Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-20-1974
Reported in : AIR1975SC1146; (1975)1SCC166; [1975]2SCR774
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Calcutta or Cochin, for the urban people of India, the shocking scarcity of a roof to rest one's tired bones is an unhappy problem of social justice that compels control of rent and eviction laws. In the case now before us, attacking the Constitutionality of legislation handcuffing the landlord-proprietariat's right of eviction, the law has to be tested not merely by the cold print of Article 19(1)(f) but also by the public concern of Article 19(5) and the compassionate animus of Article 39, Parts III and IV of the Constitution together constitute a complex of promises the nation has to keep and the legislation challenged before us is in partial fulfilment of this Iryst with the people. These observations become necessary in limine since counsel for the respondents dismissed the concept of social justice as extraneous to an insightful understanding of the section invalidated by the High Court, while we think chat judicial conscience is not a mere matter of citat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-04-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC968; (1974)2SCC1; [1974]3SCR494
S.N. Dwivedi, J.1. Kariya and his wife Sava purchased the house in dispute by a registered deed on April 2, 1905. Kariya died in 1936 leaving behind him Sava and Ram Charan, his son. On August 16, 1951 Ram Charan mortgaged the house to Prem Raj (the appellant). Prem Raj obtained a preliminary decree for foreclosure on August 16, 1952 and also the final decree on July 16, 1955. In the meanwhile on March 7,1952 Sava gifted the entire house to Prakash Chandra, son of Ram Charan, the respondent. Fortified by this gift, Prakash Chandra frustrated several attempts of the appellant to get possession of the house in execution of his decree. He made three unsuccessful attempts to execute the decree till the end of 1954. He made the fourth attempt on April 25, 1956. Shortly thereafter, on December 7, 1956, Prakash Chandra instituted a suit against the appellant and his father Rani Charan for a declaration that the preliminary and final decree for foreclosure in favour of the former were not bind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-23-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC1596; 1974MPLJ752(SC); (1974)2SCC365; [1975]1SCR127; 1974(6)LC348(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. It is common to find that having regard to acute shortage of non-residential as well as residential accommodation in the urban areas, litigation between landlord and tenant for recovery of rented premises is usually bitterly contested and fought to a finish right upto the highest court. This is what has happened in the present case. Twice foiled in his attempt, the respondent filed a third suit to recover possession of a shop let out to the appellant. The suit resulted in a decree for eviction by the Trial Court, but on appeal the decree for eviction was reversed by the Additional. District Judge and on still further appeal, the judgment of the Additional District Judge was set aside and the decree for eviction was restored by the High Court. The appellant challenges the judgment of the High Court in this appeal preferred by special leave.2. The respondent is the owner of a house situate in Lohia Bazar in the city of Gwalior. The house consists of a shop on the grou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-08-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC1183; 1974CriLJ906; [1974(28)FLR209]; (1974)0GLR573; 1974LabIC1088; (1974)ILLJ297SC; (1974)4SCC313; [1974]3SCR50; 1974(6)LC163(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. Appellants 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are the directors of Rajnagar Spinning and Weaving ., Ahmedabad, and appellant No. 3 is an officer of the said company. On March 19, 1969 a complaint was lodged against them by respondent 1, an Inspector appointed under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 that they had failed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,39,419 .50 being the contribution to the Provident Fund for the months of June, July and August, 1968 and that thereby they had contravened the provisions of Paragraph 38(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, an act punishable under Paragraph 76(a) of the Scheme.2. An investigation was made into the affairs of the company Under Section 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and on being satisfied that the company was managed in a manner highly detrimental to public interest, the Government of India issued an order dated January 7, 1972 authorising the Gujarat State Textile Corporation to take over the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-03-1974
Reported in : AIR1975SC192; 1975LabIC141; (1975)ILLJ198SC; (1975)3SCC602; [1975]2SCR894; 1975(7)LC42(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. We may as well begin this judgment with a prefatory sociological observation. The meaning of two common expressions 'teaching experience' and 'teaching institution' incarnated into a legal frame and subjected to forensic dissection and examination during three years of litigation makes up this bitter contest between a talented orthopedic surgeon and two like rivals trying to break each other's academic bones to gain the post of Lecturer in Orthopedics, one in each of two government medical colleges in Bihar. Our judicial bone-setting operation cannot undo the social farceur inflicted by this long expensive bout in court. Research and reform of 'he system is needed if the therapeutic value of law is to last and be not lost.2. The two appeals before us, by special leave, unfold a musical-chair type situation where three candidates ran for two posts in the government-run Patna and Dharbanga Medical Colleges. Inevitably one lost or, rather, was screened as ineligibl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-03-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC898; 1974CriLJ751; (1974)4SCC611; 1974(6)LC356(SC)
Beg, J.1. The appellants Bhagwandas Keshwani and Vishnu Kumar before us by grant of special leave were charged under Sections 120B, 420 and 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code. Keshwani was also charged under Section 5, Sub-section (2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They were acquitted of charges under Sections 467 and 471 I.P.C. The Special Judge who tried their case convicted Keshwani and Vishnu Kumar under Section 120B and under Section 420 I.P.C. and sentenced them to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more. The learned Judge convicted and sentenced Keshwani to one year's rigorous imprisonment and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and, in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for three months. The sent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-05-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC517; 1974CriLJ472; (1975)3SCC322; [1974]3SCR287
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Every legislation is a social document and judicial construction seeks to decipher the statutory mission, language permitting, taking the cue from the rule in Heydon's(1) case of suppressing the evil and advancing the remedy. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940(the Act, for short) is a life-saving statute one of the provisions of which, together with a bunch of rules and forms, falls for interpretation and application to the substantially admitted facts set out concisely in the order granting certificate of fitness to appeal. The Bench projected the factual-legal issue in these words:It is not in dispute that the petitioners have a wholesale dealers' licence to stock durgs at Bombay and have a further licence to distribute the drugs through the motor van throughout the territory of the state of Maharashtra. Accordingly, their motor van started filled with drugs and reached the Vidarbha area. The petitioners booked certain drugs for which they have already a licenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-04-1974
Reported in : AIR1975SC420; (1975)1SCC589; [1975]2SCR923
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. In the election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held in March 1972 to fil up a seat from the North Nagpur constituency reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes the 2nd respondent was declared elected. The appellant filed an election petition questioning the election. That petition having been dismissed by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) this appeal has been filed by the appellant.2. In that election- as many as 19 persons filed their nomination papers. Nine of them withdrew leaving respondents 2 to 10 and the appellant in the field. One of them who withdrew was the 11th respondent, Ranjit Meshram, with whom we will have to deal later. In the election the 2nd respondent obtained 22,993 votes, the appellant obtained 21,135 votes, the 6th respondent obtained 16,123 votes and the 9th respondent 2,590 votes. It is unnecessary to refer to the other respondents or the votes obtained by them because the arguments before this Court have been confined to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-12-1974
Reported in : AIR1975SC583; (1975)1SCC375; [1975]2SCR715
K.K. Mathew, J.1. In the Civil Appeals, the questions for consideration are whether the enhancement of motor vehicles tax on omnibuses imposed by G.O. No. 2044-Home dated 20-9-1971 by the Government of Tamil Nadu from Rs. 30 per seat per quarter to Rs. 100/- per seat per quarter is Constitutionally valid and whether the distinction made between contract carriages and stage carriages in the matter of levy of vehicle tax offends Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The writ petitions assail the validity of the aforesaid notification on the additional ground, namely, that the tax levied under the notification imposes restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed by Article 301 of the Constitution and that, as the notification is not law passed after obtaining the previous sanction of the President of India, the tax is invalid.3. We take up for consideration Writ Petition No. 253 of 1973 and the judgment therein will dispose of the Civil Appeals and the Writ Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-11-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC2009; (1974)2SCC402a; [1975]1SCR1
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. These appeals and writ petitions relate to the legality of certain proceedings taken under Chapter V-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955. Chapter V-A was introduced in the Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 by Maharashtra Act 14 of 1961. That chapter contains Sections 105A and 105B. According to the provisions of those sections the Commissioner in relation to premises belonging to or vesting in, or taken on lease by the corporation and the General Manager (also defined as the Commissioner) of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking in relation to premises of the corporation which vest in it for the purposes of that undertaking were granted certain powers of eviction in respect of unauthorised occupation of any corporation premises. Unauthorised occupation is defined as occupation by any person of corporation premises without authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation b...
Tag this Judgment!