Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1500; (1962)ILLJ420SC; [1962]Supp(3)SCR618
Wanchoo, J. 1. This appeal by special leave raises the question of interpretation of s. 6-E(2)(b) of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, U.P. Act No. XXVIII of 1947, (hereinafter called the U.P. Act), which is in exactly the same terms as s. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. XIV of 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as amended by Act 36 of 1956. The question arises in this way. The appellant is a Strawboard Mill. The respondent was in the employ of the appellant. On August 12, 1959, the respondent was given certain orders by the Technical Director of the appellant, but he refused to comply with them. The same day the respondent refused to comply with certain similar orders given by the machineman. Again on August 13, 1959, he refused to obey similar orders of the shift in-charge. Finally, on August 14, he refused to obey similar orders of another shift in-charge. Consequently a notice was served on the respondent to show cause why he should not be dealt wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1371; [1962]32CompCas514(SC); [1962]Supp3SCR632
Hidayatullah, J.1. On August 8, 1960, the Reserve Bank of India made an application in the High Court of Kerala under s. 38 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) read with the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), for the winding up of the Palai Central Bank, Ltd. (having its registered office at Palai in the State of Kerala), for the appointment of the Official Liquidator of the High Court as the Liquidator with all the powers under the said Acts and for the appointment of the Official Liquidator as the Provisional Liquidator during the pendency of the application. This application was allowed on December 5, 1960, and the present appeal with special leave, has been filed against the order. 2. The Palai Central Bank, Ltd. (herein referred to as the Palai Bank or the Bank) was incorporated in January, 1927 under the Travancore Companies Regulations. Till 1936, it was known as 'The Central Bank, Ltd.', when the name was changed. In March 1937, the Palai Bank was included in the Seco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1536; (1963)65BOMLR274; [1962(4)FLR473]; (1962)ILLJ427SC; 1963MhLJ473(SC); [1962]Supp(3)SCR815
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. These two appeals have been heard together because they raise a common question of construction of section 1(3)(a) of the Employee's Provident Funds Act, 1952 (No. 19 of 1952) (hereinafter called the Act). The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay, is the appellant in both the appeals, whereas Shree Krishna Metal . are the respondents respectively. Shree Krishna Metal Mfg. Co. is a partnership firm which is registered under the Indian Partnership Act. Its business consists of (1) manufacturing brass, copper and 'kasa' circular sheets and the preparation of utensils therefrom; (2) milling paddy, (3) a flour mill and (4) a saw mill. The aforesaid four works are situated in the same compound. For the manufacture of metal circular sheets, the company has a rolling machine. In order to carry on other works, a separate rice mill, flour mill and saw mill have been installed by the Co. The Company's case is that it employs different workers in each section of its a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1402; [1962(4)FLR440]; (1962)ILLJ400SC; [1962]Supp3SCR837
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. The first petitioner is a company carrying on business in the manufacture of cement in the State of Orissa and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are two of its Directors. They have filed the present petition under Art. 32, challenging the validity of two notifications dated January 15, 1958, and December 2, 1960, issued by the Central Government under s. 7(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act. 1952 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It will be convenient to first set out the relevant statutory provisions bearing on the question. The Act was passed for the purpose of providing for the institution of Provident Funds for the employees in factories and other establishments. Section 5 of the Act, which deals with this matter is as follows :-'5. Employees' Provident Fund Schemes. - (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame a Scheme to be called the employees' Provident Fund Scheme for the establishment of provident funds under this a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1367; 1962(0)BLJR687; [1962(5)FLR31]; [1962]Supp3SCR804
Sinha, C.J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order of aDivision Bench of the Patna High Court, dated October 30, 1961, dismissing inlimine the appellant's petition dated October 24, 1961, under Arts. 226 and 227of the Constitution, being Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 954 of 1961, for awrit of Prohibition directing the first respondent not to proceed with theAward Case No. 101 of 1961, and a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order ofthe said respondent, dated September 29, 1961. The appellant is a privatelimited company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, with itsregistered office at Calcutta. It carries on the business of manufacturingsugar in its factory at Sugauli in the district of Champaran, in Bihar. Thefirst respondent is the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, MotihariCircle, Motihari, in the State of Bihar; the second respondent is the Union ofCo-operative Societies, and is registered under the Bihar and OrissaCo-operative Societie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1517; [1962]Supp(3)SCR875
Wanchoo, J.1. These five petitions under Art. 32 of the constitution, which are connectedand will be dealt with together, raise questions as to the constitutionality ofthe Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, Bombay Act No. XXII of 1939,(hereinafter referred to as the Act), as amended by the Bombay and SaurashtraAgricultural Produce Markets (Gujarat amendment and validating Provisions)Ordinance, No. 1 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), and theRules and the bye-laws framed thereunder. They are a sequel to the judgment ofthis Court in Gulam Mohammed v. The State of Bombay : [1962]2SCR659 ,which was delivered on May 2, 1961. One of petitioners before us in thesepetitions was also a party in that petition, which was with respect to a marketestablished in Ahmedabad. In that petition the challenge to theconstitutionality of the main provisions of the Act failed but the provisionsof certain Rules, namely Rules 53, 65, 66 and 67 were held to be ultra vires theprovisions of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1963)65PLR452; [1962]Supp(3)SCR952
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the Punjab High Court dated May 21, 1958, in Civil Revision application No. 27 of 1958 of that Court. By that order the learned single Judge dismissed an application in revision made by the appellant herein in the following circumstances. 2. The appellant, Maharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh is the owner of the premises known as Ranzor Hall in Simla. The respondent, Badri Prasad Seth, is in occupation of the premises as a tenant and is running a cinema therein which is known as Revoli theatre or Revoli cinema. The correspondence between the parties shows that on or about April 12, 1956 the Executive Engineer, Simla Provincial Division, inspected the cinema building on behalf of the Licensing Authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Simla, and noted six defects, one of which was, to use the words of the Executive Engineer, 'the right hand pillar of the screen has cracked and has gone out of plum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1543; (1963)65BOMLR162; [1962]32CompCas604(SC); [1962(5)FLR35]; [1962]Supp3SCR973
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The principal question which arises in this appeal relates to the construction of s. 76(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) (hereinafter called the Act) before the amendment of sub-s. (2) in 1960. That question arises in this way. The appellant, Madanlal Fakirchand Dudhediya, and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the farther of respondents Nos. 7 to 10 were the promoters of the Ist respondent Co., Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd. The said Co. was incorporated in 1939 as a Private Limited Company. It was, however, converted into a Public Ltd. Co. in 1944. At the time of the original incorporation of the Co., a Promoter's Agreement was arrived at whereby the Co. agreed during its existence to pay a sum equal to 3-1/8% every year out of its net profits to each of the four promoters. As a result of this agreement, the aggregate consideration payable every year to the promoters came to 12-1/2% of the net profits of the Co. Article 3 of the Articles of Associatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Baker v. Carr - 369 U.S. 186 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) Baker v. Carr No. 6 Argued April 19-20, 1961 Set for reargument May 1, 1961 Reargued October 9, 1961 Decided March 26, 1962 369 U.S. 186 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus Appellants are persons allegedly qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly of Tennessee representing the counties in which they reside. They brought suit in a Federal District Court in Tennessee under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, to redress the alleged deprivation of their federal constitutional rights by legislation classifying voters with respect to representation in the General Assembly. They alleged that, by means of a 1901 statute of Tennessee arbitrarily and capriciously apportioning the seats in the General Assembly among the State's 95 counties, and a failure to reapportion them subsequent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kesler v. Department of Public Safety - 369 U.S. 153 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Kesler v. Department of Public Safety, 369 U.S. 153 (1962) Kesler v. Department of Public Safety of Utah No. 14 Argued October 10, 1961 Decided March 26, 1962 369 U.S. 153 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH Syllabus Under Utah's Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, which gives judgment creditors control over the initiation and duration of suspensions, appellant's automobile registration and operator's license were suspended because of his failure to satisfy judgments based on his negligent operation of an automobile. After being granted a voluntary discharge in bankruptcy releasing him from the judgment debts, he applied to state authorities for restoration of his automobile registration and operator's license. This as denied, because the state statute requires satisfaction of the judgments as a condition of reinstatement, and provides specifically that a di...
Tag this Judgment!