Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-09-1952
Reported in : AIR1953SC65; (1953)IMLJ449(SC); [1953]4SCR377
Mahajan, J.1. In our opinions the decision cam be rested on either of the ground, which have been raised by our brothers Das and Ghulam Hasan respectively. We would therefore allow the appeal on both the grounds. Das, J.2. I have had the privilege of perusing the judgment delivered by my learned brother Hasan and I agree with his conclusion that this appeal should be allowed. I would, however, prefer to rest my decision on a ground different from that which has commended itself to my learned brother and as to which I do not wish to express any opinion on this occasion. 3. The relevant facts material for the purpose of disposing of this appeal have been very clearly and fully set forth in the judgment of Hasan J. and I need not set them out in detail here. Suffice it to say that on June 12, 1931, the High Court, Original Side, which is the Court which had passed the decree, transmitted the same for execution to the Asansol Court through the District Judge of Burdwan and that the Asansol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-27-1952
Reported in : AIR1952SC369; [1953]4SCR1
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an application under article 32 of the Constitution for relief in respect of an alleged infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioners under article 19(1)(g) or, alternatively, under article 136 for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta rejecting their application for the same relief under article 226. 2. As the petitioners would clearly be entitled to relief under the one or the other form of remedy if their claim was well-founded, no objection was taken to the maintainability of the present proceeding, and we desire to guard ourselves against being taken to have decided that a proceeding under article 32 would lie after an application under article 226 for the same relief on the same facts had been rejected after due enquiry by a High court. We express no opinion on that point. 3. The facts leading to this proceeding are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. The first petitioner is an Advocat...
Tag this Judgment!