Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-18-1965
Reported in : AIR1965SC1442; [1965]2SCR756
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by certificate raises the question whether an appeal lies under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent for the High Court of Lahore, to a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court against a judgment passed by a single Judge of the said High Court in a second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958), hereinafter called the Act. 2. The facts relevant to the question raised may be briefly stated. The respondents are the owners of plot No. 5, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. Messrs. Allen Berry & Co. Private Ltd. took a lease of the same under a lease deed dated March 1, 1956. Messrs. Allen Berry & Co. assigned their interest under the said lease deed to South Asia Industries (Private) Ltd., the appellant herein. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application before the Controller, Delhi, under section 14 of the Act for the eviction of the appellant from the said premises on the ground that Messrs. Allen Berry & Co. unauthorizedly as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-19-1965
Reported in : AIR1966Bom149; (1965)67BOMLR708; ILR1966Bom268; 1966MhLJ57
Kotval, J.(1) We care concerned in this special civil application with a motion of no -confidence alleged to have been passed against the petitioner Vishwasrao Dajibarao Ghuge who was the Chairman on the Panchayat Samiti, Malegaon Taluq Washim, district Akola. The panchayat Samiti Malegaon, it isn't in dispute consist of 14 members and 2 associate members under S. 57 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 [No V of 1962] [hereinafter referred to as the Act] The petitioners was elected Chairman of the panchayat Samiti on 7-8-1962, and less than two years thereafter on 11-5-1964 a no - confidence motion was attempted to be oven against him, but that motion was for reason unknown withdrawn on 22-5-1964. Theater a fresh notice is no - confidence motion under S. 72 of the Act on was again given on 24-10-1964 by the present respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and 13. A meeting was convened by the petitioners for 1-11-1964. At that meeting according to the respondents Nos 1 to 6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-21-1965
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR792; [1965]57ITR428(Bom)
Y.S. Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act and is in respect of the five reference applications made to the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54, the accounting years being the respective previous calendar years. After consolidation of these five reference applications relating to the aforesaid assessment years, two questions of law have been referred to this court. The first question is common for all the five years and the second question is common only for three assessment years, viz. 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. Facts giving rise to this reference in brief are : The assessee-company, Messrs. Ciba Pharma Private Limited, Bombay hereinafter referred to as the 'Ciba Pharma', is a cent per cent. Indian subsidiary of Ciba Limited, Basle (Switzerland), hereinafter referred to as 'the Ciba Basle.' Ciba Basle deals in drugs, medicines, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and biological pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-21-1965
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR484
Naik, J.1. The appellant, who would hereafter be called the accused, was convicted under Section 471 read with Section 394(1)(a)(ii) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 201, in default, to undergo 15 days' rigorous imprisonment. The accused has preferred an appeal from the order of conviction and sentence. It was noticed that the vires of Section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was called in question, and, therefore, a notice was issued to the Advocate-General. The learned Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the State as also on behalf of the Advocate-General. 'When the matter came up for hearing before me sitting singly, a request was made by Mr, Ganatra on behalf of the accused, and also by the learned Government Pleader that, in view of the importance of. the question involved, the case may be referred to a Division Bench. Accordingly, the criminal appeal has been referred to a Division Bench, and, that is how, the matter h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-22-1965
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR432
Bachawat, J.1. One Jhaverehand Dahyabhai Shah died in 1916, leaving a will dated August 6, 1915. He was a resident of Vejalpore in the suburbs of Broach and a Ladva Shrimali Bania by caste. He professed the Jain religion, and believed in the tenets of the Swetambar Murti Pujak sect of Jains. By Clause (7) of the will, he directed his executors to spend out of the earnings of his- shop every year during the life-time of his niece, Bai Jakore, the amounts mentioned below on the following religious objects:(1) Rs. 100 for feeding cattle with grass, fodder, oil cakes etc., in the Broach Pinjrapole.(2) Ks. 100 for Jiva-daya Khata (fund for kindness to animals).(3) Rs. 25 for offering flowers for the worship of Lord Rikabdev in the Jain temple at Vejalpore, Broach.(4) Rs. 200 for providing food to Shravak pilgrims at the Shatroonjaya Hill at Palitana.(5) Rs. 50 for providing food to pilgrims at Mount Girnar.(6) Rs. 50 for providing food to pilgrims at Mount Abu.(7) Rs. 250 for providing cere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-22-1965
Reported in : AIR1965SC1611; 1965MhLJ617(SC); [1965]2SCR811
Bachawat. J. 1. One Jhaverchand Dahyabhai Shah died in 1916, leaving a will, dated August 6, 1915. He was a resident of Vejalpore in the suburbs of Broach and a Ladva Shrimali Bania by caste. He professed the Jain religion, and believed in the tenets of the Swetembar Murti Pujak sect of Jains. By Clause (7) of the will, he directed his executors to spend out of the earnings of his shop every year during the life-time of his niece, Bai Jakore, the amounts mentioned below on the following religious objects : (1) Rs. 100 for feeding cattle with grass, fodder, oil cakes etc., in the Broach Pinjrapole. (2) Rs. 100 for Jiva-daya Khata (fund for kindness to animals). (3) Rs. 25 for offering flowers for the worship of Lord Rikabdev in the Jain temple at Vejalpore, Broach. (4) Rs. 200 for providing food to Shravak pilgrims at the Shatroonjaya Hill at Palitana. (5) Rs. 50 for providing food to pilgrims at Mount Girnar. (6) Rs. 50 for providing food to pilgrims at Mount Abu. (7) Rs. 250 for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-29-1965
Reported in : AIR1966P& H509
S.K. Kapur, J.1. This civil revision under Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, is directed against the judgment of Senior Subordinate Judge dated September 26, 1960.2. The premises in question is situate in Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The petitioner Niadar Mal is the landlord of the said premises and respondents Uggar Sain and Padam Sain who are father and son respectively, are the joint tenants with respect to a part of the aforesaid premises. The petitioner landlord filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent-tenants mainly on three grounds--(1) that the conduct of the tenants is such that it is a nuisance to the other occupiers of the same premises and they are therefore liable to be evicted under Section 13(1)(j) of the said Act;(2) that the tenants have acquired other premises and the plaintiff is therefore entitled to a decree for ejectment under Section 13(1)(h) of the said Act; and(3) that the defendants have been causing substantial damage to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-16-1965
Reported in : AIR1968Mad42
(1) This appeal under the Letters Patent has been preferred, on leave granted by Venkatadri J. who, in second appeal, reversing the decision of the Courts below, upheld the claim of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,774.31 the value of the goods not delivered.(2) The brief facts of the case, on which the rights and liabilities of the parties will have to be considered, are these: the first plaintiff is clearing and forwarding agent at Madras for the second plaintiff, a firm of merchants at Sivakasi and the reference hereafter as the plaintiff, will be the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs are the goods from Tokyo, Japan, of the red phosphorous, amorphous, bearing marks P. K. J. 1 to 10 numbers and described as ten wooden cases of KDK brand. On the arrival of the ship, s.s. Azumasan Maru at Madras the plaintiff submitted their import application, Ex. A-15, and the Port Trust authorities offered to deliver them ten classes of bearing Nos. 4 and 9, and 8 other cases with different numbers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-22-1965
Reported in : AIR1966P& H488
S.K. Kapur, J.1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The question referred for decision is as to the propel stamp duty payable on the instrument of lease dated the 27th July, 1954, between P. C. Bhandari, the lessor, and Caltex (India) Limited the lessee. What we have been called upon to decide is whether the article applicable to the lease deed is Article 35 (a) (iii) or 35 (c) of Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act. The effort on the part of the revenue is to establish a more lucrative interpretation of law and depart from what according to the respondents had been the interpretation previously followed by the department. Briefly, the facts reading to this dispute are that the said lease deed dated the 27th of July, 1954, was presented before the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi, for registration. The deed was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 85/-. The Sub-Registrar, however, felt that the document was not properly stamped and, therefore, impounded...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-26-1965
Reported in : AIR1966Kant211; AIR1966Mys211
Hedge, J.(1) In this writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution the petitioner prays for the following reliefs.'i. to issue a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or direction as the case may this that the petitioner's promotion as District Educational Office should be deemed from 10-10-52 when the registered respondent was appointed as D.E.O and her promotion as Deputy Director be deemed to be from July 1957 when the 3rd respondent was so appointed and she should be reinstated as Deputy director in one of the posts of Deputy Directors by reverting the juniormost Deputy Director as D.E.O. passing order to that effect. ii. to issue a similar writ directing that the petitioner be paid the difference of pay between that of D.E.O and of headmistress between 10-10-52 to 28-7-54 the date when she was appointed as Dist. Educational Officer and he difference in pay between that of the Deputy Director from July 1957 when the 3rd respondent was so appointed and the pay of the...
Tag this Judgment!