Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-22-1957
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 : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-04-1957
Reported in : AIR1957Kant65; AIR1957Mys65; ILR1957KAR1; (1957)35MysLJ110
1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench as the learned Judge who heard it felt that the question of limitation involved for decision is of importance and has to be settled in the light of the conflicting rulings about it in 47 Mys HCR 337 (A) and Sundararaja-char v. Vartakavardhini Bank, Ltd., 52 Mys HCR 118 (B) and the view of the Full Bench sought for in It. A. No. 20 of 50-51 (Mys.) (C). These cases were concerned with the starting point of limitation for enforcing a claim of a co-mortgagor for reimbursement from other mortgagors or monies paid in excess of what is due by him to discharge a mortgage.The observations in one of the cases lend support to the construction that the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of the mortgage and not from the date of payment but the Full Bench held otherwise. 2. The suit from which the present appeal arises is not that of a co-mortgagor but by a person who is a purchaser of the mortgaged property from one who had no r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-04-1957
Reported in : AIR1957P& H173
Kapur, J.1. In these two cases (Civil Miscellaneous No. 194-C of 1935 and Supreme Court Appeal No. 2 of 1956) certain questions of law have been referred to a Full Bench by two different Division Benches. In Civil Miscellaneous No. 194-C of 1955 the following question has been referred--'When the High Court refuses to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, does the order of the High Court amount to a judgment or a final order within the meaning of Article 133 of the Constitution and does an appeal lie to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(a) or 133(1)(b) provided the subject-matter of the appeal is worth Rs. 20,000/- or more?'In the Supreme Court Appeal No. 2 of 1956 the two questions which have been referred are--(1) Whether an order passed by this Court de-clining to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution can be regarded as a judgment, decree or final order within the, meaning of Article 133? and(2) Whether the proceeding in which such an order is passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-09-1957
Reported in : AIR1957P& H86; 1957CriLJ537
Kapur, J.1. This appeal is brought against a judgment ef acquittal passed by a Magistrate of the First Class, Rohtak, dated the 26th June 1956, acquitting the respondents of an offence under the. Indian Passport Act, 1920, read with Rule6 of the Indian Passport Rules, 1950.2-14. The respondents claim to be husband and Wife. They are Abdul Hamid, aged 25 years, a weaver, who claims to be a resident of Tanda (District Meerut), and Mst. Latifan, who is a daughter of Asmail weaver and is aged 22 years and has been described as resident of Kirana in the district of Muzaffar Nagar (Uttar Fradesh). The question put to Abdul Hamid was that he was a national of Pakistan, having settled in Jhang Maghiana in West Punjab and that he had entered India without being in possession of a passport and had thereby contravened Rule 3 of the Indian Passport Rules, 1950, made under Section 3 of the Indian Passport Rules, 1920 and had thereby committed an offence.His reply was that he never visited Pakistan,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-09-1957
Reported in : AIR1957P& H278; 1957CriLJ1307
Kapur, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 199 of 1956, 210 of 1956, 238 of 19'56, 240 of 1956 and 291 of 1956. The first four appeals have been brought by the various accused who were tried for various offences and were convicted and Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 1956 has been brought by the State against all the accused persons except Bahadur Singh for their being convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 in addition to the other offences.2. All the accused have been convicted under Section 201 and have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment each. They have also been convicted under Section 326 read with Section 149, Section 324 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to two years, one year and six months' rigorous imprisonment each respectively. Bahadur Singh who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 1956 has also been convicted under Section 302 and has been sentenced to imprisonment fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-10-1957
Reported in : AIR1957P& H81; 1957CriLJ532
Kapur, J.1. These are two appeals which have been brought by the convicts (Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 1956 by Arur Singh and Surjit Singh and Criminal Ap-(N. P.) (May) 1957 Punjab D.F./6 peal No 224 of 1956 of Jita and Surjan Singh)against their conviction under Section 326 read withS. 149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of seven years and three years' rigorous imprisonment each under the two counts. ArurSingh has also been convicted under Section 302 ofprisonment for life. All the accused have alsobeen convicted under Section 324 read with 149, IndianPenal Code, and sentenced to one year's rigorousimprisonment each. All the sentences are to runconcurrently. Ganga Ram complainant has alsofiled Criminal Revision No. 885 of 1956 againstthe acquittal of Puran Singh and Amarjit Singhaccused and enhancement of sentence passed onthe convicts.2. The accused persons were Arur Singh and his two sons Bira and Surjit Singh who, it is stated by the prosecution were all armed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-10-1957
Reported in : AIR1957P& H106
ORDERBhandari, C.J. 1. This petition trader Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure raises the question whether a new defendant can be added in a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure without the previous sanction of the Advocate-General. 2. On the 26th August 1955 Ch. Kidar Nath. Rai Bahadur Gopal Das & certain other persons brought a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against Ramsaran Das & Ram Pra-kash in which they asked for the removal of Ramsaran Das from the office of Mahant of a Thakardwara. On the 21st November 1955 one Kishan Das presented an application under Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which he prayed that he be impleaded as a defendant to the suit as Ramsaran Das had been removed and Kishan Das had been appointed a Mahant by the sewaks on the 23rd June 1853. The trial Court acceded to this request despite the protests of the plaintiffs and impleaded Kishan Das as defendant No. 3. The plaintiffs are dissatisfied w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-10-1957
Reported in : AIR1957SC329a; (1957)ILLJ460SC
Bhagwati, J.1. These three appeals with special leave from the orders of the High Court of Punjab and three petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenge the vires of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The appellants in the three appeals are engaged in the manufacture and production of textiles. There were disputes between them and their workmen, and, by two notifications each dated March 4, 1955, in regard to the first two of them and by a notification dated February 25, 1955, in respect of the third, the State of Punjab, respondent No. 2, referred the said disputes for adjudication to the 2nd Punjab Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, respondent No. 1, who entered upon the said references and issued notices to the appellants to file their written statements. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 335 of 1955 filed their written statement on March 31, 1955, without prejudice to their contentions that respondent No. 2 was not competen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-10-1957
Reported in : [1957]8STC253(Mad)
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is a revision preferred against the convictions and sentences by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in C. C. No. 3 of 1956, which were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Nagapattinam in C. A. No. 75 of 1956.2. The established facts are : One Rajagopala Aiyangar is the owner of a rice mill at Alivalam near Tiruvarur. On 9th January, 1956, the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Tanjore, went with his peon to this rice mill at about 2-30 p.m. to inspect the accounts. On going there, he found the sons of the proprietor, accused 1 and 2, studying some account books near a table inside the premises. The Special A.C.T.O. disclosed himself as such to those two persons and told them that he had come for inspection. He was allowed to inspect the account books which were there. In doing so, this officer noticed two small note books kept in the drawer. The first note book related to the period from 1st April, 1955, to 7th December, 1955, and the 0ond no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-11-1957
Reported in : AIR1957All575
Brij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This and the connected First Appeal No. 435 of 1943 are defendants' appeals arising out of the same judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge of Allahabad. This appeal was preferred by nine appellants some of whom have died during its pendency and have since been substituted by their legal representatives. Mr. Gopinath Kunzru who preferred the appeal on behalf of all the 9 appellants informs us that he has instructions to argue this appeal on behalf of two appellants only, viz. Abdul Kadir appellant No. 4 and Manmohan Das who was appellant No. 1 and who after his death is now represented by his legal representatives. So far as other appellants are concerned the appeal shall have to be dismissed for default. If may be pointed out at this stage that every appellant has a separate interest and that separate and distinct reliefs have been sought by the respondents against everyone of them.2. Connected Appeal No. 435 of 1943 has been preferred by Rakhal Das Bose ...
Tag this Judgment!