Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-05-1961
Reported in : AIR1962SC256; [1962]3SCR497
Shah, J.1. A dispute arising under a contract relating to the supply of solidified fuel between Messrs. Mohindra Supply Company - hereinafter referred to as the respondents - and the Governor-General of India in Council was referred to arbitration of two arbitrators. On March 19, 1946, the arbitrators made and published an award directing the Governor-General to pay to the respondents Rs. 47,250/- with interest at 3% from July 17, 1944, till payment. This award was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi. The Governor-General applied for an order setting aside the award on certain grounds which for the purposes of this appeal are not material. The Subordinate Judge refused to set aside the award on the grounds set up and rejected the application. Against the order refusing to set aside the award, the Governor-General preferred to the Lahore High Court an appeal which after the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan was transferred to the Circuit Bench...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-08-1961
Reported in : AIR1962SC797; [1962]Supp1SCR981
Ayyangar, J.1. The two Civil Appeals are by special leave of this Court and the two Writ Petitions have been filed by the respective appellants seeking the same relief as in the appeals, the relief sought being the setting aside of orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of Pondicherry as the State Transport appellate authority (under the Motor Vehicles Act). All these four have been heard together because of a common point raised regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the appeals and the petitions. 2. It is manifest that the preliminary point about the jurisdiction of this Court should have first to be considered before dealing with the merits of the contentions raised in the appeals and petitions. It might be convenient to state a few facts to appreciate the context in which the questions debated before us arise and the point concerned in the order now passed. 3. Sivarama Reddiar the appellant in Civil Appeal 43 of 1961 and the petitioner in Writ Petition 298 of 1960, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-11-1961
Reported in : AIR1962SC219; [1962]3SCR515
Shah, J. 1. Sardar Gian Singh - hereinafter Called the appellant - was recruited in 1927 as a Naib Tehsildar in the Revenue department of the Province of Punjab. He was confirmed in that rank in 1939. In 1946, he was promoted to the rank of officiating Tehsildar and was posted as Tehsildar at Hansi in the district of Hissar on September 22, 1947, and since then he held the post of Tehsildar at diverse places. 2. On August 20, 1952, the appellant was served with a charge sheet by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab containing eleven heads of charges of misappropriation, misconduct, irregularities and dereliction of duties committed by him. The Deputy Commissioner. Hissar was appointed to hold a departmental enquiry into those charges. On August 28, 1953, the appellant was served with a notice to show cause why on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant submitted his explanation. The Financial Commissioner by order dated October...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-25-1961
Reported in : AIR1962SC316; 1983LC2198D(SC); [1961]3SCR786
Ayyangar, J.1. The Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act 8 of 1878) (referred to hereinafter as the Act), was amended by section 14 of Act 21 of 1955 by the introduction of section 178A reading : '178A. (1) Where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be on the person from whose possession the goods were seized. (2) This section shall apply to gold, gold manufactures, diamonds and other precious stones, cigarettes and cosmetics and any other goods which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. (3) Every notification issued under Sub-section (2) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is issued'. 2. It is the constitutional validity of this section that is the common point which arises in these several cases which have been heard together. We have heard on the merits only ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-12-1961
Reported in : AIR1962SC263; [1962]3SCR547
Ayyangar, J. 1. These six petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution raise for consideration three points : (1) the constitutional validity of the operative provisions of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act (Act LXXIV of 1952) (to be referred to hereafter as the Act), (2) the validity of a notification dated February 11, 1959, issued under section 15 of the Act by which gur was brought within the purview of the enactment with immediate effect, and (3) the validity of another notification of the Central Government issued simultaneously fixing the price at which Forward Contracts subsisting on February 11, 1959, was directed to be settled. For the purpose of understanding the points raised and the effect of the impugned notification on the rights of the petitioners it is sufficient to refer to the facts of Petition No. 23 of 1959 which is typical of the cases before us. 2. The petitioner - Raghubar Dayal Jai Prakash is a firm carrying on the business of purchase and sale of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-12-1961
Reported in : AIR1962SC1123; [1962]Supp2SCR101
Wanchoo, J.1. These two appeals by special leave from the judgments of the Calcutta High Court raise a common question of law and will be dealt with together. It will be convenient to set out the facts of appeal 309 and deal with them in connection with the point raised on behalf of the appellant. These facts are that a contract was entered into between the parties for supply of cornsacks on August 29, 1951. The contract contained an arbitration clause in the following terms : 'All matters, questions, disputes, difference and/or claims arising out of and/or concerning and/or in connection with and/or in consequence of or relating to this contract whether or not the obligation of either or both parties under this contract be subsisting at the time of such dispute and whether or not this contract has been terminated or purported to be terminated or completed shall be referred to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce under the rules of its Tribunal of Arbitration for the time ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-28-1961
Reported in : AIR1962SC171; [1962]32CompCas414(SC); [1961(3)FLR307]; (1961)IILLJ385SC; [1962]3SCR269
Ayyangar, J. 1. Civil Appeal No. 154 of 1961 has been filed on special leave obtained from this Court against an order of K. T. Desai, J., functioning as the National Industrial Tribunal (Banks Disputes) Bombay dated October 31, 1960. The point arising for decision in the appeal is as regards the constitutional validity of section 34A of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 which was enacted on August 26, 1960 as an amendment to the parent Act (Act X of 1949). The appellant before this Court is the All India Bank Employee's Association which is a trade union organization of Bank Employees of several banks operating in India. The Punjab National Bank Employee's Union, which is a trade union with similar objects has been permitted to intervene in this appeal in support of the appellant union. The three other Writ Petitions are by other Bank Employees' Unions whose description would be apparent from the cause title and all these cases have been heard together because in the writ petitions also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-10-1961
Reported in : AIR1961SC838; [1961(3)FLR241]; (1961)IILLJ146SC; [1962]1SCR9
Das Gupta, J.1. On February 5, 1955, there was a tragic accident in the Amlabad Colliery, in Manbhum District, in the State of Bihar, as a result of which 52 persons lost their lives and one escaped with injuries. The court of enquiry which was appointed to hold an inquiry into the causes of the accident and the circumstances attending the accident submitted its report on September 26, 1955, holding that the accident was due to negligence and non-observance of some of the regulations of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926. This report was duly published under s. 27 of the Mines Act, 1952. Thereafter, on March 3, 1956, the Government of India informed the manager and the agent of the colliery that a court of enquiry was being constituted under clause (a) of the Regulation 48 to hold an inquiry into their conduct. Criminal proceedings were also instituted against 14 persons including the manager and the agent of the colliery, all the directors of the company which was the owner of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-25-1961
Reported in : AIR1962SC305; [1962]3SCR842
Mudholkar, J.1. A matter of far-reaching importance affecting the freedom of the press is raised in these three petitions wherein the constitutionality of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, and the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) order, 1960, is questioned. 2. The first petition is by a private limited company carrying on business inter alia of publishing daily and weekly newspapers in Marathi named 'Sakal' from Poona and by two persons who are the only shareholders in that company. The second and third petitions are preferred by two readers of 'Sakal' who also challenge the constitutionality of the Act. Certain parties were allowed to intervene. They supported the Union of India, the respondent, in all these petitions and sought to uphold the validity of the Act and the Order. In view of the common argument adduced before us it would be convenient to deal with the first petition only in full. 3. The newspaper 'Sakal' was started in the year 1932 and it is claimed that it has a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-30-1961
Reported in : AIR1961SC1519; [1962]1SCR688
Wanchoo, J.1. This petition challenges the constitutionality of a provision in the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 (hereinafter called the Order), made by the President under Art. 370(1) of the Constitution. The case of the petitioner is that he is registered as an elector in the Parliamentary Constituency of Delhi. As such he has a right to stand for election from any Parliamentary constituency in India. Six seats are allotted to the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the House of the People (Lok Sabha). Ordinarily, the election to these seats should have been by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the States as provided by Art. 81(1); but the President modified that Article in so far as it relates to the State of Jammu and Kashmir by Para. 5(c) of the Order in these words :- 'Article 81 shall apply subject to the modification that the representatives of the State in the House of the People shall be appointed by the President on the recommenda...
Tag this Judgment!