Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-05-1966
Reported in : AIR1966Ker216
Govinda Menon, J. 1. This writ petition has been referred to me under Section 23 of the Travan-core-Cochin High Court Act, 1125, as the learned Judges. Velu Pillai and Mathew, JJ., who originally heard the petition differed in their conclusions as to the jurisdiction of the Union of India to take disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on some of the charges. 2. A few fads may now be stated - The petitioner, Shri S. Govinda Menon, is a member of the Indian Administrative Service. He was the First Member of the Board of Re-venue. Kerala State and was also holding the post of Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. On the basis of certain petitions containing allegations of misconduct against the petitioner in the discharge of his duties as Commissioner, the Kerala Government, after conducting certain preliminary inquiries, started disciplinary proceedings against him, keeping him under suspension under R. 7 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-18-1966
Reported in : AIR1966P& H483
D. Falshaw, C.J.1. This is an appeal filed by Balwant Singh under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of Harbans Singh, J., dismissing his petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. The facts are not in dispute. Sodhi Lal Singh respondent applied to the Assistant Collector, Second Grade. Moga, under Section 14-A (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, for the recovery of Rs. 900 from Balwant Singh appellant as the tenant of certain land for the harvests of kharif 1959 and rabi 1960 and a notice of demand in the prescribed form 'N' was issued to Balwant Singh and served on him on the 6th of November 1960. He disputed the correctness of the amount demanded and claimed that only a sum of Rs. 605 was due, the annual rent of the land, which was 88 kanals or 11 acres in extent, being Rs. 55 per acre. By his order, dated the 30th of December 1960 the Assistant Collector held that the rent due was in fact Rs. 605 and in his order he recorded t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-20-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Mad57; (1966)2MLJ63
(1) W.P. No. 1124 of 1963 comes before us on a reference made by one of us(srinivasan, J). It was a proceeding in prohibition by Messrs Raval and Co. (petitioners), seeking to restrain the respondents, including the Chief Rent Controller, Madras(4th respondent) from prosecuting or proceeding with a petition for the fixation of fair rent, under the Madras Rent Control Acts. Connected with this are two other proceedings, namely, C.R.P. 1816 of 1963 and Appn. No. 2443 of 1963 in C.S. 163 of 1962, in which certain clearly inter-linked question are involved. Our learned brother(Srinivasan, J.) felt the difficulty that the catena of decisions of this court as far as the Madras Rent Control Acts are concerned, has been only in the consistent directions that these Acts did purport to interfere with contractual tenancies both as regards the fixation of fair rents and as regards the respective rights of landlords and tenants, in the matter of eviction and the grounds for eviction; while certain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-20-1966
Reported in : (1966)2MLJ68
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. W.P. No. 1124 of 1963 comes before us on a Reference made by one of us (K. Srinivasan, J.). It was a proceeding in Prohibition, of Messrs. Raval & Company (petitioners), seeking to restrain the respondents, including the Chief Rent Controller, Madras (fourth respondent), from prosecuting or proceeding with a petition for the fixation of fair rent, under the Madras Rent Control Acts. Connected with this are two other proceedings, namely, C.R.P. No. 1816 of 1963 and Application No. 2443 of 1964 in C. S. No. 163 of 1962, in which certain closely inter-linked questions are involved. Our learned brother (Srinivasan, J.) felt the difficulty that the catena of decisions of this Court, as far as the Madras Rent Control Acts are concerned, had been only in the consistent directions that these Acts did purport to interfere with contractual tenancies, both as regards the fixation1 of fair rents and as regards the respective rights of landlords and tenants, in the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-25-1966
Reported in : (1971)1MLJ127
ORDERK.S. Ramamurti, J.1. The plaintiffs have instituted this proceeding for the construction of the will of the late Narayana Guruviah Chetty, dated 12th October, 1915, marked as Exhibit P-1, by which amongst other things the testator had created certain religious and charitable endowments, and the point on which the decision of this Court is sought relates to the question whether house and ground bearing Municipal door No. 133, Audiappa Naicken Street (more fully described in the schedule appended to the plaint) still forms part of the trust estate as being covered by the terms of the will.2. Late Narayana Guruviah Chetty amassed large properties as his self-acquisitions by his own exertions and the trade that he was carrying on. His wife was one Narayana Ethirajamma and they had no issues. Guruviah Chetty had adopted a son who predeceased the adoptive father, leaving a widow. The will left behind by Guruviah Chetty was a detailed and an elaborate one prepared under the instructions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-14-1966
Reported in : (1967)0GLR395; (1966)IILLJ389Guj
Mehta, J.1. This appeal raises a very interesting question as to whether a doctor's dispensary is a commercial establishment within the meaning of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. It has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused-doctor by the City Magistrate (Municipal), Ahmedabad, on the charge for the offence under S. 52(e) of the Act read with S. 62 and rule 23(1) of the said Act. 3. The case of the prosecution was that the accused who was a doctor having his dispensary situated near Jakaria Masjid at Ahmedabad had not maintained the employment register in the prescribed form with the necessary particulars regarding the hours of work in respect of three employees working in the dispensary. The complainant, shops inspector, had visited this dispensary on 13 June, 1963 at about 9-50 a.m. and had found that even though the dispensary was registered as a commercial establishment under the Act, the employment registe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-17-1966
Reported in : AIR1966P& H540; [1967]64ITR419(P& H)
S.K. Kapur, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of D.K. Mahajan, J. dated 5th November, 1962, passed on a writ petition filed by the appellants, arises in the following circumstances :2. The appellants claim to be members of a joint Hindu family carrying on business in coarse cloth under the name and style of Messrs Chhotey Lal Sunder Lal in Jaipur city. The Jaipur Excess Profits Tax Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Jaipur Act) received the assent of the Maharaja and came in to force on the 22nd August, 1944. Three notices under Section 15 of the Jaipur Act were received by the appellants for the years ending Dewali, 1944, Dewali, 1945, and 31st March, 1946. The appellants deposited Rs. 3,066-9-0 on 13th January, 1947, with respect to the first year and Rs. 5,881-8-0 with respect to the second and third years, under Section 32 of the Jaipur Act.3. There were rapid constitutional changes after August, 1947, with respect to the State of Jaipur, and eventually on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-21-1966
Graham v. John Deere Co. - 383 U.S. 1 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City No. 11 Argued October 14, 1965 Decided February 21, 1966 * 383 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus In No. 11, petitioners sued for infringement of a patent, consisting of a combination of old mechanical elements, for a device designed to absorb shock from plow shanks in rocky soil to prevent damage to the plow. In 1955, the Fifth Circuit held the patent valid, ruling that a combination is patentable when it produces an "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way." Here, the Eighth Circuit held that, since there was no new result in the combination, the patent was invalid. Petitioners in Nos. 37 and 43 filed actions for declaratory judgments declaring invalid respondent's patent relating to a plastic finger sprayer with a "hold-down" cap used as a built-in disp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-23-1966
Reported in : [1966]18STC240(P& H)
ORDERS.K. Kapur, J.1. The following three questions of law have been referred by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, by his order dated 30th October, 1958, under Section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union territory of Delhi :- (a) Whether Section 29 of the Limitation Act applies to revision applications under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi. (b) If the answer to (a) be in the affirmative, does Section 29 of the Limitation Act enlarge the scope of Section 12(2) of the said Act, so as to make it applicable to revision, which is not a proceeding mentioned in that section. (c) Whether apart from Sections 29 and 12(2) of the Limitation Act, the mere requirement of Rule 62 under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to Delhi, that every revision application should be accompanied.by a copy of the order, is sufficient justification by itself to exclude the time taken in obtaining such a copy, for the purposes of cal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-21-1966
Brenner v. Manson - 383 U.S. 519 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966) Brenner v. Manson No. 58 Argued November 17, 1965 Decided March 21, 1966 383 U.S. 519 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS Syllabus In December 1957 Ringold and Rosenkranz applied for a patent on an allegedly novel process for making certain steroids, claiming priority as of December, 1956. A patent issued thereon in 1959. In January, 1960, respondent filed an application to patent the same process, asserting that he had discovered it prior to December, 1956, and requesting that an "interference" be declared to test the issue of priority. Respondent's application was denied by a Patent Office examiner, the Board of Appeals affirming, for failure "to disclose any utility for" the compound produced by the process. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) reversed, holding that, "where a claimed process produces a known product, it is not neces...
Tag this Judgment!