Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC144; (1951)53BOMLR472; (1951)IMLJ314(SC); [1950]1SCR979; [1950]SuppSCR979
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay. Although the record is heavy and many points were argued in the trial court and in the court of appeal at Bombay, the important point argued before us is only one. 2. The appellants (plaintiffs) are a firm of commission agents in Bombay. The respondents (defendants) were their constituents. Accounts between the parties in respect of their dealings were made up and settled up to the 30th of October, 1943. Piecegoods and yarn continued to be purchased and consigned by the plaintiffs to the defendants' joint family firm thereafter. One bale of piecegoods was purchased and despatched in November, 1943. In January, 1944, restrictions were imposed against the consignment of piecegoods and/or yarn outside Bombay by rail without obtaining the necessary previous permit from the Textile Commissioner at Bombay. On or about the 6th February, 1944, Mohanlal of the defendants' joint family firm came to Bombay and the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC157; 1951CriLJ373; (1951)IMLJ389(SC); [1951]2SCR167
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay, ordering the release of the respondent who was detained in custody under a detention order made under the Preventive detention Act (IV of 1950). The respondent was first arrested on the 18th of December, 1948, under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1948 (Bombay Act IV of 1947), but was released on the 11th of November, 1949. He was arrested again on the 21st of April, 1950, under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and on the 29th of April, 1950, grounds for his detention were supplied to him. They were in the following terms : 'That you are engaged and are likely to be engaged in promoting acts of sabotage on railway and railway property in Greater Bombay.' The respondent filed a habeas corpus petition on the 31st of July, 1950, in which, after reciting his previous arrest and release, in paragraphs 6 and 7 he mentioned as follows :- '(6) On his release the applicant left Bombay and stayed out of Bomb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC217; [1951]2SCR344
Fazl Ali, J.1. These are six petitions which have been presented to this Court on behalf of three groups of persons in the following circumstances. 2. On the 30th October, 1948, the Military Governor of Hyderabad by virtue of the powers delegated to him by H.E.H. the Nizam enacted the Special Tribunal Regulations (No. 5 of 1358 F), which was amended by several later Regulations issued on the 22nd May, 1949, 10th July, 1949, 23rd July and 30th October, 1949. The Regulation provided among other things that the Military Governor may constitute a Special Tribunal or Tribunals, each consisting of three members appointed by him, and that he may by general or special order direct that these Tribunals shall try any offence, whether committed before or after the commencement of the Regulation, or any class of offences. Section 8 of the Regulation empowered the Military Governor to direct, by order, that in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the directio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC207; 1951CriLJ775; (1951)IMLJ617(SC); [1951]2SCR312
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the revision petition of the appellant against the order of the Special Magistrate refusing to quash the proceedings on the ground that the prosecution of the appellant inter alia under sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code was illegal and without jurisdiction in the absence of the sanction of the Government under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), hereafter referred to as the Act. The material facts are these. In 1947 the appellant held the office of Regional Deputy Iron and Steel Controller, Kanpur Circle, U.P., and was a public servant. The police having suspected the appellant to be guilty of the offences mentioned above applied to the Deputy Magistrate, Kanpur, for a warrant of his arrest on the 22nd of October, 1947, and the warrant was issued on the next day. The appellant was arrested on the 27th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC230; (1951)ILLJ621SC; [1951]2SCR380
Kania, C.J.1. In these appeals the question whether the Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) had jurisdiction to make the awards has been directed by the Court to be tried as a preliminary issue. The decision depends on the true construction of sections 7, 8 15 and 16 of the Industrial Disputes Act. On this question, the agreed statement of facts shows that by a notification of the Government of India dated the 13th June 1949, the Central Government constituted an Industrial Tribunal for the adjudication of industrial disputes in banking companies consisting of Mr. K. C. Sen, chairman, Mr. S. P. Varma and Mr. J. N. Mazumdar. A second notification dated the 24th August, 1949, was thereafter issued as follows :- 'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 1 of section 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Central Government was pleased to appoint Mr. N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar as a member of the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the notifications of the Government of India in the Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC278; [1951]21CompCas194(SC); [1951]20ITR1(SC); [1951]2SCR594
Bose, J.1. This is an assessee's appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Calcutta delivered on a reference made to it under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. 2. The question submitted for the High Court's opinion was as follows :- 'Whether in the circumstances of this case, the interest paid by the assessee on debentures was incurred solely for the purpose of making or earning such income, profits or gains which are assessable under sub-section (1) of section 12.' 3. The assessee is a private limited company which was incorporated on 3rd January, 1927. It is an investment company known as the Eastern Investments Limited. The objects set out in the memorandum of association are to buy, sell and otherwise deal with shares, securities, bonds and so forth generally. The company was originally formed for acquiring, holding and otherwise dealing with shares and Government securities which had previously belonged to one Lord Cable. The share capital of the company at the date of its in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1951]2SCR747
Kania, C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the President of India under article 143 of the Constitution asking the Court's opinion on the three questions submitted for its consideration and report. The three questions are as follows :- '(1) Was section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, or any of the provisions thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent ultra vires the Legislature which passed the said Act ?' 2. Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, mentioned in the question, runs as follows :- 'The Provincial Government may, by notification in the official gazette, extend with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit to the Province of Delhi or any part thereof, any enactment which is in force in any part of British India at the date of such notification.' '(2) Was the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, or any of the provisions thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent ultra vires the Legislature which passed the said Act ?' 3. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC316; (1951)IIMLJ288(SC); [1951]2SCR676
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna setting aside an order of acquittal of the appellants by the Sessions Judge, Purnea, and directing their retrial. 2. The appellants were prosecuted for alleged offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 302 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of one Polai Lal Biswas who lodged a complaint against them before the police. The prosecution case was that, while the complainant was harvesting the paddy crop on his field at about 10 a.m. on 29th November, 1949, a mob of about fifty persons came on to the field armed with ballams, lathis and other weapons and that the first appellant Logendranath Jha, who was leading the mob, demanded a settlement of all outstanding disputes with the complainant and said he would not allow the paddy to be removed unless the disputes were settled. An altercation followed as a result of which Logendra ordered an assault by his m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC441; (1951)IIMLJ291; [1951]2SCR729
Bose, J.1. This is an appeal under article 136(1) of the Constitution. The appellant, Tara Singh, was convicted of murder by the Additional Sessions Judge of Amritsar and sentenced to death. On appeal the High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the sentence. Tara Singh has made a further appeal to this Court. 2. As we intend to order a retrial, it will not be desirable to say anything about the merits of the case. The case for the prosecution is that two persons, Milkha Singh and Hakam Singh, were murdered in the early hours of the morning of Friday the 30th of September, 1949. The former is the appellant's uncle. He died on the spot. The latter is the appellant's father. He was removed to the hospital and died there on Friday, the 7th of October, 1949. 3. The murders are said to have been committed about three in the morning. The appellant's brother Narindar Singh reported the occurrence at the Police Station, about 7 miles distant, at 8.45 the same morning. According to this r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC1; [1952]1SCR64
Das, J.1. This appeal has come up for hearing before us on transfer from the Privy Council. The appellant is the present holder of Taluk Kakwara which appertains to Mahalat Kharakpur. The respondents represent the Banaili Raj which has also acquired the Mahalat of Kharakpur. The respondents obtained a decree for Rs. 11,587.14. 6 against the appellant for arrears of rent and cess and applied for execution of their decree by the attachment and sale of Taluk Kakwara. On August 29, 1939, the appellant judgment debtor filed an objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that as Taluk Kakwara was held on Ghatwali tenure it could not be sold in execution of money decree. This objection was rather too wide, for all lands held on Ghatwali tenure were not necessarily inalienable. Indeed, in Kali Pershad Singh v. Anund Roy (1887) L.R. 15 I.A. 18; ILR. 15 Cal. 471 which related to the Ghatwali Mahal of Kharna within the Mahalat of Kharakpur the evidence clearly established a...
Tag this Judgment!