for fixation of standard rent. On March 31, 1954, the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 25/- per mensem. The appellant did not pay the arrears of rent from July 27, 1949, to July 5, 1954. On October 16, 1954, the landlords gave him notice to quit the premises stating therein that rent for over six months was in arrears and that he was to quit on the last day of the month of tenancy which was Kartak Vad 30 of Samvat Year 2011. The appellant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. On December 16, 1954, the respondents filed the suit for ejectment basing their claim for ejectment on the provisions of s. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC980; [1963(6)FLR251]; (1963)ILLJ536SC; [1963]Supp1SCR993
Sinha, C.J. 1. This petition, under Art. 32 of the Constitution, challenges the vires of certain provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act (19 of 1952) which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act, and the scheme framed thereunder. The respondents to this petition are the Union of India and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 2. The petition is founded on the following allegations. The petitioners, 5 in number, are citizens of India and are carrying on business of running a restaurant and general stores under the name and style of 'Messrs George Restaurant and Stores' at 20, Appollo Street, Fort, Bombay-1, since September, 1958. They are running this business as a partnership firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The firm employs 43 persons, including cooks, waiters, tea-makers, bill clerks and two store-clerks. Besides paying salary to their employees, the petitioners give them free food and other personal allowances, which it is not necessary to set out ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC492; (1964)66BOMLR244; [1964]4SCR299
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the two respondents were acquitted. The prosecution case briefly was that one Dongarsingh, a discharged truck driver from the army, was in need of employment. Towards the end of October 1955 he made an application to the District Soldiers' Board, Dhulia praying for help in securing employment. This application was forwarded to the Divisional Controller of the State Transport Corporation at Dhulia and Dongarsingh was asked by the Corporation to make a formal application on a printed from to be obtained on payment of As. 0-2-0. Accordingly Dongarsingh applied for a printed form sometime in November 1955 which he received on November 19, 1955. Thereafter Dongarsingh met Sheikh Ahmed (respondent No. 2) who was in service in the said department at Jamner and asked him for help. Sheikh Ahmed told Dongarsingh that Jagatsingh (respondent No. 1) who was an officer in the State Transport Corp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
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!