Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC320; JT1991(6)SC184; 1991(2)SCALE844; (1991)4SCC699; [1991]Supp2SCR1
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.These writ petitions raise certain constitutional issues of quite some importance bearing on the construction of Articles 121 and 124 of the Constitution of India and of the 'The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968' even as they in the context in which they are brought, are somewhat unfortunate.Notice was given by 108 members of the 9th Lok Sabha, the term of which came to an end upon its dissolution, of a Motion for presenting an Address to the President for the removal of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of this Court. On 12th March, 1991, the motion was admitted by the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha who also proceeded to constitute a Committee consisting of Mr. Justice P.B. Sawant, a sitting Judge of this Court, Mr. Justice P.D. Desai, Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay, and Mr. Justice O. Chinappa Reddy, a distinguished jurist in terms of Section 3(2) of The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.The occasion for such controversy as is raised in these proceedings is the refusal of the Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1950]SuppSCR144
Mahajan, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court at Patna, affirming the conviction of the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, under s. 147, of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The appellant was charged along with 13 others with having been a member of an unlawful assembly 'with the common object of dispossessing one Chulhan Tewari (the complainant) and assaulting and murdering one Nasiba Ahir and others' and with having committed, in furtherance of that common object, offences under Sections 302, 326 and 147 read with s. 249 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the appellant led a party of 60 or 70 men armed with a gun and lathis to the scene of occurrence with a view to dispossess the complainant of the land bearing survey No. 520 appertaining to Khata No. 59 in village Sikaria, which the complainant claimed to belong to him. As the mob came upon the land to complainant remonstrated against their action, when the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1950]SuppSCR317
Kania, C.J.1. I have read the judgments prepared by Messrs Fazl Ali, Mahajan and Mukherjea, JJ., in this case. As the views in those judgments in respect of the nature of the duties and functions of the Industrial Tribunal do not show agreement I consider it necessary to add a few words of my own. 2. In my opinion, the functions and duties of the Industrial Tribunal are very much like those of a body discharging judicial functions, although it is not a Court. The rules framed by the Tribunal required evidence to be taken and witnesses to be examined, cross-examined and re-examined. The Act constituting the Tribunal imposes penalties for incorrect statements made before the Tribunal. While the powers of the Industrial Tribunal in some respects are different from those of an ordinary Civil Court and it has jurisdiction and powers to give reliefs which a Civil Court administering the law of the land (for instance, ordering the re-instatement of a workman) does not possess in the discharge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC36
Fazl Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the decision of the High Court at Nagpur, allowing the appeal of the Government of the Central Provinces and Berar under Section 417, Criminal P. C., against the acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Judge of Bilaspur, and convicting him for committing murder of one Gayaram and causing hurt to his wife, Bahartin, and sentencing him to transportation for life and three months' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 302 and 323 respectively of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the prosecution as presented in the trial Court may be shortly stated as follows. In village Taga, which adjoins village Dhanwa, where the alleged crime is said to have been committed, there is a field belonging to the deceased, Gayaram, and his sons, in which paddy was sown in 1948. On 15-8-1948, Hiraram, one of Gayaram's sons, arranged to bring water into this field from the field of one Tiharu, one of his relations, by making an opening in the ridge of...
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!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1950SC188; (1950)NULLLLJ921SC; (1950)ILLJ921SC; [1950]1SCR459
Kania, C.J.1. I have read the judgments prepared by Messrs. Fazl Ali, Mahajan and Mukherjea JJ. in this case. As the views in those judgments in respect of the nature of the duties and functions of the Industrial Tribunal do not show agreement I consider it necessary to add a few words of my own. 2. In my opinion, the functions and duties of the Industrial Tribunal are very much like those of a body discharging judicial functions, although it is not a Court. The rules framed by the Tribunal require evidence to be taken and witnesses to be examined, cross-examined and re-examined. The Act constituting the Tribunal imposes penalties for incorrect statements made before the Tribunal. While the powers of the Industrial Tribunal in some respects are different from those of an ordinary civil court and it has jurisdiction and powers to give reliefs which a civil Court administering the law of the land (for instance, ordering the reinstatement of a workman) does not possess in the discharge of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1950SC222; (1951)53BOMLR1; (1950)IIMLJ703(SC); [1950]1SCR621
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay and it relates to the power of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari against the province of Bombay to quash an order to requisition certain premises. The material facts, as stated in the judgment of the High Court, are these. One Abdul Hamid Ismail was, prior to the 29th of January, 1948, the tenant of the first floor of a building known as 'Paradise' at Warden Road, Bombay, the landlord of which was one Dr. M. D. Vakil. On the 29th January, 1948, Ismail assigned his tenancy to the petitioner and two others, the son and brother's daughter's son of the petitioner (the respondent). All the three assignees were refugees from Sind. On the 4th February, 1948, the petitioner went into possession of the flat. On the 26th February, 1948, the Government of Bombay issued an order requisitioning the flat under section 3 of the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance (V of 1947) which came into force on the 4th December,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC16; (1951)53BOMLR486; 1951(0)KLT13(SC); [1950]1SCR852; [1950]SuppSCR852
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. This appeal, preferred from the decree of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 281 of 1947, raises the question whether an execution application seeking to execute a final decree, passed by the 1st Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Poona, on 6th December, 1932, for a sum of Rs. 1,24,215 and odd, is barred by limitation. The decree was made in a suit for dissolution of a partnership and the taking of accounts. 2. The execution application was filed on 4th October, 1946, and the amount stated to be due under the decree on that date was Rs. 2,30,986 and odd. The previous execution application No. 946 of 1940 filed in the Court of the 1st Class Sub-Judge, Sholapur, to which the decree had been transferred for execution, was made on 24th June, 1940. It was dismissed on 9th September, 1940, for non-prosecution. 3. It would thus be seen that the present application was filed after the lapse of 12 years from the date of the final decree and 3 years from the date of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC23; [1951]19ITR132(SC); [1951]2SCR1
Patanjali Sastri, J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature in West Bengal reversing a finding of the Second Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganas at Alipore that he had jurisdiction to proceed with a suit after substituting the Province of East Bengal (in Pakistan) in the place of the old Province of Bengal against which the suit had originally been brought. 2. The facts leading to the institution of the suit are not in dispute. The Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act was passed by the Provincial Legislature of Bengal in 1944. It applied to the whole of Bengal and purported to bring under charge the agricultural income of, inter alia, 'every Ruler of an Indian State.' Acting under the provisions of that Act, which came into force on 1st April, 1944, the Income-tax Officer, Dacca Range, sent by registered post, a notice to the Manager of the Zemindari Estate called Chakla Roshanabad belonging to the Tripura State but situated in Bengal outside the territories of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC41; (1951)53BOMLR499; [1951]21CompCas33(SC); [1950]1SCR869
Kania, C.J.1. This is an application by the holder of one ordinary share of the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd. for a writ of mandamus and certain other reliefs under article 32 of the Constitution of India. The authorized capital of the company is Rs. 48 lakhs and the paid-up capital is Rs. 32 lakhs, half of which is made up of fully paid ordinary shares of Rs. 1,000 each. 2. I have read the judgment prepared by Mr. Justice Mukherjea. In respect of the arguments advanced to challenge the validity of the impugned Act under articles 31 and 19 of the Constitution of India, I agree with his line of reasoning and conclusion and have nothing more to add. 3. On the question whether the impugned Act infringes article 14, two points have to be considered. The first is whether one individual shareholder can, under the circumstances of the case and particularly when one of the respondents is the company which opposes the petition, challenge the validity of the Act on the ground that i...
Tag this Judgment!