1
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-10-1970
Reported in : AIR1970SC564; [1970]40CompCas325(SC); (1970)1SCC248; [1970]3SCR530
J.C. Shah, J.1. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper--hereinafter called 'the petitioner'--holds shares in the Central Bank of India Ltd., the Bank of Baroda Ltd., the Union Bank of India Ltd., and the Bank of India Ltd., and has accounts--current and fixed deposit --with those Banks : he is also a director of the Central Bank of India Ltd. By these petitions he claims a declaration that the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance 8 of 1969 promulgated on July 19, 1969, and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969 which replaced the Ordinance with certain modifications impair his rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution, and are on that account invalid.2. In India there was till 1949 no comprehensive legislation governing banking business and banking institutions. The Central Legislature enacted the Banking Companies Act 10 of 1949 (later called 'The Banking Regulation Act') to consolidate and amend the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-1970
Reported in : AIR1971SC530; (1971)1SCC85; [1971]3SCR9
ORDERIn exercise of the power vested in him under Article 366(22) of the Constitution, the President hereby directs that with effect from the date of this Order His Highness Maharajdhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur do cease to be recognised as the Ruler of Gwalior. align='right'>By order and in the name of the President.Sd./-L. P. SINGHSecretary to the Government of India2. All these orders were notified together in the Gazette of India of September 19, 1970, Part II. They resulted in the forthwith stoppage of the Privy Purses received by the Rulers and the discontinuance of their personal privileges.3. These writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were filed by some of the Rulers as test cases to question the orders. They ask for a writ, direction or order, declaring the Presidential Order to be unconstitutional, mala fide, ultra vires and void, and for quashing it, a writ, direction or order declaring that the several petitioners continue to be Rulers and thus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-12-1970
Reported in : AIR1970SC1147; (1971)73BOMLR305; 1971MhLJ1(SC); (1970)1SCC415; [1970]3SCR689
J.C. Shah, J. 1. Dadiba Hormusji Boatwalla was one of the eight partners of Messrs Meghji Thobhan & Company--a firm of Muccadams and cotton brokeRs. Boatwalla died on February 20, 1957. By virtue of Clause 8 of the deed of partnership the business of the firm was continued by the surviving partneRs. Khorshed and Nariman--widow and son respectively of Boatwalla--obtained letters of administration to the estate of Boatwalla and commenced an action in the High Court of Bombay for an account of the partnership between Boatwalla and the surviving partners and for an order paying to the plaintiffs the amount determined to be due to Boatwalla at the time of his death. The suit was resisted by the surviving partners--who will hereinafter be called 'the defendants'. Tarkunde, J., passed a preliminary decree declaring that qua Boatwalla the partnership stood dissolved on February 20, 1957, but not in respect of the surviving partners, and directed that an account be taken of the partnership upto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-26-1970
Reported in : (1971)3SCC958
S.M. SIKRI, J.1.This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab dismissing in limine the second appeal filed by Mst Mahli, plaintiff, now appellant before us, against the decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge (with enhanced appellate powers), dismissing the first appeal from the order and decree of the Subordinate Judge, III Class, Rohtak, filed by the plaintiff and accepting the appeal filed by the respondents. The trial court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession of 1/9th share of the land in dispute.2. In order to appreciate the points debated before us it is necessary to set out the pedigree table and a few facts.Nota Shiv Lal Chandgi Bhagwani widowDefendant 3 Ram Sarup Mst Mahliplaintiff daughter PhoolmatiDefendant 5 daughter ChhotuDefendant 4 daughter Hoshiar SinghDefendant 3 Ranbir SinghDefendant 13. Chandgi owned fair amount of land in village Asan, Tehsil and District Rohtak. He was Jat by caste and governed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-10-1970
Reported in : AIR1970SC2079; 1970(0)KLT630(SC); (1970)2SCC417; [1971]1SCR734
M. Hidayatullah, C.J.1. These appeals by certificates granted by the High Court of Kerala under Articles 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution are directed against a common judgment, September 19, 1969, declaring certain provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1969 (Act 9 of 1969) to be ultra vires the Constitution of India while upholding the remaining Act as valid. They were heard together. This judgment will dispose of all of them. The validity of the Act was challenged in the High Court by diverse petitioners in 36 petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Some parts of the Act were declared ultra vires the Constitution As a result there are cross appeals. 36 appeals have been filed against the several petitioners by the State of Kerala. Another 36 appeals have been filed by the University of Kerala which made common cause with the Government of Kerala. 7 appeals have been referred by seven original petitioners, who seek a declaration that some other provisions of the Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-10-1970
Reported in : AIR1971SC1295; (1970)2SCC888; [1971]2SCR118; 1970(3)WLN29
Hegde, J.1. This appeal raises the question as to the validity of the election of Mr. R.K. Birla to the Lok Sabha, in the General Election held in 1967, from the Jhunjhunu constituency in the State of Rajasthan. The election for that constituency was held in the month of February 1967. The notification calling upon the constituency to elect one member to the Lok Sabha was published on January 13, 1967. The last date for riling the nomination was January 20, 1967. Several persons filed their nominations but some out of them withdrew later. Eleven persons including Mr. R.K. Birla (respondent No. 1) and Mr. Morarka Radheshyam (Respondent No. 2) contested the election. The polling took place on February 15, 18 and 20th. Counting commenced on the 21st of that month and completed on the 23rd on which date results were declared. According to the declaration made by the returning officer, respondent No. 1 secured 1,50,546 votes and respondent No. 2, 1,04,023. It is not necessary to refer to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-21-1970
Reported in : AIR1971SC385; (1970)2SCC484; [1971]1SCR863
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal.No. 2259 of 1969. Appeal under s. 38 of the Advocate's Act, 1961 from the order dated October 26, 1969 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in D.C. Appeal No. 18 of 1968. C. K. Daphtary, A. S. R. Chari, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur, Ravinder Narain and S. Swarup, for the appellant., V. S. Desai and B. D. Sharma,, for respondent No. 1. M. C. Bhandare and S. B. Wad, for Respondent No. 2. V. A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for. Attorney- General for India.A. V. Rangam, for Advocate-General for the Tamil Nadu. M. C. Setalvad, Rameshwar Nath, for Bar Council of India. O. P. Rana, for Advocate-General for the State of U.P. A. G. Pudissery, for Advocate-General for the State of Kerala.K. Baldev Mehta, for Advocate-General for the State of Rajasthan.A. P. S. Chauhan, A. D. Mathur and N. P. Jain, for Bar Council U.P.Sukumar Ghose and G. S. Chatterjee, for- the Advocate General for the State of West Bengal.P. Parmeswara Rao, fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-14-1970
Reported in : AIR1970SC2097; (1970)2SCC567; [1971]2SCR197
1. The Judgment of S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat and C.A. Vaidialingam JJ., was delivered by Sikri, J. Bhargava, J. and Mitter, J. gave separate opinions.2. These four election petitions filed under Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Act (XXXI of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and Article 71 of the Constitution of India challenge the election of the respondent Shri V.V. Giri, to the office of the President of India. The petitioner in Election Petition No. 1 of 1969, Shri Shiv Kirpal Singh, was a candidate in the election, and so was the petitioner in Election Petition No. 3, Shri Phul Singh. The nominations of both these petitioners were rejected by the Returning Officer. Election Petition No. 4 was filed by Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy, M.P., and twelve other electors, all members of Parliament. Election Petition No. 5 was filed by Shri Abdul Ghani Dar, M.P., and nine other members of Parliament and eight members of Legislative Assemblies of Haryana, Madhya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-05-1970
Reported in : AIR1970SC1771; (1970)3SCC323; [1971]1SCR719
A.N. Ray, J.1. These petitioners raise two principal questions. First, whether the State of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the State) is competent to enact the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); secondly, whether there is procedural discrimination between the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. The contentions of the petitioners are that the Act is for the incorporation, regulation and winding up of the Maharashtra Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and that the Corporation is a trading one and therefore the impugned legislation falls within Entry 43 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. On behalf of the State it is said on the other hand that the Act is for the growth and development of industries in the State of Maharashtra and for acquisition of land in that behalf and the Corporation is established for carrying out the purposes o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-19-1970
Reported in : AIR1971SC251; [1971]41CompCas127(SC); (1970)3SCC594; [1971]2SCR661
Shah, J.1. On May 29, 1965, the Allied International Products Ltd.-hereinafter called the Company-issued a prospectus Offering to the public for subscription 5,00,000 equity share of Rs. 10 each and 10,000 cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100 each, and intimating that 'applications are being made to 'Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi Stock Exchanges for permission to deal in for official quotations of the shares of the Company'.2. On June 3, 1965, the Company submitted applications to the Stock Exchanges at Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi (which are recognised Stock Exchanges within the meaning of Section 2(39) of the Companies Act, 1956), for 'enlisting' its shares. The subscription list of the Company was closed on June 21, 1965. On June 22, 1965, the Bombay Stock Exchange extended the time for consideration of the application till the expiry of seven weeks from the date of closing of the subscription list and requested the Company to furnish certain particulars to facilitate compliance with ...
Tag this Judgment!