Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-21-1960
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 : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-14-1960
Reported in : AIR1960SC845; [1960]3SCR250
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. In accordance with the directives issued by the Prima Ministers of India and Pakistan, on September 10, 1958, the Commonwealth Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and the Foreign Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth, Government of Pakistan, discussed 10 items of dispute between the two countries and signed a joint note recording their agreement in respect of the said disputes and submitted it to their respective Prima Ministers; and with a view to removing causes of tension and resolving border disputes and problems relating to Indo-Pakistan Border Areas and establishing peaceful conditions along those areas, the Prima Ministers, acting on behalf of their respective Governments, entered into an agreement settling some of the said disputes and problems in the manner set out in the said joint note. This agreement has been called the Indo-Pakistan Agreement and will be referred to hereafter as the Agreement. 2. In the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-01-1960
Reported in : AIR1960All672
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J. 1. These are two connected applications under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act which raise an important question of law relating, to the scope and extent of the liability of the Post Office for articles delivered to it for transmission by Value Payable Post (hereinafter called the V. P. P.). Both these revisions have been filed by the Union of India as the Government in charge of the Post Office concerned and it shall be referred to in this judgment as the Post Office.2. In revision No. 774 of 1952, a Firm Rant Gopal Hukum Chand filed a suit against the Post Office with following allegations: On 11-5-48 the firm delivered four parcels to the Post Office at Mau Nath Bhanjan in the District of Azamgarh for transmission. Three of them were sent by registered post and were delivered to the addressees, in due course, and there is no dispute concerning; them.The fourth was sent by V. P. P. for a sum of Rs. 313/3/-. The plaintiff alleged that he never received the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-04-1960
Reported in : AIR1960Cal582,64CWN861
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of our learned brother Sinha, J., modifying an ad interim injunction, issued by Bose, J., when issuing a Rule Nisi (Civil Rule 858 of 1959) for certain writs in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus, Prohibition, etc., specified therein. The appellant before us was the petitioner in the aforesaid Rule and he obtained the same calling upon the respondents to show cause why the writs aforesaid should not issue and pending the hearing of the Rule, he also obtained an ad interim injunction, restraining the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 from, inter alia, granting any licence to respondent No. 5 (for his cinema) on C. S. plot No. 5971, pending the disposal of the Rule.2. To the aforesaid Rule affidavits-in-opposition were filed by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and respondent No. 4 on May 23 and June 4, 1959, respectively, and two affidavits-in-reply were also filed by and/or on behalf of the appellant on June 29, and July 1, 1959.3. In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-06-1960
Reported in : AIR1960MP307; [1960(1)FLR326]; (1960)IILLJ543MP
Newaskar, J.1. This is a petition by the Managing Director of the company named Sir Sarupchand Hukum-chand (Private) Ltd., under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is directed against the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Madhya Pradesh and Additional Inspector of Factories both of Ujjain.2.The only question raised in this petition is as regards the vires of the Provisions, which were initially brought into force by means of the Ordinance No. IV of 1957 dated 27-4-1957 issued by the President of India, giving them retrospective effect from 1-12-1956 and which later were enacted by the Parliament and became a part of the Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as Section 25FFF. The said Provision is as follows:'1. Where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure, shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-11-1960
Reported in : AIR1961All356
S.N. Sahai, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of People Act of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order of an election tribunal dismissing an election petition filed by the appellants.2. This petition arose out of an election held on the 9th March, 1957, for the U. P. Vidhan Sabha from No. 182 Robertsganj Vidhan Sabha Constituency an the district of Mirzapur. The constituency was a double-member constituency; one seat in the constituency was reserved for a member of the Scheduled Caste and the other seat was a general one. Respondent No. 1, Raja Anand Brahma Shah was a candidate for the general seat, while the respondent No. 2, Sobhnath was a candidate for the reserved seat.Both the respondents were seeking election on Jan Sangh tickets and they were allowed the symbol of 'Deepak' in that election, though the Raja professes to have been an independent candidate. The third respondent, Sri Sumer Prasad was a scheduled caste candidate for the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-12-1960
Reported in : AIR1960AP479
Narasimham, J.1. The petitioner (Mohammed Hyder, a former Hyderabad Civil Servant) prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari in relation to an order of the former Government of Hyderabad dated 13-10-1956 removing him from service with effect from 18-9-1948, the date on which he was placed under suspension, with a view, to get the said order quashed. It is further prayed that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be made by this Court to reinstate him into office with effect from 18-9-1948.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition with the said prayers are briefly these The petitioner was appointed to the former Hyderabad Civil Service in 1937. In January, 1948 he was posted as the Talukdar of Osmanabad District. While he was serving as Talukdar, Osmanabad, he was placed under suspension on 18-9-1948 as he was accused of various grave offences in the course of his employment as Talukdar, Osmanabad. Prosecutions were launched against him in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-15-1960
Reported in : AIR1960Kant209; AIR1960Mys209; ILR1960KAR341
ORDER(1) In this revision petition the true scope of some of the provisions in the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955(which shall be hereinafter called the 'Act') comes up for consideration.(2) The petitioner is the plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 72/1958 on the file of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge of South Karana, Mangalore. He sued the defendant who is his tenant, for a sum of Rs. 790.52 NP, as being the arrears of rent for the years 1956, 1957 and 1958, on the basis of a challenged lease deed alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 26-9-1950. The defendant denied the genuineness of the lease deed produced. He alleged that the plaintiff had taken his thumb impression on a blank paper and the same must have been used to get up the lease deed in question. He further pleaded that the claim made in the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata, in view of the decision given by the Special Assistant Commissioner in O. P. No. 386/58...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-15-1960
Reported in : AIR1960SC622; (1960)IIMLJ61(SC); [1960]2SCR768
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madras varying the decree of the trial court. The appellants were the defendants in the trial court and the respondent was the plaintiff who was represented by the sole trustee appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowment Board. 2. The suit was brought by the deity through the sole trustee for recovery of Rs. 3,480 towards the arrears of income of the property in trust for the years 1942-44 and for a direction for future payment at the rate of 160 bags of paddy per year or its equivalent i.e. Rs. 1,680. The plaintiff alleged that the property in dispute constituted a specific endowment for Kalyanotsavam of the deity and that the defendants who were trustees had committed default in carrying out the purpose of the trust. The prayer was for a decree for the recovery of expenses to Kalyanotsavam and of the feeding charges. The defence raised was that the inam was a personal grant for driving the car of the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-18-1960
Kinsella v. Singleton - 361 U.S. 234 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court Kinsella v. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234 (1960) Kinsella v. Singleton No. 22 Argued October 22, 1959 Decided January 18, 1960 361 U.S. 234 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Syllabus Article 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, providing for the trial by court-martial of "all persons . . . accompanying the armed forces" of the United States in foreign countries, cannot constitutionally be applied in peacetime to the trial of a civilian dependent accompanying a member of the armed forces overseas and charged with having committed a noncapital offense there. Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1 . Pp. 361 U. S. 235 -249. (a) In providing for trials by courts-martial, Congress was exercising the power granted by Art. I, 8, cl. 14 of the Constitution to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," and the test for court-martial ju...
Tag this Judgment!