Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jun-01-1955
Reported in : AIR1955All638; 1955CriLJ1451
Desai, J.1. I agree with ray brother Chowdhry that the Deputy Superintendent of Police is guilty of contempt of the Courts of the Judicial Magistrate and the District Magistrate, Fatehpur. Since it is a serious matter to find a Deputy Superintendent of Police guilty of contempt of Court, I would like to give my reasons for doing so. It is not necessary to repeat the facts which have been stated by my learned brother in his judgment.2. The case against the opposite party (I am for the present dealing with the case against the Deputy Superintendent alone) is contained in the affidavit filed by Sheoraj in this Court on the basis of which these proceedings have been initiated. When the opposite party appeared in Court in response to the notice, it was brought to our notice by Sri P. C. Chaturvedi, who had filed the application for contempt proceedings, that Sheoraj had been won over by the opposite party and did not appear to give him further instructions.We summoned Sheoraj to appear pers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-08-1955
Reported in : AIR1956SC66; 1956CriLJ156; [1955]2SCR955
Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal with certificate under article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution arises out of an application under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act (XXXII of 1952) and section 8 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act (XXXVII of 1850) read with article 227 of the Constitution filed by the respondent against the appellant in the High Court of Judicature of Patna and raises an important question as to whether the Commissioner appointed under Act XXXVII of 1850 is a Court. 2. The respondent is a Member of the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch). The State Government received reports to the effect that the respondent had been guilty of serious misconduct and corrupt practices in the discharge of his official duties while employed as Sub-Divisional Officer at Aurangabad and they accordingly decided that an inquiry into the truth of the various charges against him should be made under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (Act XXXVII of 1850, hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-24-1955
Reported in : AIR1955SC576
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab by leave granted under Article 133 of the Constitution read with Sections 109 and 110 and Order 45, Rule 2 Civil P. C. The appeal arises out of a suit filed in 1938 by the respondent herein, Raja Shiv Rattan Dev Singh, Raja of Poonch against (1) Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, (2) Local Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee of Sri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, and (3) 57 Sikhs, for a declaration to the effect that a house known as Bunga Raja Dhian Singh in Amritsar and four shops appurtenant thereto, two of which are close to the Sikh Gurdwara, Sri Darbar Sahib, belong to him and are his private property and that they are not a Sikh Gurdwara.The suit which was filed in 1938 was dismissed by the trial Court on certain preliminary issues and that dismissal was reversed on first appeal and the suit was remanded. On second appeal therefrom to the High Court the dismissal by the trial court was restored...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-13-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Bom598
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plain-tiffs against the order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court refusing to grant an injunction as prayed by them. It appears that between the plaintiffs and the defendants two proceedings are at present pending. The respondents have filed a petition in the City Civil Court on 23-6-1955.This petition has been filed under Section 5, Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 6 of 1937. The respondents' case is that a foreign award has been validly made between them and the appellants and they want the City Civil Court to pass a decree In terms of this award. While the petition was pending in the trial Court, the appellants filed their suit No. 2554 of 1955.In this suit fine appellants in substance contend that a decree in terms of the foreign award should not be passed and they have made several allegations in support of this prayer. It is a suit filed to obtain a permanent injunction restraining the respondents Irani taking...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-17-1955
Reported in : AIR1956All369
ORDERMehrotra, J.1. Sri Bishanchandra Seth, the applicant in the two petitions, was elected President of the Municipal Board, Shahjahanpur at the general election held in November, 1953. The candidate, who was defeated by the petitioner, was the Chairman of the Board for a long time before the election of the applicant. He has in the present Board organised the opposition party and a number of efforts were made by the opposition to oust the petitioner from the office of the Presidentship.A notice for motion of no-confidence was given to the District Magistrate, against the applicant. The motion was, however, subsequently lost. After the proceedings for no-confidence were over, it 10 alleged by the petitioner that in the ordinary course he tabled the revised budget of the Board for the year 1954-55 as also the original budget; for the year 1955-5S on 21-3-1955, for the examination and inspection of the members of the Board..A meeting of the Board for the purpose of passing the budget wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-16-1955
Reported in : AIR1956All258; 1956CriLJ579
Desai, J.1. These proceedings have been instituted against Sri Ratan Shukla, a Vakil practising in the District Judgeship of Kanpur, on a report made by the District Judge of Kanpur. The District Judge made the report on being moved by Sri S. M. Ifrahim, Additional District Magistrate of Kanpur, in whose court the alleged contempt was committed by the opposite party.2. Certain appeals were instituted against the assessment of tax by the Municipal Board of Kanpur in the Court of the District Magistrate. Under Section 160, Municipalities Act the appeals could be filed in the court of the District Magistrate or of any other officer as may be empowered by the State Government. An Additional District Magistrate has the power to perform all the functions of a District Magistrate, so the Additional District Magistrate could entertain the appeals and dispose of them if they were filed in his court.The District Magistrate transferred the appeals to his court. The Additional District Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-01-1955
Reported in : AIR1955All501
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J. 1. One of the shops on the ground floor of house No. 40/-1, Parade, Kanpur, fell vacant in the first week of June 1951. Several persons including Mahabir Prasad (petitioner) and Bansidhar (opposite party No. 3) were desirous of taking the shop on rent. They applied for allotment to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who, according to the common case of the parties, is a person autnorised by the District Magistrate to perform his functions under the Rent Control and Eviction Act (3 of 1947), and is, therefore, a 'District Magistrate' within the meaning of the term as defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act. The Kent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the shop in question to the petitioner on 14-6-51, Bansidhar, however, managed to occupy the shop. This occupation was obviously unauthorized. 2. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer took steps under Section 7A of the. Act and passed an order for Bansidhar's eviction. The latter went up in revision to the Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-12-1955
Reported in : AIR1955AP145
Subb Rao, C.J. (1) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following two questions under S. 66(1) of the Income Tax Act to the Madras High Court, viz.,'1. Whether the loss to the Residents arising from the forward contracts entered into by them with the Non-residents is a profit accruing or arising to the Non-resident in British India within the meaning of S. 4 (1) ? 2. Whether the residents are bound to deduct tax under the provisions of S. 18 (3-A) on the amounts paid by them, to the non-residents? (2) After the constitution of the Andhra High Court, the said Reference has been transferred to this Court.(3) The facts which gave rise to the reference may be stated thus : The assessees who are residents of British India (hereinafter referred to as residents) entered into certain speculative contracts of forward purchase and sale of groundnut oil, kernel and turmeric with M/s. Rupchand Chhabildas and Co., a firm at Sangli, a Native State (hereinafter referred to as non-resident)....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-27-1955
Reported in : AIR1955P& H187
Harnam Singh, J. 1. By this order I dispose of Civil Revision No. 81-D of 1953, Civil Revision No. 365-D of 1953 and Civil Revision No. 96-D of 1954 which have been referred to this Bench for decision of the question of law arising under Section 96(2), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act. 2. In Civil Suit No. 605 of 1951 CaptainItbar Singh claimed decree for rupees 10,500/-against Wing Commander. P.S. Gill and ShrimatiTara Devi Dogra for injuries sustained by him inan accident in which car No. DLA 3347 was involved. 3. In paragraph 8 of the plaint it was stated that the insurers with whom car No. DLA 3347 and Wing Commander P.S. Gill were insured and the insurer with whom Squadron Leader Dogra was insured at the lime of the accident were liable to satisfy the decree that may be passed in Civil Suit No. 605 of 1951. 4. Notices were sent to the insurers for the 2nd of April 1952, but the insurers did not appear in. Court on the date of hearing with the result that ex par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-11-1955
Reported in : AIR1955AP152
(1) The defendant is the appellant. The suit is rather of an unusual nature and as its maintainability is in question in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the circumstances which constitute its background. A simple mortgage bond dated 24th. March 1931, securing a sum of Rs.8,000/- in discharge of previous simple money debts was executed by the defendant for himself and as guardian of his undivided minor son, Suryanarayanamurthy. As aresult of a creditor's application, the defendant was adjudged insolvent on 23rd March 1933, in L. P. No. 19 of 1931. Pending the insolvency petition, the present plaintiff filed I. A. No. 18of 1939 on 9th February 1939, before the Official Receiver, valuing his security under S. 47, Provincial Insolvency Act at Rs. 8,500 and proved for the balance of the money due to him under the mortgage bond as an unsecured creditor, i.e., for a sum of Rs.11,518-11-6. During the insolvency an other son was born to the defendant. Suryanarayanamurhty, the elder son,...
Tag this Judgment!