Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1947Bom361; (1947)49BOMLR352
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. The historical background from which these applications in revision spring, is set in the Ordinances, Notifications and Orders for regulating' the life of the Community, the preservation and distribution of supplies and the efficient prosecution of the war created under emergency legislation of War.2. The matters with which we are concerned depend upon two Notifications for regulating the distribution and transportation of raw materials in the iron and steel industry, the rules for the punishment of offences, and a group of Ordinances designed for setting up Special Tribunals for the trial of offenders against the control Notifications. Except for prolongation, all the Orders made under the Defence of India Act, 1939, and the Rules would have expired on September 30, 1946, being the date fixed, as being six months after the cessation of hostilities against the enemy.3. The applicants are two companies incorporated outside British India, and three persons who ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1953CriLJ481
ORDERSinha, C.J.1. This order will also govern the decision of Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 45. of 1951.2. The applicant in this application, Hiralal, is being prosecuted along with Harishankar and his wife Shrimati Gomti Devi, who are applicants in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 45 of. 1951, in the Court of the Judge-Magistrate, Hoshangabad, under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, for contravention of Clause 3 of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948. They made applications to this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution and raised in each of them the following grounds:1. Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, is 'ultra vires' of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Constitution of India, as it delegates legislative powers; and2. The Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, has not been validly extended.In their supplementary applications, they raised the following contentions:1. The power...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1977Bom384; (1977)79BOMLR259; 1977MhLJ406
Tulzapurkar, Actg. C.J. 1. These four petitions have been placed before this larger bench with a view to ascertain the impact of Article 227 of the Constitution as amended by the Constitution (42 Amendment) Act, 1976 on pending petitions filed under that Article prior to its amendment and to consider the allied questions that arise under the said amended article. Each of the four petitions has been regarded as being representative in character of a large number of petitions that have been filed and are pending in this Court since prior to 1st February 1977, the date on which the amended Article 227 has come into force.2. By Spl. Civil Application No. 5377 of 1976 a certain decision rendered in appeal and confirmed in review by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 has been challenged by the petitioners therein under Article 227; the petition was filed on 9-12-1976 and rule nisi and interim stay were granted by this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1947)49BOMLR591
Patrick Spens, C.J.1. This group of appeals all arise out of proceedings initiated against the various appellants for alleged offences contravening orders or regulations made under the war emergency legislation. As certain submissions against such proceedings being allowed to be continued were sought to be established in all the cases and other submissions with like purpose were advanced in more than one case, it was thought convenient that all the appeals should be called on and dealt with by this Court together. All counsel agreed to this course. For purposes of this judgment and to clarify the grounds of the decision in each case, we shall deal at length with the arguments submitted on behalf of the appellants and record the decisions of the Court and the reasons therefor in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1947. Thereafter we shall apply the results of such decisions to each of the other appeals.CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1 OF 1947.2. This appeal arises out of the initiation of proceedings on Feb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1947)49BOMLR697
Zafrulla Khan, J.1. Shorn of details that are no longer relevant the facts of this case are as follows: The respondent was appointed Sub-Inspector of Police by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Punjab, on January 2, 1911. On March 19, 1938, the Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, an officer subordinate to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, recorded an order purporting to dismiss the respondent from service. After exhausting his remedies by way of departmental appeal the respondent instituted a suit on April 14, 1942, against the Punjab Province claiming a declaration that the order of the Superintendent of Police of March 19, 1938, was void and of no effect inasmuch as it was made by an officer subordinate to the authority by which the respondent had been appointed and thus contravened the direction laid down in Section 240(2) of the Constitution Act. He also claimed arrears of pay from March 20, 1938, till January 2, 1941, the date on which he was normally due to retire fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1945)47BOMLR260; AIR1945PC48
Viscount Simon L.C., J. 1. This is an appeal by the Government of India from a judgment of the Federal Court (Varadachariar C.J. and Zafrulla Khan J., Rowland J., dissenting) dated January 4, 1943, dismissing an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Calcutta (Sir Harold Derbyshire C.J. Khundkar J. and Sen J.) setting aside a conviction of 15 individuals by a Special Magistrate purporting to act under Ordinance No. II of 1942 promulgated by the Governor-General on January 2, 1942. The ground upon which the conviction was set aside was that the Ordinance was ultra vires. The question is largely academic, for upon Ordinance No. II being declared by the Federal Court to be ultra vires, Ordinance XIX of 1943 was promulgated to replace it. But in view of the elaborate argument that has taken place and the way in which the topic has been dealt with in the judgments in India, their Lordships think that the better course is to decide the question whether Ordinance II is invalid, especial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1913)15BOMLR27
Chancellor (Haldane), J.1. This appeal raises the question whether the Government of India could make a law the effect of which was to debar a Civil Court from entertaining a claim against the Government to any right over land. The question is obviously one of great importance. The proceedings out of which the appeal arises related to an ordinary dispute about the title to land, in the course of which there emerged a claim to damages for wrongful interference with the plaintiffs property. The only point which their Lordships have to decide is whether Section 41 (b) of the Act IV of 1898 (Burma), was validly enacted. A majority of the Judges of the Chief Court of Lower Burma have held that it was not, and the Secretary of State appeals against the judgment. T The section enacts that no Civil Court is to have jurisdiction B to determine a claim to any right over land as against the Government. In the Court below it was held that this enactment was ultra vires as contravening a provision ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR333
Fazal Ali, J.1. The question to be determined in this appeal is whether the provisions of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (Punj. Act No. XVII of 1940), which will hereinafter be referred to as the Punjab Act, are beyond the powers of the Provincial Legislature which enacted it. The question arose under the following circumstances.2. The appellant is the owner of a shop in the town of Amritsar. Under the Act, to which reference has been made, he was called upon to pay, a sum of Rs. 67-8-0 as property tax for the year 1943-44 in respect of the shop. At first, he denied his liability to pay the amount, but, subsequently, he paid it under protest, and thereafter instituted a suit in the Court of the Judge of Small Causes at Amritsar, claiming its refund on the ground that the Act which levied the property tax was ultra vires the Punjab Legislature. This suit was dismissed, and thereupon, he made an application for revision to the Lahore High Court, but the application also was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom34; (1965)67BOMLR231; ILR1965Bom895
Patel, J.(1) The present application arises out of suit filed by the a petitioners against the Respondent for eviction on three grounds - (a) arrears of rent for more than six months, (2) alterations in the premises without the permission of the landlord and (3)- for non = payment of water charges. The case is governed by the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 to which we will refer as the Rent Act. The Defendants - Opponent resisted the eviction and one of the contentions was that the notice to quit was bad in law. The learned trial judge dismissed the suit holding that the notice was bad in law. He also rejected the other contentions of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed under S,. 29 of the Act. The learned appealed under S. 29 of under O. 41 R. 11 of the civil Procedure Code Summarily without assigning any reasons whatsoever for rejecting the appeal. This revision application comes before the against this order.(2) It is very regrettable that a revision ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(Bom)372
Madon, J. 1. This Reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Respondent firm, which is the assessee in this case, is a sole proprietary concern of which upto December 20, 1963 the sole proprietor was one R. A. Parikh. Parikh died on December 20, 1963 leaving him surviving as his heir and legal representative, his widow. After Parikh's death his widow continued the business of the Respondent firm. The Respondent firm was registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1953 Act'), and was at all material times registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1959 Act'). For the period April 1, 1959 to December 31, 1959 the Respondent firm was assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer by his assessment order dated June 13, 1962. On December 13, 1963 the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax served a notice of...
Tag this Judgment!