Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1950]SuppSCR102
Mukherjea, J.1. These sixteen appeals arise out of as many applications presented by the different appellants under section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, complaining of illegal detention under section 2 (1) (a) of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1949. 2. The appellants were originally arrested under the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947. That Act, which received the assent of the Governor-General on 15th of March, 1947, was to remain operative under section 1 (3) of the Act for a period of one year only from the date of its commencement, subject to a proviso engrafted upon the sub- section itself, which empowered the Provisional Government to extend it, with or without modifications, for a further period of one year, by means of a notification, on a resolution being passed to that effect by the Bihar Legislative Assembly and agreed to by the Bihar Legislative Council. On the 11th of March, 1948, the Provincial Government of Bihar, in exercise of their p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC144; (1951)53BOMLR472; (1951)IMLJ314(SC); [1950]1SCR979; [1950]SuppSCR979
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay. Although the record is heavy and many points were argued in the trial court and in the court of appeal at Bombay, the important point argued before us is only one. 2. The appellants (plaintiffs) are a firm of commission agents in Bombay. The respondents (defendants) were their constituents. Accounts between the parties in respect of their dealings were made up and settled up to the 30th of October, 1943. Piecegoods and yarn continued to be purchased and consigned by the plaintiffs to the defendants' joint family firm thereafter. One bale of piecegoods was purchased and despatched in November, 1943. In January, 1944, restrictions were imposed against the consignment of piecegoods and/or yarn outside Bombay by rail without obtaining the necessary previous permit from the Textile Commissioner at Bombay. On or about the 6th February, 1944, Mohanlal of the defendants' joint family firm came to Bombay and the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC174; 1951CriLJ400; (1951)IMLJ431(SC); [1951]2SCR212
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal under article 132 of the Constitution of India from the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta, which rejected the habeas corpus petitions of the appellants. The detention orders under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, in all cases were served on the appellants on the 26th February, 1950 and the grounds for the detention were served on the 14th March, 1950. By way of specimen we quote one of them : 'You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, (Act IV of 1950), on the following grounds :- (1) That you have been assisting the operations of the Communist Party of India, which along with its volunteer organisations has been declared unlawful by Government under section 16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act XIV of 1908), and which has for its object commission of rioting with deadly weapons, robbery, dacoity, arson and mur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC315; (1951)IIMLJ139(SC); [1951]2SCR671
Bose, J.1. This is a criminal appeal against a conviction under section 16 of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940, as amended in 1943, read with section 7(1). 2. The appellant is a shopkeeper who owns and runs a shop in the Cantonment Area of Ferozepore. He has no 'employees' within the meaning of the Act but is assisted by his son in running the shop. The shop is divided into two sections. In one, articles of haberdashery are sold; in the other, articles of stationery. Section 7(1) of the Act as amended requires that - 'Save as otherwise provided by this Act, every shop... shall remain closed on a close day.' Sub-section (2)(i) states that - 'The choice of a close day shall rest with the owner or occupier of a shop ....and shall be intimated to the prescribed authority within etc.'3. The appellant made the following choice. He elected to close the haberdashery section on Mondays and the stationery section on Saturdays and gave the necessary intimation to the prescribed authority to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC75; 1952CriLJ510; [1952]1SCR284
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State of West Bengal from a judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta quashing the conviction of the respondent by the Special Court established under section 3 of the West Bengal Special Courts Ordinance, 1949, (Ordinance No. 3 of 1949) which was replaced in March, 1950, by the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, (West Bengal Act X of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The respondent and 49 other persons were charged with various offences alleged to have been committed by them in the course of their raid as an armed gang on a certain factory known as the Jessop Factory at Dum Dum, and they were convicted and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment by the Special Court to which the case was sent for trial by the Governor of West Bengal by a notification dated 26th January, 1950, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 (1) of the Act. Thereupon the respondent applied to the High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC645
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madras reversing the acquittal of the appellant and convicting him under Section 44 of the Madras District Police Act. The facts which have given rise to this prosecution and which are not in dispute are as follows. The appellant who belonged to Kurnool was in the year 1948, Sub-Inspector of Police in the Nellore District of the then State of Madras, having been recruited into the Police service in the year 1932. From the 11th May to the 25th June, 1948, he was on sanctioned leave and went to Cuddapah. On the expiry of the leave, he applied for extension of leave for two months enclosing a medical certificate and requested that his pay may be sent to the Station House Officer, Kurnool.He was on that date eligible for leave to average pay for seven months. On receiving the application, the District Superintendent of Police, Nellore, sent a requisition to the District Medical Officer, Kurnool...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC631; 1955(0)BLJR659; 1955CriLJ1408
Jagannadhadas, J.1. These five are petitions by five individuals who are now under detention for the issue of a writ in the nature of 'habeas corpus' in respect of each of them. The orders of detention in question were issued by the District Magistrate of Saran on 17-10-1954, and the Government passed further orders under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) on 27-10-1954, approving the detention orders passed by the District Magistrate.These orders were confirmed later by the Government, on 5-1-1955, presumably after die consideration thereof by the Advisory Board and the detention in respect of each was directed to be continued until 17-10-1955. The grounds of detention in all these cases arise out of the same set of facts and are more or less similar, if not the same.The validity of the detention in each of the cases is attacked on the same grounds and there has been only one single argument in respect of all these petitions. Hence they are dealt with by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC23; 1957(0)BLJR1; (1957)59BOMLR83; 1957CriLJ5; [1956]1SCR644
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. These are petitions under article 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. On 26th January, 1956 the District Magistrate, Thana, passed orders under section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the detention of the petitioners, and in execution of the orders, they were arrested on 27th January, 1956. The next day, the District Magistrate sent his report to the State Government which on 3rd February 1956 approved of the same. Meantime, on 30th January, 1956 the District Magistrate formulated the grounds on which the orders of detention were made, and the same were communicated to the petitioners on 31st January 1956. A copy of these grounds was sent to the State Government on 6th February, 1956.2. The petitioners challenge the validity of the detention on two grounds. They contend firstly that the grounds for the order of detention which were furnished to them under section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC82; (1957)ILLJ17SC; [1956]1SCR916
Bhagwati, J.1. These two appeals by special leave arise out of an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow Bench, by which it dismissed the application of the appellant under s. 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act for permission to dismiss the respondents from its employ and allowed the application of the respondents under s. 23 of the Act for reinstatement. 2. The respondents are 76 employees of the appellant, a limited company of Sugar Mills, situated in village Chitauni in the district of Deoria and were working in the engineering department of the mills in the mill house, boiling house and the workshop sections. There were disputes between the appellant and its workmen and, on the date in question, i. e. May 27, 1952, there was pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal an appeal which was registered as Cal-101/51. It appears that one Motilal Singh, an employee of the appellant, had been dismissed by it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1; 1960CriLJ126; [1960]1SCR680
Wanchoo, J.1. This appeal, on a certificate granted under Art. 132 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter called the Constitution) by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, raises the constitutionality of the Enemy Agents Ordinance), No. VIII of S. 2005 hereinafter called the Ordinance), promulgated by His Highness under s. 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, S. 1996, (hereinafter called the Constitution-Act). The appellants also made an application under Art. 132(3) of the Constitution to this Court for permission to urge other grounds taken by them in the High Court besides those relating to the interpretation of the Constitution. We intimated at the outset of the arguments that this application was being allowed and learned counsel for the appellants was permitted to make his submissions on all points raised in the High Court. 2. The appellants are being prosecuted before a Special Court constituted under the Ordinance for offences under s. 3 of the Ordinance, Sections 3, ...
Tag this Judgment!