Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-14-1986
Reported in : AIR1986SC1272; (1986)88BOMLR432; 1986(1)SCALE681; 1986Supp(1)SCC401; [1986]1SCR731; 1986(2)LC319(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Unfamiliar as I am with the history, tradition and the lore of the city and the High Court of Bombay, I content myself by agreeing with the conclusion of my learned brother that no appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent lies to the High Court against the order of a single judge of the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, no less and no more. I do not have any doubt that the reference to Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915 in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent must necessarily be read as a reference to Article 227 of the Constitution. So read an appeal under Clause 15 is clearly not maintainable against an order made in exercise of the power under Article 227. This is the view taken by all the High Courts in India except the High Court of Bombay, where alone opinion has not been unanimous.D.P. Madon, J.2. The question which falls for determination in this Appeal is 'Whether an appeal lies under Clause 15 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-04-1986
Reported in : AIR1986SC1234; (1986)88BOMLR662; [1987]61CompCas373(SC); (1986)2CompLJ261(SC); 1986(1)SCALE657; 1986Supp(1)SCC117; [1986]2SCR187
A.P. Sen, J.1. These appeals on certificate directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated June 13, 1983 raise a question of far-reaching public importance. By the judgment under appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Messrs Shree Sitaram Mills Limited, Bombay (for short 'the petitioners') while upholding the constitutional validity of the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983 insofar as it provides by Section 3(1) of the Act for the taking over by the Central Government of the management in the public interest of Messrs Shree Sitaram Mills a textile undertaking owned by it and specified in the First Schedule to the Act, held that the surplus land appurtenant to the Mill was not an 'asset in relation to the textile undertaking' within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, on the ground that the business of real estate carried on by the Company was separate and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-05-1986
Reported in : AIR1986SC1323a; (1986)2GLR1250; 1986(1)SCALE1133; 1986Supp(1)SCC20; [1986]1SCR479; 1986(2)LC301(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. This group of Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution and Appeals by certificate granted by the High Court of Gujarat and by Special Leave granted this Court raises questions relating to the constitutionality of Section 15(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act No. 67 of 1957), the power of the State Governments to make rules under the said Section 15 to enable them to charge dead rent and royalty in respect of leases of minor minerals granted by them and to enhance the rates of dead rent and royalty during the subsistence of such leases, the validity of Rule 21-B of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966, and of certain notifications issued by the Government of Gujarat under the said Section 15 amending the said Rules so as to enhance the, rates of royalty and dead rent in respect of leases of minor minerals. These Notifications are :(1). GU-74/121(A)/MCR-2173(49)7268/CHH dated November 29, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-06-1986
Reported in : AIR1986SC1571; (1986)3CompLJ1(SC); 1986LabIC1312; (1986)IILLJ171SC; 1986(1)SCALE799; (1986)3SCC156; [1986]2SCR278; 1986(2)SLJ320(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. These Appeals by Special Leave granted by this Court raise two questions of considerable importance to Government companies and their employees including their officers. These questions are: 1) Whether a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, is 'the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? 2) Whether an unconscionable term in a contract of employment is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as being opposed to public policy and, when such a term is contained in a contract of employment entered into with a Government company, is also void as infringing Article 14 of the Constitution in case a Government company is 'the State' under Article 12 of the Constitution? 2. Although the record of these Appeals is voluminous, the salient facts lie within a narrow compass. The First Appellant in both these Appeals, namely, the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to in sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-09-1986
Reported in : AIR1987SC203; 1987(1)KLT53(SC); 1986(2)SCALE1004; (1987)1SCC183; [1987]1SCR485; 1987(1)LC79(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This appeal by special leave from the decision of learned single judge of the High Court of Kerala is disposed of on a short question of law. 2. The appellant is a tenant. The High Court had reversed the concurrent findings and the decisions of three courts below it and ordered eviction of the appellant. 3. The dispute relates to a portion of the ground floor of a three-storied building situated in one of the busiest commercial areas Pazhavangadi of the city of Trivandrum, where the appellant had been conducting a tea shop by name 'Sourashtra Hotel'. In the adjacent rooms on the ground floor, the landlord was conducting a business in textiles namely 'Sarada Textiles'. The tenancy began on 12th June, 1965. The tenancy was taken by the husband of the appellant. The rent was Rs. 140 per month. The husband of the appellant died. Thereafter the appellant had been conducting the business from there. 4. On or about 15th April, 1976, the respondent purchased a three s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-14-1986
Reported in : AIR1986SC712; 1986(2)ARBLR19(SC); (1986)3CompLJ66(SC); 1986(1)SCALE74; (1986)1SCC642; [1986]1SCR120; 1986(1)LC304(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The long and grasping hand of a Multi National Company, the Monsanto Company of St. Lous, Missouri, United States of America, has reached out to prevent alleged infringement of two of their patents (Numbers 104120 and 125381) by the defendant, an Indian Private Limited Company. Though the suit, as initially laid, was with reference to two patents, the suit was ultimately confined to one patent only (Number 125381), the period for which the other patent (104120) was valid having expired during the pendency of the suit. The suit was decreed by the trial court, but was dismissed by the appellate court. The appeal which is now before us has been filed pursuant to a certificate granted by the appellate bench of the High Court on the ground that substantial questions of law of great public importance were involved. The questions, however, were not specified in the certificate. As we see it, we are unable to find any substantial questions of law of great importance. W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-17-1986
Reported in : AIR1986SC1205; (1986)2GLR1239; 1986(1)SCALE1180; (1986)3SCC20; [1986]2SCR700
R.B. Misra, J.1. Slaughter of cows and calves has been a sensitive issue and it has generated violent sentimental differences time and again between different sections of the people of this country. Part IV of the Constitution of India enshrines what are called the Directive Principles of State Policy. These Directive Principles are not enforceable in a court of law but are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and are to be applied by States In making laws. Article 48 contained in Part IV provides : 48. The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry in modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows nd calves and other milch and draught cattle.2. It appears that pursuant to Article 48 of the Constitution several States enacted laws for the preservation and prohibition of the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. The Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-05-1986
Reported in : AIR1986SC1964; 1986(9)ECC282; 1986LC344(SC); 1986(25)ELT3(SC); 1986(1)SCALE1208; 1986(Supp)SCC263; [1986]2SCR1001; [1987]64STC139(SC); 1986(2)LC279(SC)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated November 5, 1970 on the strength of a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court. 2. The appellant is a firm carrying on business of 'Re-rolling' having its factory at Moosapet near Sanatnagar, Hyderabad. A contract was entered into between the appellant and the 5th respondent, whereby the appellant undertook to convert 3000 metric tonnes of second class untested rails into M.S. Rounds of different specifications by the process of Re-rolling. Accordingly, the quantity of 3000 metric tonnes of second class untested rails was supplied to the appellant by the 5th respondent during the period between 29.4.1964 to 23.2.1966 and the appellant duly executed the work and 'delivered the M.S. Rounds and received the Re-rolling charges in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The last delivery of the finished products was effected by the appellant on 23.2.1966. 3. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-28-1986
Reported in : AIR1986SC2139; JT1986(1)SC280; 1986(2)SCALE306; (1986)4SCC162; 1987(1)LC300(SC)
S. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat reversing the judgment of the Assistant Judge, Baroda and restoring the finding of the Charity Commissioner that a property known as Laxman Maharaj Math is a public trust and not the private property of the appellant herein. The property is also alternatively referred to as Ramji Mandir. It consists of two items viz. the main property known as Laxman Maharaj Math and its adjunct known as Nagarkhana on the other side of the road. As the Charity Commissioner has held that both the items form part and parcel of the Math and constitute a single unit we will refer to both the items under the common name of Laxman Maharaj Math.2. One Haribhat Maharaj is the propositus of the appellant, and his brothers. As per the genealogy table furnished by the appellant, he and his brothers are the descendents of Haribhat Maharaj in the fifth generation. Haribhat Maharaj (founder of the Math) | Ramakr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-13-1986
Reported in : AIR1986SC1060; 1986CriLJ848; 1986(2)Crimes353(SC); 1986(1)SCALE219; (1986)2SCC217
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. When judgment was pronounced in Civil Appeal No. 475 of 1976 (Captain Virendra Kumar v. Union of India), it was thought that an unhappy litigation had come to a happy ending. But it was not so. It appears that Civil Appeal No. 475 of 1976 was only a prelude to a long drawn out acrimonious and dogged litigation, both parties to which appeared to us to be blame-worthy. On the one hand, the matter appears to be viewed by the authorities as one of prestige, that is, false prestige and hurt-dignity. On the other hand, there is misplaced determination coupled with a sense of an emotional hurt on the side of the Captain.2. The approach of the authorities is illustrated by the following statement in the counter-affidavit filed on their behalf by Major S. Krishna, Officiating Military Secretary, Army Headquarters:It is respectfully submitted that the honour and prestige, the faith and trust of the Armed Forces is at stake and if it is lost, it cannot be regained irrespe...
Tag this Judgment!