Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-27-1952
Reported in : AIR1953Raj123
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This Is an application by Atmaram under Article 226, Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari or mandamus against the Additional Commissioner Udaipur, and the Rent Controller, Udaipur.2. The case of the applicant is that he took a shop on lease from Shyamlal who has also been made a party to his application. Shyamlal made an application under the (former) United State of Rajasthan Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Ordinance No. 22 of 1948 before the Rent Controller, Udaipur, on 9th December 1950. That application was decided on 28th September 1951, by which date the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act (17 of 1950) had come into force. The applicant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, as provided in the (former) United State of Rajasthan Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Ordinance (No. 22) of 1948. He also took the precaution of filing an appeal before the District Magistrate under Section 22 of Act 17 of 1950. The appeal before the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-04-1952
Reported in : AIR1953All287
ORDERMukerji, J. 1. This is an application in revision by a defendant who had been sued under Section 5 (4), Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The plaintiff in the suit was the tenant. He sued the landlord on the ground that the rent of Rs. 75, to which he had agreed, was much above the reasonable rent for the premises and consequently he claimed that the rent should be fixed in accordance with the 'reasonable rent' payable in respect of the premises in suit. The premises of which the plaintiff was the tenant were not substantial buildings in any sense. They were more or less tin sheds having small accommodation but these premises were situated in a very busy locality commercially and consequently they were in great demand and apparently landlords were able to get very high rents for them. 2. I may also note that the landlord himself also filed a suit against the tenant, namely Shri Diwan Chand (plaintiff in suit no. 754 of 1949) for arrears of rent at the rate of Its. 75 per mensem. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-04-1952
Reported in : AIR1953P& H30
Kapur, J.1. Counsel moves that this Court should declare Section 5(2)(d) of the Puniab Court of Wards Act (II of 1903), hereinafter referred to as the Act, void and 'ultra vires' of the Constitution of India and the continuance of the Superintendence of the estate of, the petitioner Raja Harmahendra Singh of Dada Siba by the Court of Wards as malicious, illegal and without jurisdiction. He also prays for the issue of a writ of 'certiorari' or any other appropriate writ of cancelling the notification issued on 31st August 1949, as a result of which the Court of Wards assumed superintendence of the estate of the petitioner and for a mandamus directing the restoration to the petitioner of the estate. Rule was issued on 9th November 1951 by my Lord the Chief Justice.2. The petitioner is the owner of the estate of Dada Siba in the district of Kangra, In 1933 the estate was taken over by the Court of Wards during the minority of the petitioner and was managed and administered by them. In 194...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-10-1952
Reported in : AIR1952P& H428
Khosla, J. 1. It is convenient to deal with the following matters in this judgment. The facts of each case are different but many common questions of law are involved and the cases were all argued before us at the same time : (1) F.A.O. No. 27 of 1951,(2) E.F.A. No. 292 of 1951,(3) L.P.A. No. 45 of 1950,(4) E.F.A. No. 19 of 1951,(5) E.F.A. No. 81 of 1951,(6) C.R. No. 304 of 1951,(7) E.F.A. No. 109 of 1950, (8) E.F.A. No. 105 of 1951,(9) E.F.A. No. 53 of 1951.(10) E.F.A. No. 101 of 1951 and(11) E.F.A. No. 115 of 1951.In all these cases the meaning, scope and validity of Section 17 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act XXII of 1951 is involved and in order to appreciate the point at issue it is necessary to state the facts of at least one case, and I choose L. P. A. No. 45 of 1950. In this case Thakar Singh held a mortgage upon a house and brought a suit for the recovery of the amount due on the basis of the mortgage. On 23-8-1948 he obtained a final decree for the recovery of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-03-1952
Reported in : AIR1953Mad362
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This S. R. is sought to be filed as a Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 15-10-1951, in the nature of an award, passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruvannamalai, in C. L. No. 920/50-51.2. The High Court Office thereupon took two objections viz., that this Civil Revision petition has not been filed within 90 days of the date of the order and secondly, that it does not appear that a civil revision petition of this nature can be preferred on the foot of Article 227, Constitution of India.3. Taking the first point, there is a delay of 8 days and the learned advocate is directed to file a formal petition for excusing the delay and orders will be passed excusing the delay. This aspect of the case need not detain us further.4. The maintainability of this S. R. as a civil revision petition depends upon the decision whether it would be open to the High Court to revise, the order. Under Section 51(6)(a) of Madras Act 6 of 1932 any decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-10-1952
Reported in : AIR1952Cal879,57CWN1
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is a Reference to a Full Bench by Mitter and Guha JJ. of a question arising under the West 'Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1950, on which they found themselves in disagreement with the view taken earlier by another Division Bench. As the question arose in a Civil Revision Case, the entire case has been referred, as required by the Appellate Side Rules.2. The material facts are as follows. The opposite party, Nagendra Bala Choudhurani, is the owner of premises No. 134 Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta and the first floor of that building is in the occupation of a body called the South India Club which holds the same as a tenant. On 23-3-1950, Nagendra Bala filed a suit against the Club for ejectment on the ground that she required possession of the premises for the purpose of building a second floor and also on the ground that the members of the Club had made several unauthorised constructions and had also been misusing the premises in vario...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-02-1952
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer - 343 U.S. 579 (1952) U.S. Supreme Court Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer Argued May 12-13, 1952 Decided June 2, 1952 * 343 U.S. 579 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus To avert a nationwide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense, the President issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the steel mills. The Order was not based upon any specific statutory authority, but was based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Secretary issued an order seizing the steel mills and directing their presidents to operate them as operating managers for the United States in accordance with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-19-1952
Reported in : AIR1953Ori121
Jagannadhadas, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner who is the proprietor of Madhupur Estate in Cuttack district, against the State of Orissa and the Court of Wards of the Orissa State, as well as against the Deputy Collector in charge of the Wards Estate. The State Government by virtue of the powers conferred on it under Section 16, Orissa Court of Wards Act, 1947, issued notification No. 9876/R dated the 7th December 1951, in the Revenue Department declaring the petitioner a disqualified proprietor under Section 10 (f) (iv) of the said Act and published the same in the Orissa Gazette in accordance with the provision of Section 21 of the Act. The Court of Wards assumed superintendence of the Madhupur Estate by virtue of the said notification on the 8th December 1951. Since then, the Estate has been under the management of the Court of Wards. The petitioner has accordingly come forward with this application dated the 5th March 1952, chal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-24-1952
Reported in : AIR1953Mad425; (1952)2MLJ933
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This civil revision petition is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry, dismissing the application of the petitioner, a third party, filed by her to get herself impleaded in the suit on the ground that the rights of Mappilla Tarwads stand unaffected even after the passing of the Muslim Shariat Act and that no individual member would have ,any heritable right in the tarwad properties unless he himself volunteered to become a divided member during his lifetime.2. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 in O. S. No. 35 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry, brought a suit for partition of Mopla Tarwad property said to be governed by the Marumakathayam law. The petitioner is the widow of a member of the tarwad, namely, Kuttiatha Musaliar, who had died sometime before the filing of the suit for partition. It is alleged that before the suit had been filed, he had expressed no intention to separate from the tarwad. This Kuttiatha Mus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-19-1952
Reported in : AIR1952Cal656,56CWN453
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Bose J. dated February 16, 1951 granting a writ of certiorari quashing certain proceedings of the Sea Customs authorities.2. The respondents imported from America certain oil in bulk which was described in the shipping documents as spindle oil. This oil was imported under a license which allowed them so to do. The oil came in two lots of 6500 and 750 drums and it actually arrived in the port of Calcutta on' March 6, 1950. A bill of entry was submitted to the customs authorities and on March 8 the respondents wrote that. on the authorities allowing them to take delivery they would agree to accept the result of the customs test of the samples of the oil which had been taken and to pay any extra duty leviable and any penalty if imposed should it be found from the test that the oil was not such as had been declared. The letter concludes with these words:'In the event of our failure to comply with the above undertaking, we agree...
Tag this Judgment!