Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC331; [1952]1SCR825
Fazl Ali, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab at Simla reversing the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Kangra in a suit instituted by the appellant for a declaration that he was the sole lawful heir of one Musammat Ram Piari, whom he alleged to be his wife, and as such was entitled to the properties left by her, and for possession of those properties. The suit was instituted against 2 persons, namely, Parvin Kumari, who was alleged to be the daughter of the plaintiff by Ram Piari, and Shrimati Raj Kumari, who were respectively impleaded as defendants Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint was that he was married to Ram Piari, the daughter of an employee of Raj Kumari (defendant No. 2) about 22 years before the institution of the suit, that after marriage she lived with him at Hoshiarpur and gave birth to a daughter, Parvin Kumari (defendant No. 1), on the 4th March, 1929, and that Ram Piari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC153; [1953]4SCR930
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in an ejectment suit. His case was that defendant No. 1 Pratul Chandra Ghose was a Ticca tenant of premises Nos. 2 and 3, Watkin's Lane, Howrah, comprising an area of 1 Bigha 19 Cottahs of land on a rent of Rs. 78 per annum under the landlords Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy and Bibhuit Bhusan Chatterjee, pro forma defendants Nos. 2 and 3, that the plaintiff took a Mourashi Mokarari lease from these landlords on the 23rd September, 1937, and thereby became the immediate landlord of the said defendant and that the tenancy was determined by a notice to quit dated the 7th October, 1937. The trial Court, amongst other things, found as a fact that the tenancy of the defendant Pratul Chandra Ghose was permanent, heritable and transferable and was not liable to be determined by notice. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the High Court but the High Court dismissed that appeal holding, amongst other things, that the finding of the trial Court as to the natur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC504; [1954]24CompCas537(SC); [1954]25ITR547(SC)
Das, J.1. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of the Bombay High Court was as follows :- 'Whether on the facts of the case, income, profits and gains in respect of sales made to Government of India was received in British India within the meaning of Section 4(1) of the Act ?' 2. The High Court answered the question in the negative for reasons set out in its judgment covering this case as well as the case out of which Appeal No. 19 of 1953 came to be filed before us. 3. The facts, found in this case, are similar to those found in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1953 Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Messrs, Ogale Glass Works Ltd., except in the following particulars : (1) that all cheques were made non-negotiable, (2) that no credit was given by the bank to the assessee before collection, (3) that there was no finding that the assessee gave credit to the Government for the amount of the cheque immediately on receipt thereof. 4. Learned counsel on either...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC493; 1955(0)BLJR442; [1955]2SCR186
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an appeal by leave granted under article 136(1) of the Constitution against the second appellate judgment of the High Court of Patna. It relates to the office of Pujari and Panda of a famous temple in the town of Arrah in the State of Bihar, known as the temple of Aranya Devi and Killa Ki Devi. The appellant before us - a woman - brought this suit claiming joint title to the office along with the defendant and as such entitled to perform the Puja either by herself or through her Karinda and to get a half share in the income of offerings of the said Asthan. It is the admitted case that this office belongs to the family of both the parties and that the duties of the office were being jointly performed by the defendant and his deceased brother, Rambeyas Pande, and that they were enjoying the emoluments jointly. The plaintiff - the widow of Rambeyas Pande - claims to have succeeded to her husband's share in this property and bases her suit on the said claim. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC374; [1956]29ITR521(SC); (1956)IMLJ160(SC); [1956]1SCR143
..... the aforesaid joint family, which consisted of himself and his two brothers, chhotelal and bansilal, and he entered into a partnership as such karta. the firm carried on business at drug in madhya pradesh as the agent of the government for the purchase of foodgrains, and during the accounting years ending 1943 and 1944, it made profits on which it was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC187; (1958)ILLJ9SC; [1958]1SCR973
Imam, J. 1. These two appeals by special leave have been heard together as they arise out of a single judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow, dated September 30, 1953, passed in seven appeals before it. As the question for consideration in the appeals before this Court is the same, this judgment will govern both the appeals before us. Civil Appeals Nos. 14 and 15 of 1955 arise out of Appeal Nos. III-198 of 1953 and III-321 of 1953 respectively before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. 2. The question for consideration before the Labour Appellate Tribunal was whether the awards from which the seven appeals had been filed before that Tribunal were valid in law and made with jurisdiction. It is this very question which arises in the appeals before us. 3. Before dealing with the question raised in these appeals it is necessary to state certain facts. On March 15, 1951, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh made a General Order consisting of numerous clauses under powers conferred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC578; (1961)63BOMLR491; 1961CriLJ725; [1961]3SCR107
Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal on a certificate under Art. 134(1) of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Bombay, principally raises for consideration the application and scope of Art. 20(2) of the Constitution and s. 26 of the General Clauses Act. 2. The facts necessary for the appreciation of the points involved in this appeal are few and may be briefly stated. The two respondents - S. L. Apte and Miss Dwarakabai Bhat - were respectively the Managing Director, and the Managing Director of the Women's department, of an Insurance Company by name 'The Long Life Insurance Company' which had its headquarters at Poona. A power of attorney had been executed by the company in favour of the first respondent in June, 1942, under which he was vested with the power, control and possession inter alia of the moneys belonging to the company with a view to have them invested in proper securities. The second respondent as Managing Director also acted under another power of attorney executed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC683; [1961]3SCR524
Sinha, C.J.1. This appeal on a certificate granted by the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan that 'the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Articles 277, 278, 294 and 295 of the Constitution of India and the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 132(1) and also under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution of India' is directed against the judgment dated September 29, 1953, of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur to the effect that the appellant, the Union of India, was not entitled to levy and recover arrears of excise duty on cotton cloth for the period April 1, 1949, to March 31, 1950, from the respondent, the Maharaja Krishnagarh Mills Ltd. 2. The facts of this case, which have not been in dispute at any stage of the proceedings, may shortly be stated as follows. The respondent is a cloth mill located in Krishnagarh in District Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan. It had a stock of manufacture...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1596; [1962]2SCR159
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal, with the special leave of this Court, against an order of Naik, J., of the High Court of Bombay in Civil Revision Application No. 320 of 1959, by which he disallowed certain pleas raised by the appellants. The respondent is the landlord. 2. On September 11, 1942, the appellants had executed a rent note, under which they were in occupation of the premises in dispute. The period of the tenancy was 15 years, and it expired by the efflux of time on March 14, 1957. The landlord thereupon filed a suit on April 25, 1957, for possession of the premises, in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Erandol. Meanwhile, under s. 6 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (to be called the Act, in this judgment), a notification was issued, applying Part II of the Act to the area where the property is situated. The appellants claimed protection of s. 12 in Part II of the Act, which deprived the landlord of the ri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC647; [1962]Supp3SCR324
S.K. Das, J 1. These are fifteen appeals by special leave. They have been heard together as they arise common question of law and fact and this judgment will govern them all. 2. These appeals arise out of fifteen suits filed by certain inamdars (respondents herein) of a village called Goteru for ejecting the tenants, who are the appellants before us, from various holdings in their possession after the expiry of the period of their leases and for other reliefs, such as, arrears of rent and damages. The lands lie in village Goteru, one of the villages in the Nuzvid zamindari. Goteru, Komaravaram and Surampudi are three Mokhasa villages in the said zamindari. It was admitted that the Mokhasas were included in the assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement in 1802. The case of the inamdars respondents was that in eight of the suits the land was a Karnam service inam and in seven suits the land was a Sarvadumbala inam. These inams lands were settlement inams and enfranc...
Tag this Judgment!