Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-23-1959
Reported in : AIR1959Cal585
K.C. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The main question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, should be allowed to raise an issue as regards relief under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act though the suit as framed was for recovery of a sum of money on the basis of a contract and on an allegation of failure of consideration for the contract. It appears that the plaintiff being in need of a Lancashire Boiler registered its requirement with the Department of Government which had been helping parties in India to obtain such boilers from abroad. By a letter dated 31st of January 1946 addressed to the Assistant Coal Commissioner of the Department of Industries and Supplies. Government of India, the plaintiff requested allocation of 2 Lancashire Boilers including one 'by John Thompson with a working pressure of 150 lbs. per sq. inch complete with fittings, mountings and firebars'. On 19th February 1946 the Assistant Coal Commissioner wrote that one second...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-11-1959
Reported in : AIR1961Raj6
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. This is a special appeal against the judgment and decree of Bhandari J, sitting single, confirming in second appeal the decision of the District Judge, Jaipur. Leave to appeal has been granted by the learned Judge.2. The appeal relates to a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, The Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd., for recovery of Rs. 3539/7/- from the defendant Municipal Committee, which is the appellant here. The plaintiff alleged that the Municipal Committee Madanganj had borrowed on 9-7-1947 a sum of Rs, 3,000/- and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, after the loan had been duly sanctioned by the Mahkama Khas of the then Kishangarh State. Later the Municipal Committee Madanganj merged in the Municipal Committee Kishangarh and plaintiff averred that, by virtue of the merger, the defendant became liable to pay the aforesaid amount with interest.The defendant resisted the claim and its liability to pay the amount; but admitted that in any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-27-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Bom191; [1959]37ITR191(Bom)
Shah, J.1. By this petition the competence of the Union Parliament to enact the Wealth-tax Act (XXVII of 1957), in as far as that Act seeks to levy wealth-tax on Hindu undivided families, is challenged. The petitioner, who is the karta of a Hindu undivided family and is being assessed to wealth-tax in the status of Hindu undivided family was, by notice dated 12th July, 1958, issued in exercise of powers conferred by section 14(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, called upon by the Second Wealth-tax Officer, C-II Ward, Bombay, to furnish a return of the net wealth of his undivided Hindu family. The petitioner claims that the notice is invalid because section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act is ultra vires the Union Parliament in so far as that section authorises the levy of wealth-tax on the net wealth of a Hindu undivided family. 2. By section 3 of Act 27 of 1957 liability to pay for every financial year commencing on and from the 1st day of April, 1957, a tax referred to as the wealth-tax in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-17-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Cal396
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The petitioner in this case is Dr. Sudhir Chandra Neogi, Reader at the University College of Science and Technology, Department of Applied Chemistry. He says that ior the purpose of attending to his duties as a Reader, he has to travel daily by tram car, provided for by the respondent No. 1, the Calcutta Tramways Company Limited. The exact nature of his grievance in this petition is not very clear. Indeed, if we look at the prayers in the petition we find that what is prayed for is a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to be issued on the respondents, prohibiting them from charging and realising fares of 3 naye paise, 5 naye paise, 7 naye paise etc. and also prohibiting them from charging in excess of the legal fares on the basis of the new coins (under the decimal coinage system) 'inasmuch as they are not legal tenders in terms of, Sections 14(1), (2) and (3) of the Indian Coinage (Amendment) Act 1955, and the relevant notification of the Ministry of Finance, Government o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-13-1959
Reported in : AIR1960All304
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the legality of an order passed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, dated 10-11-1955, reducing the petitioner in rank for a period of two years, and also of an order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Varanasi dated 26-6-1956 dismissing the petitioners' appeal against the aforesaid order of reduction, and of the order of the Inspector General of Police, Uttar Pradesh dated 20-3-1957, rejecting the petitioners' revision petition.2. The facts, as stated in the petitioners' affidavit are these : He was enlisted in the U. P. Police force in 1931 and claims to have a good record of meritorious service (this claim is not denied by the State). On 15-8-3955, the petitioner was posted as Station Officer-in-charge of the Police Station at Moghalsarai in the district of Varanasi. Just before that time a firing had taken place in the State of Bihar, as a result of whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-12-1959
Reported in : AIR1960AP234
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The object of all these petitions is to prevent the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation from levying octroi duty on some of the commodities that are brought into the city.2. All the petitioners, except those in Writ Petitions NOS. 1351 of 1957, 74,174, 176, 676 and 789 of 1958 and 193/59 are excise contractors, who have taken contracts for the sale of toddy and sendhi under the group system in auctions held in the year 1956. Under the terms of the contract, toddy and sendhi were to be sold in the Secunderubad abkari limits in certain places. These petitioners were allotted for tapping toddy and sendhi trees situated in several districts of the quondam Hyderabad State including those which were merged in the States of Bombay and Mysore.They were also given necessary permits to import and transport to the depots situated within the municipal limits of Secunderabad. They started business on 1st October 1956 and the toddy and sendhi were carried in lorries to their depots...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-19-1959
Reported in : AIR1960All446
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by Sbrimati Kasturi Devi against the order of the Judge Small Cause Court. Rampur, dismissing her suit against her husband Chiranji Lal for recovery of arrears of maintenance. She alleged in her suit that she was the lawfully wedded wife of Chiranji Lal having been married to him more than 20 years ago. The marriage was intercaste the husband being a Brahman and the wife a Thakur. At the time of this marriage Kasturi Devi was a widow. They lived and cohabited for 20 years but in 1954 the defendant Chiranji Lal took another wife and then turned the plaintiff out of his house. He even refused to maintain her (khana kapra dena bhi band kar diya) and she was compelled to make an application for maintenance against him under the Cr. P. C.On 29-4-1954, there was a gathering of the village Panchayat resulting in a settlement and a written agreement under which the husband Chiranjilal agreed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-07-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Ker156
Velu Pillaj, J. 1. The suit out of which this appeal arises, was for the recovery of damages for breach of contract, to supply 1,000 bags of cotton seeds, and was instituted ostensibly on behalf of a partnership, described in the cause title in the plaint, as 'M.A. Ahamed Rowther and Brother, by partner M.A. Noor Row ther'. The defendant was described as a firm, represented by two partners whose names were set out. The defendant contended inter alia, that the partnership being unregistered, the suit is not maintainable by reason of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932. 2. The partnership aforesaid, originally consisted of M.A. Ahamed Rowther and his brother Noor Rowther. After the death of the former in the year 1937, his eldest son Mohamad Moideen Rowther, was admitted to the partnership in December 1940. The partnership was registered under certificate Ext. A 24 dated 8-12-1941. During the pendency of the suit, Noor Rowther died in the year 1953, and Abdul Rahiman Rowther, anot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-20-1959
Reported in : AIR1960MP282
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J.1. All these petitions are on identical grounds against the State Government, by six different grantees of certain uncultivated forest lands, the uncleared portions of which have been resumed by Government after notice to show cause, by orders passed on 27-10-1956. The grounds were that the grantees have violated the conditions of the grant, and it had been further expressly specified that such violation should lead automatically to the cancellation of the grant by Government, and the taking over of the land, and the realization, according to the procedure for arrears of lands revenue, of the value of the produce, if any collected by the defaulting grantees.The Government has, however, given these grantees, such areas or patches as had alreadybeen cleared and made cultivable. It is also not allege that any sums have been realised according to the last condition. The prayer is for the issue of appropriate writs or directions, directing the State Government to withd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-05-1959
Reported in : AIR1960P& H317
Tek Chand, J.(1) Munsha Singh and twenty-six others, residents of village Majatri of Tahsil Kharar, District Ambala, appellants, have moved a petition in this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that consolidation proceedings which were being taken in village Majatri be quashed and proceedings for repetition, in pursuance of the consolidation might be stayed ad interim. The petition was against four respondents the State of Punjab through the Director of Consolidation. Jullundur, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Ambala, the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Kharar. All the respondents were represented by the Advocate-General. This petition was heard by the Grover J. and by his order dated 23-5-1958, the petition was dismissed.The learned Singh Judge in his order of dismissal referred to his own decision in Civil Writ No. 645 of 1957 for detailed reasons. The petitioners from the order, have filed this appeal under claus...
Tag this Judgment!