Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC782; [1960(1)FLR354]; (1960)ILLJ275SC; [1960]3SCR68
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The appellant, the Tinnevelli-Tuticorin Electric Supply Co., Ltd., Tuticorin, is an electric supply undertaking, and it carries on its business as a licensee under the State Government of Madras subject to the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Act 9 of 1910) and the Electric Supply Act, 1948 (Act 54 of 1948). This latter Act will hereinafter be called the Act. The business of the appellant consists of buying electric supply from the State Hydro-electric Projects and of supplying the same to consumers within the areas specified in its licence; this area is in and around Tinnevelli and Tuticorin Municipalities. The appellant's workmen (hereinafter called the respondents) made several demands in respect of their terms of employment. These demands gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred by the Madras Government to the Industrial Tribunal at Madurai for adjudication under s. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947). Amongs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC633; 1960CriLJ1002; [1960]2SCR821
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises the question of interpretation of the words 'in the interest of public order' in Art. 19(2) of the Constitution. 2. The facts are not in dispute and they lie in a small compass. The respondent, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, is the General Secretary of the Socialist Party of India. The U.P. Government enhanced the irrigation rates for water supplied from canals to cultivators. The party to which the respondent belongs resolved to start an agitation against the said enhancement for the alleged reason that it placed an unbearable burden upon the cultivators. Pursuant to the policy of his party, the respondent visited Farrukhabad and addressed two public meetings wherein he made speeches instigating the audience not to pay enhanced irrigation rates to the Government. On July 4, 1954, at 10 p.m. he was arrested and produced before the City Magistrate, Farrukhabad, who remanded him for two days. After investigation, the Station officer, Kaimganj, filed a charge-sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
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 : Kolkata
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 : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP133; (1958)IILLJ89MP
ORDERA.H. Khan, J. 1. Under Section 27 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Commissioner for Compensation has referred this case to the High Court. The facts leading to this reference in brief are that Shrilal, a workman, in the Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd., Debra, died on 23-1-1956 of the injuries he sustained when the Boiler of the Company accidentally got burst. The Company admits its liability and has deposited Rs. 1500/-for being given to the heir of the deceased if any. A notification was published calling applications from persons who were the dependants of the deceased and entitled to compensation.2. First of all one Dhani Ram applied, but his claim was rejected by the Commissioner. Thereafter, the present applicant Bhawani, a minor brother of the deceased under the guardianship of Chironji, put in his claim for compensation. From the evidence that was produced in this connection, it appeared that Bhawani was a uterine brother of the deceased Shrilal, i.e., the mother of Bhawani an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1957Cal234
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. seeking the Court's confirmation of the alteration of the Memorandum of Association of the company effected by the Special Resolution passed on 7th' December, 1956 at a general meeting of its shareholders. The Special Resolution is carried by the requisite majority.2. The Special Resolution reads as follows : ''That Sub-clause 3 (16) of the Memorandum of Association of the company be deleted and substituted by the following two sub-clauses.16(a) To subscribe, contribute or guarantee money for any national, charitable, benevolent, political, public, general or useful object or funds or for any exhibition.16(b) To establish and support or aid in the establishment and in support of associations, institutions, funds, trusts and conveniences calculated 'to benefit persons who 'are or have been employed by or who are serving or have served the company or its predecessors-in-business or the dependents, connect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC661; [1955]2SCR603; [1955]6STC446(SC)
Das, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal, filed under a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Patna, is directed against the judgment of that High Court pronounced on the 4th December, 1952 whereby it dismissed the application made by the appellant company under article 226 of the Constitution praying for an appropriate writ or order quashing 'the proceedings issued by the opposite parties for the purpose of levying and realising a tax which is not lawfully leviable on the petitioners' and for other ancillary reliefs. 2. The relevant facts appearing from the petition filed in support of the appellant company's aforesaid application are as follows : The appellant company is an incorporated company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling various sera, vaccines, biological products and medicines. Its registered head office is at Calcutta and its laboratory and factory are at Baranagar in the district of 24 - Perganas in West Bengal. It is registered as a dealer under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC196; 1955CriLJ526; [1955]1SCR1150
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. These are appeals by special leave against the orders of the Punjab High Court made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, reversing the orders of the Special Judge, Delhi, quashing certain criminal proceedings pending before himself against these appellants for alleged offences under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Judge quashed the proceedings on the ground that the investigations on the basis of which the appellants were being prosecuted were in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and hence illegal. In Appeal No. 95 of 1954 the appellants are two persons by name H. N. Risbud and Indar Singh. In Appeals No. 96 and 97 of 1954 H. N. Risbud above mentioned is the sole appellant. These appeals raise a common question of law and are dealt with together. The appellant Risbud was the Assistant Development Officer (Steel) in the office of the Directorate-General...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC155; (1954)56BOMLR280; [1954]25ITR50(SC); [1954]1SCR444
Mahajan, J.1. This is appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay delivered on a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, whereby the High Court answered the first referred question in the negative.2. The assessment in question concern the year 1943-44. A Hindu undivided family was carrying on business in Bombay, Madras and the Mysore State. Its business was taken over by a registered firm on March 17, 1942. For the purpose of this appeal however this circumstance is not material. The case has been dealt with on the assumption that a single assessee carried on business from October 10, 1948, to November 8, 1942, the relevant accounting year. According to the accounts of the assessee, during this period the Mysore branch purchased goods from the Bombay head office and the Madras branch of the value of Rs. 2,45,455. The Income-tax Officer estimated these purchases of the Mysore branch in British India at Rs. 3,00,000 and its profits at Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1950SC27; 1950CriLJ1383; (1950)IIMLJ42(SC); [1950]1SCR88
1. This is a petition by the applicant under article 32(1) of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus against his detention in the Madras Jail. In the petition he has given various dates showing how he has been under detention since December, 1947. Under the ordinary Criminal Law he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment but those convictions were set aside. While he was thus under detention under one of the orders of the Madras State Government, on the 1st of March, 1950, he was served with an order made under section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, IV of 1950. He challenges the legality of the order as it is contended that Act IV of 1950 contravenes the provisions of articles 13, 19 and 21 and the provisions of that Act are not in accordance with article 22 of the Constitution. He has also challenged the validity of the order on the ground that it is issued mala fide. The burden of proving that allegation is on the applicant. Because of the penal provisions of sec...
Tag this Judgment!