Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-10-1966
Reported in : AIR1968Guj124; (1970)0GLR226
Miabhoy, C.J. (1) These two petitions raise common questions of law and some common questions of fact. Each of the petitions has a common petitioner and a set of common respondents. Therefore, both the petitions were heard together and a common argument was addressed by learned counsel on both sides. With their consent, we are writing this common judgment which would dispose of both the petitions. (2) The two petitions challenge the validity of a house tax imposed by the Broach Borough Municipality and embody prayers for issuance of a writ of mandamus, a direction or an order for restraining respondents, their agents and servants from enforcing the tax, and the provisions of law under which the tax is sough to be levied from petitioner.(3) The facts which are required to be stated to dispose of the two petitions are as follows: In both the petitions the common petitioner is Prathvi Cotton Mills Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913 (hereinafter called pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-04-1966
Reported in : AIR1967SC162; [1966]SuppSCR146
Subba Rao, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 158 of 1960 confirming that of the District Judge, Kaira, holding that the 1st respondent herein was a debtor and directing the Civil Judge, Kapadvanj, to adjust the debt under the provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. 2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated. The father of the first respondent owned three pieces of land bearing Survey Nos. 93, 102/3 and 125/1 in village Chikhlod, Taluka Kapadwanj, District Kaira in the State of Gujarat. On June 9, 1933, he sold the same by an oral vardi to respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 2,701/- but continued to be in possession thereof. On April 7, 1934, the 2nd respondent sold the said lands to the 1st appellant by an oral vardi for Rs. 2,521/- and the 1st appellant got possession thereof on the said date. In a partition that was effected in the joint family of the 1st appellant, survey No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jun-02-1966
Reported in : (1966)IILLJ613Ker
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The short but difficult question that falls to be decided in this appeal filed against the decision of Mr. Justice Mathew dismissing the petition of the appellant filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the appellant a partnership firm which carries on the work of Chartered Accountants in Calicut can be said to constitute an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. Messrs. T. K. Menon and Co., the appellant before us is a partnership firm doing the work of Chartered Accountants in Calicut. The firm consists of three partners Shri T. K. Menon and his two sons Shri P. R. Menon and Shri P. V. Menon. All of them are Chartered Accountants. The firm had employed some subordinate staff in their office at Calicut. The services of eight members of the subordinate staff were discharged by the appellant after giving them due notice. Thereupon the appellant received Ext, P-l not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-16-1966
Reported in : AIR1968Guj212; (1968)0GLR129
Shah, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the grant of Letters of Administration of the estate of deceased Bai Kanta made in favour of the present respondent by the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 1958 by his order dated November 5, 1959.The present respondent Chhanalal Ambalal claiming to be entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration of the estate left by his deceased wife Bai Kanta as a legatee under a registered will made by Kantas deceased mother Bai Mangu on February 18, 1941, had filed an application for the purpose. The estate is listed not in a separate schedule, but in para 4 of the application. The application was originally filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Visnagar. The grant was, however, contested by the present appellants who had lodged a caveat. The respondent had, therefore, presented the application in the Court of the District Judge, Mehsana, where it was registered as Civil Miscellaneous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-28-1966
Reported in : 1968CriLJ240
ORDERGyanendra Kumar, J.1. It will be convenient to dispose of all the six Criminal Revisions together. They are from Agra involving similar questions of fact and law. All the applicants are milk-sellers and have been convicted under Section 7/6 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The complaints against these applicants were either filed by Dr. L.N. Saxena or Dr. Niranjan Prasad, who were at the relevant time under the employ of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, as will be clear from the following statements:Criminal Revn. No. Complaint filed Date ofby institutingComplaint.1522 of 1W64 (Behari Dr. L.N. Saxena 31.7.1961.Lal v. State).1523 of 1864 (Behari Dr. L.N. Saxena 9.8.1962.Lal v. State).1152 of 1984 Mehtab Dr. Niranian 4.10.1962.Singh v. State). Prasad1591 of 1964 (Nibboo Dr. Niranian 30.11.1962.v. State). Prasad1552 of 1964 (Shyam Dr. Niranian 1.1.1963.Lal v. State). Prasad1235 of 1964 (Ram Dr. Niranjan 1.1.1963.Singh v. State). Prasad2. The main objection of the applicants in each...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-19-1966
Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter - 384 U.S. 35 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter, 384 U.S. 35 (1966) Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter No 545 Argued February 23, 1966 Decided April 19, 1966 384 U.S. 35 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK Syllabus Appellants, distillers, wholesalers, or importers of distilled spirits, sued in a New York court to enjoin enforcement principally of 9 of Chapter 531, 1964 Session Laws of New York, and to secure a declaratory judgment of its unconstitutionality under the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 9, part of a sweeping redirection of New York's policy regulating the sale of liquor in the State, requires that monthly price schedules for sales to wholesales and retailers filed with the State Liquor Authority must be accompanied by an affirmation that the bottle and case price of liquor is "no higher than the lowest price" at which sal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-27-1966
Reported in : (1967)69BOMLR326; 1967MhLJ694
Tarkunde, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts, proceeded.] A preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition was taken be-for me by Mr. Chagla on behalf of respondents Nos. 6 to 8. Respondent No. 8 is the Fourth Baronet; respondent No. 6 is his minor son; and respondent No. 7 is his mother, being the second wife of the Third Baronet. Mr. Chagla urged that this petition is not maintainable because the Repealing Act, under which the petition is filed, is itself ultra vires the Bombay State Legislature. The Act is ultra vires, according to Mr. Chagla, because it violates Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution and also because it was beyond the legislative competence of the Bombay State Legislature to pass such an Act. Mr. Chagla expressly told me that respondents Nos. 6 to 8 do not challenge the Act on the ground that it violates Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, the reason being that respondents Nos. 6 to 8 are not citizens of India. I may add that, if respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-16-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Bom514; 1967MhLJ625
(1) A short but interesting question of law as to the true meaning and effect of the exception to the first proviso to Sections 50 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') arises in these three revision applications. The facts out of which the three revision applications arise are similar for the material purposes, and it would, therefore, be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. The petitioners in all these revision applications are the landlords and they had filed suits to recover possession of the suit premises from the respondents who were their tenants. In all these cases the trial Court had decreed the suits in favour of the landlords and had directed the respondents-tenants to deliver possession of the suit premises to the landlords. The tenants preferred appeals against the decrees made by the trial Court. The learned Assistant Judge, Kolaba, heard all the appeals and accepted the contention m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-16-1966
Amell v. United States - 384 U.S. 158 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Amell v. United States, 384 U.S. 158 (1966) Amell v. United States No. 282 Argued January 24, 1966 Decided May 16, 1966 384 U.S. 158 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus Petitioners, federal employees working aboard government vessels, filed actions for wages in the Court of Claims, predicating jurisdiction on the Tucker Act, which permits suits in that court on contractual claims against the Government, and has a six-year statute of limitations. The Court of Claims granted respondent's motion to transfer the actions to various federal district courts on the ground that the claims were maritime in nature and justiciable solely under the Suits in Admiralty Act, with a two-year statute of limitations. Held: 1. As demonstrated by statutes concerning wages of other government employees, Congress has traditionally treated employees like petitioners as public servants, rather than as seamen. Pp. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-14-1966
Reported in : AIR1966SC1119; (1967)69BOMLR1; 1967MHLJ289(SC); [1966]3SCR242
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. The principal question which arises in this appeal is whether the Bombay High Court was right in holding that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya (sect) to which the appellants belong, is not a religion distinct and separate from the Hindu religion, and that the temples belonging to the said sect do come within the ambit of the provisions of the Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry-Authorisation) Act, 1956 (No. 31 of 1956) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The suit from which the present appeal arises was instituted by the appellants on the 12th January, 1948, in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad. Before the suit was instituted, the Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947 (No. 35 of 1947) (Hereinafter called 'the former Act') had come into force on the 23rd November, 1947. The appellants are the followers of the Swaminarayan sect, and are known as Satsangis. They have filed the present suit on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Sat...
Tag this Judgment!