Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1964CriLJ572; [1962]Supp(3)SCR209
Kapur, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court confirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 120-B and 420; Indian Penal Code, and s. 5(1)(d) read with s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; and sentencing each of them to an aggregate sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. It is unnecessary to set out the facts in detail but to put them briefly. The appellant; Albert Mosses was the Principal incharge of the Rehabilitation center, Malviya Nagar and Kalkaji under the Ministry of Rehabilitation. The appellant, K. L. Dhawan, was a partner in the firm named M/s. Dhawan & Co. and they supplied a surface plate for a sum of Rs. 1,950/- to the Works center of which the appellant Albert Moses was the Principal. 3. The trial of the appellants and R. P. Dhawan, who has been acquitted, commenced in the Court of Mr. Jawala Das, Special Judge, Delhi, and he heard the case from the date of the institution of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962]Supp3SCR217
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. These nine appeals, by special leave, are against the orders of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, dismissing nine second appeals filed by the appellants in circumstances hereinafter mentioned, on the ground that the orders of the First Appellate Court in three other connected first appeals had become final and operated as res judicata. 2. Khub Chand had three sons Karan Singh, Hoshiar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. Each of these brothers instituted four suits. Hoshiar Singh instituted suit No. 48 of 1944 under s. 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (U.P. XVII of 1939), against one Bhartu, suit No. 49 against Har Gyan, Mukhtiar Singh and Data Ram, sons of Sis Ram, brother of Bhartu, suit No. 50 against Har Gyan and Mukhtiar Singh, sons of Sis Ram, and suit No. 51 against one Banwari. Karam Singh similarly instituted suits Nos. 63, 61, 60 and 62 against similar defendants respectively. Mukhtiar Singh's suits against those defendants, respectively, were Nos. 67, 65, 64 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1204; [1962]Supp3SCR230
Kapur, J. 1. This appeal by Special Leave against the decision of the High Court of Bombay dismissing the State's appeal against the acquittal of the respondent arises out of proceedings under s. 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (Act 25 of 1949), as amended, hereinafter called the 'Act'. 2. The respondent was arrested by Police Constable Laxman Sabaji on August 8, 1959, at 8-15 p.m. on the ground that he was smelling of liquor and had therefore contravened the provisions of the Act. The respondent was taken to the hospital where he was examined by Dr. Dadlani Prabhu Rochiram P.W., who has deposed that the respondent was smelling of liquor but his speech, behavior, gait, coordination and memory were normal. From this he concluded that the respondent had consumed some alcoholic substance but was not under the influence of liquor. In cross-examination he stated that Tincture Neem would produce blood concentration of 0.146% M/V of ethyl alcohol. The respondent in his examinatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1052; [1962]Supp3SCR235
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These three Writ Petitions are filed by the three respective petitioners under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e). They were heard separately but it would be convenient to deal with them by one common judgment because they raise for our decision the same constitutional questions. In all the petitions, the constitutional validity of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, (Act LVII of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act) and of Rule 3 in Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, is challenged. It would also be convenient to set out briefly at the outset material facts on which the three petitions are based.2. Izhar Ahmad Khan, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 101 of 1959, claims to be a citizen of India and was a resident of Bhopal. He was enrolled as a voter in the Parliamentary as well as State Legislative Assembly Electoral Roll. On the 20th August, 1952, he was taken into custody by the police...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1305; [1962]Supp3SCR346
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. The question that arises for our decision in the above writ petitions and appeals is whether certain jagirs in the State of Punjab known as the 'Cis-Sutlej' jagir are liable to be resumed under the provisions of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1957 (Punjab Act No. 39 of 1957), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. This Act came into force on November 14, 1957, and the respondent State then proceeded to take action thereunder for resuming the jagirs. A number of petitions were thereupon filed in the High Court of Punjab under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Act, and of the proceedings taken by the respondent State thereunder on the ground, firstly, that the Act was altra vires the powers of the State Legislature and that its provisions were unconstitutional and void; and, secondly, that even if the Act was intra vires the jagirs held by the petitioners were not 'jagirs' as defined in the Act, and were therefore not liable to be r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1166; 1962(0)BLJR499; (1962)ILLJ294SC; [1962]Supp3SCR369
Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal comes before us by virtue of a certificate of fitness granted under Art. 132 of the Constitution by the High Court of Patna. The question involved in the appeal is a short one but is of considerable public importance and of great constitutional significance. It is concerned with the constitutional validity of r. 4-A, which was introduced into the Bihar Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956, by a notification of the Governor of Bihar dated August 16, 1957 and reads : '4-A. - Demonstrations and strikes. - No Government servant shall participate in any demonstration or resort to any form of strike in connection with any matter pertaining to his conditions of service.' 2. Very soon after this rule was notified the six appellants, the first of whom is the President of the Patna Secretariat Ministerial Officers' Association and the others are Assistants or Clerks under the Bihar State Government, filed on August 26, 1957, a petition before the High Court of Patn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC468; (1963)65BOMLR258; 1963MhLJ450(SC); [1962]Supp3SCR461
Hidayatullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit tried in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay, filed by the respondents, the Trustees of the Port of Bombay, for the ejectment of the appellant, Kanji Manji, and one Rupji Jeraji who had died even before the suit was filed, from a plot situated at Haji Bunder Mazgaon, Sewri Reclamation Estate, Bombay. and for possession of the land. There was a claim for Rs. 10,871-14-0 being the arrears of water charges and property taxes, with which we are not concerned. The suit was decreed by the Bombay City Civil Court, and the appellant was ordered to vacate the suit premises and to deliver vacant possession thereof. An appeal was filed against the decree in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, but it was dismissed summarily on September 24, 1959. The High Court also refused an application for a certificate, but the appellant applied for special leave, and having obtained it, filed the present appeal. 2. In 1924, the Trustees of the Port of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC464; [1962]46ITR127(SC); [1962]Supp3SCR496
S.K. Das, J. 1. On July 23, 1934 the then Government of the Punjab granted a licence under s. 3 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (IX of 1910) (hereinafter called the Electricity Act) to two persons named Harbhagwan Nanda and Harcharan Dass for the generation and supply of electric energy in the town of Fazilka. The licence, which is marked annexure 'A' and forms part of the statement of the case, contained a clause, viz, clause 9(1) which read as follows : '9. (1) The option of purchase given by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the (Electricity) Act shall first be exercisable on the expiration of 15 years from the date of the notification of this licence and on the expiration of every subsequent period of 10 years. The percentage of the value to be determined in accordance with and for the purpose of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the (Electricity) Act of lands, buildings, works, materials and plant of the licensee therein mentioned to be added under the second proviso of that sub-secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan - 369 U.S. 45 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan, 369 U.S. 45 (1962) Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan No. 2 Argued December 13-14, 1961 Decided March 5, 1962 369 U.S. 45 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA Syllabus By the Act of March 3, 1891, the Annette Islands in Alaska were "set apart as a reservation" for the Metlakatlans and other Indians, "to be held and used by them . . . under such rules and regulations . . . as may be prescribed from time to time by the Secretary of the Interior." Relying not upon that Act, but upon the White Act of June 6, 1924, and 4 of the Alaska Statehood Act, the Secretary of the Interior promulgated the present regulations whereby appellant, the incorporated Metlakatla Indian Community, was accorded the right to erect and operate salmon traps in waters surrounding the Annette Islands. Appellant sued to enjoin threatened enforcement against it of a statute of the State of A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Organized Village of Kake v. Egan - 369 U.S. 60 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60 (1962) Organized Village of Kake v. Egan No. 3 Argued December 14, 1961 Decided March 5, 1962 369 U.S. 60 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA Syllabus Appellants are incorporated communities of Thlinget Indians in Alaska. No reservation has been established for them. They operate salmon traps under permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Forest Service and regulations issued by the Secretary of the Interior. They sued to enjoin threatened enforcement against them of a statute of the State of Alaska forbidding the use of salmon traps. Their suit was dismissed, and the State Supreme Court affirmed. Held: 1. The permits issued by the Corps of Engineers and the Forest Service do not exempt these salmon traps from state law. Pp. 369 U. S. 63 -64. 2. Congress has neither authorized the use contrary to state law of the salmon ...
Tag this Judgment!