Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-08-1965
Reported in : [1965]2SCR705
Wanchoo, J. 1. These two appeals by special leave from two judgments of the Punjab High Court raise a common question with respect to the application of the first proviso to section 57(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, No. 59 of 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the present Act). They arise from decisions of two learned Single Judges in revision applications under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, No. 38 of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 1952 Act.) In one of them (C.A. 879) the learned Judge has held that in view of the first proviso to section 57(2), a decree for ejectment against the tenant could not be passed. In the other appeal (No. 121), the other learned Judge has held that the tenant is liable to ejectment in spite of the first proviso to section 57(2) of the present Act. It will thus be seen that the two decisions are contradictory and raise the question as when the first proviso to section 57(2) precisely applies to facts similar to the facts in the presents two app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-08-1965
Reported in : AIR1966SC135; [1965]35CompCas755(SC); [1965]3SCR665
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. These appeals, by special leave, are against the decree of the LifeInsurance Tribunal, Nagpur, in proceedings on an application by the LifeInsurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called the Corporation) under s. 15of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (Act XXXI of 1956), shortly termedas the LIC Act, for ordering the Vishwabharti Insurance Company, Bombay, DamjiValji Shah and Jayantilal Hirjibhai Chawda, appellants in the C.A. 676 .1962, hanshyamdas, appellant in C.A. 677 of 1962, the afore-mentioned individualsbeing directors of the Vishwabharti Insurance Company, and another director, topay to the Corporation jointly and severally the sum of Rs. 82,000/- togetherwith interest there at 6% per annum form September 1, 1956, till full payment.The decree ordered the company to pany to pay a further sum, but we are notconcerned with that part of the decree as the company has not appealed againstit. 2. The facts of the case briefly are these. The company was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-28-1965
Reported in : AIR1966P& H51; 1966CriLJ153
Mehar Singh, J.1. This is a petition by Ram Kumar petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a writ of Habeas corpus for the production and release of Abdulla Shaukat Detenu from his detention, which is claimed to be unlawful. The petitioner asserts that he is a friend of the detenu.2. The District Magistrate of Delhi, respondent, made an order on July 25, 1964, under Rule 30(1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, for detention of the detenu stating in the order that he was 'satisfied from information received, that it is necessary to detain Shri Abdulla Shaukat, son of Shri Karamat AH Khan, resident of 4416, Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order'. Pursuant to that order the detenu was arrested on November 17, 1964, and since then is detained in Central Jail, Tehar (New Delhi).3. On December 28, 1964, one Babu, claiming to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-24-1965
Reported in : AIR1966All412
Satish Chandra, J. 1. In this group of writ petitions the main questions raised are common. The facts requisite for the decision of the common questions are also similar. All these can conveniently be decided by one judgment.2. The petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution. They pray that the orders of the authorities constituted under the U. P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957 be quashed.3. In response to notices served on the petitioners under Section 7(2) of the Large Land Holdings Tax Act, the petitioners filed returns showing the annual valuation of their land holdings. The assessing authority did not accept the returns and called upon the petitioners to prove it. The petitioners filed oral and documentary evidence in support of their case that certain disputed areas of land were not theirs but were the holdings of their wives or sons or brothers in view of a partition of the joint family properties between the members of the family, by a partition decree or by a will o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-11-1965
Reported in : AIR1966SC573; [1966]2SCR158
Shah, J.1. House No. 11, Kaiserbagh at Lucknow, was since 1918 in the occupation of one Chowdhry Akbar Hussain. After the partition of India, Chowdhry Akbar Hussain migrated to Pakistan. By order dated October 12, 1949 the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Lucknow, in exercise of power 'under s. 6 of the U.P. Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance 1 of 1949 as continued in force by Central Ordinances 12 and 20 of 1949' declared No. 11, Kaiserbagh as 'evacuee property'. No claim was preference by any person in pursuance of this notification, and management of the property continued with the Custodian of Evacuee Property. Acting under s. 12 off the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 44 of 1954, the Central Government by a notification dated May 27, 1955 acquired the property for the Central pool constituted under that Act. On June 7, 1957 the property was put up for sale by public auction and was purchased by one Ram Chand Kohli. 2. On September 27, 1961 th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-05-1965
Reported in : AIR1966SC1003; [1966]2SCR544
Sarkar, J. 1. This appeal was filed with special leave of this Court granted on August 14, 1964. Various interesting questions of law were sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant but in our view they do not arise at this stage. The appeal must be confined to the points decided in the courts below. 2. The case appears to us to be somewhat out of the ordinary. One Mehtab Singh was the owner of a certain building known as Akbar Building, situate in Mohalla Ganda Nala, Gali Rajan, Delhi. The appellant was a tenant under him in respect of certain accommodation in the building. On June 3, 1955, Mehtab Singh filed a suit under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 against the appellant for his ejectment. On October 11, 1956 that suit was decreed. The appellant filed an appeal against that decree which, however, was dismissed on March 27, 1957. He thereafter moved the High Court of Punjab in revision but here also he was unsuccessful. The precise date of the dismissal of the applic...
Tag this Judgment!