Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-30-1969
Reported in : AIR1970P& H157
Mahajan, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted in order to resolve the conflict that has arisen in this Court, as to whether the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1962 (Act No. 14 of 1962) are retrospective or prospective? One set of decisions has given retrospec-tivity to all the provisions of this Act including Section 19-B; whereas the other set of decisions has merely given Section 19-B, as amended by this Act, a prospective effect.2. In Bhalle Ram v. State of Punjab, 1962-64 Pun LR 331, it was decided bv me that transfers made before the 30th of July, 1958, of the surplus area by a land-owner cannot be ignored vis-avis the transferee; and such transfer has to be taken into consideration, so far as the transferee is concerned, to find out whether the land with the transferee is inexcess of the permissible area after taking into consideration the land already held by him. In other words, after adding the land obtained by the trans...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-01-1969
Reported in : AIR1970P& H261
Mehar Singh, C.J.1. The facts of these two references, one in Civil Writ No. 1594 of 1966, Hardial Singh, Gurdial Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Harcharan Singh, petitioners v. The Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Settlement Officer, and Nanak Singh, respondents 1 to 4, and the other in Civil Writ No. 378 of 1969, Mohinder Singh and Gurdial Sinnh, petitioners v. State of Haryana, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Sadhu Singh and Gurcharan Singh, respondents 1 to 4, are as below.2. In the first case consolidation of holdings began in village Khandoor in the year 1964. In the scheme of consolidation a path was provided from village Khandoor to the land of Santa Singh, father of the petitioners, in the area of the adjoining village Chokhar along the land allotted in repartition to respondent 4. In an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-31-1969
Reported in : (1885)ILR7All79
Oldfield, J.1. In my opinion, the words 'at or before the first hearing' in Section 53 of the Civil Procedure Code are directory only, and allow of a discretion, of course to be properly exercised, of rejecting or amending a plaint after the first hearing.2. In Burjore v. Bhagana I.L.R. 10 Cal. 557 : L.R. 11 Ind. Ap. 7 the Privy Council ruled that the words in Section 602 of the Civil Procedure Code, directing that security for costs shall be given within a certain time specified in the section, are only directory, and that the Court has a discretion to extend the time, and this ruling was followed by the Full Bench of this Court in Fazul-un-nissa Begam v. Oxford I.L.R. 6 All. 250.3. The question raised in those cases is analogous to the one now before us, which was decided by the Bombay High Court in Modhe v. Dongre I.L.R. 5 Bom. 609 and I concur in the view of the law expressed by that Court.Straight, Offg. C.J., and Brodhurst and Duthoit, JJ.4. In our opinion the question referred t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-16-1969
Lear, Inc. v. Adkins - 395 U.S. 653 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 (1969) Lear, Inc. v. Adkins No. 56 Argued November 20-21, 1968 Decided June 16, 1969 395 U.S. 653 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Respondent, an engineer and inventor, was hired in 1952 by petitioner (Lear) to help solve gyroscope development problems. They had agreed that "new ideas, discoveries, inventions etc. related to . . . vertical gyros become the property of" respondent, and that the inventor would grant Lear a license as to all ideas he might develop "on a mutually satisfactory royalty basis." Shortly thereafter, respondent developed a method for improving gyros which Lear incorporated into its production process. In 1954, respondent filed a patent application covering these improvements and entered into licensing negotiations with Lear to establish a royalty rate. An agreement, concluded in 1955, provided that, if the "Patent Office refuses to i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-31-1969
United States v. Conway - 175 U.S. 60 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Conway, 175 U.S. 60 (1899) United States v. Conway No. 18 Argued and submitted January 12, 1899 Decided October 80, 1899 175 U.S. 60 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS Syllabus The Act of Congress of December 22, 1858, 11 Stat. 374, confirming a grant of pueblos to Indians, operated to release to the Indians all the title of the United States to the land covered by it as effectually as if it contained in terms a grant de novo, and such action of Congress is not subject to judicial review. Page 175 U. S. 61 The United States is a proper and necessary party to a suit brought in the Court of Private Land Claims for confirmation of a private land claim covering pueblos previously so granted to Indians, and can follow the litigation through all the courts that are given jurisdiction of the case. When a title to public land has been confirmed by Congress, it should be respected by the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-31-1969
Johnson v. Drew - 171 U.S. 93 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Johnson v. Drew, 171 U.S. 93 (1898) Johnson v. Drew, 171 U.S. 93 (1898) No. 239 Submitted April 28, 1898 Decided May 81, 1898 171 U.S. 93 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Syllabus The substantial rights of the defendant were not prejudiced by the ruling of the trial court sustaining the demurrer to the first equitable plea and refusing leave to file the second, and such ruling involved merely a question of state practice. The evidence in the case shows that the particular lots of land described in the declaration were not embraced in the Fort Brooke reservation when the patent was issued. A party cannot defend against a patent duly issued for land which is at the time a part of the public domain, subject to administration by the Page 171 U. S. 94 Land Department, and to disposal in the ordinary way, upon the ground that he was in actual possession of the land at the time of the issue of the patent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-11-1969
Reported in : AIR1970SC349; (1969)2SCC429; [1970]1SCR803
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of a division bench of the Punjab High Court decreeing the suit filed by the respondent for possession of certain land by preemption.2. The facts may be shortly stated: Santa Singh was the owner of some land in village Samadh Bhai, tehsil Moga. He died leaving a widow Smt. Sobhi. He also left a daughter Smt. Jai Kaur from his other wife. On February 3, 1958 Smt. Sobhi sold 73 kanals 14 marlas of land to the appellants, the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed being Rs. 8,000/-. Smt. Jai Kaur filed a suit for possession by pre-emption of the land which had been sold by Smt. Sobhi. According to her a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- only had been paid by the vendee. The trial court decreed the suit in May 1959 granting a decree for possession on payment of Rs. 6,500/- together with costs. The second Additional Judge to whom an appeal was taken dismissed it. In the High Court the learned Single Judge took the view t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-08-1969
Reported in : [1970]26STC108(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a partnership firm which carries on business of automobile engineers and of running a service station and a workshop at Lucknow in the firm name of M/s. Bajoria Halwasiya Service Station. On 12th March, 1968, the petitioner entered into a contract with the Deputy Director of Agriculture, U.P., to fabricate and supply two steel bus bodies on chassis to be supplied by the Deputy Director for a lump sum of Rs. 4,100 plus sales tax for each bus body. The bus bodies were to be manufactured in accordance with the specifications and with the materials specified in the memorandum of specifications annexed to the agreement. The bus bodies were also required to be fitted with certain accessories like number plates, reflectors, light and electric bells, water-proof tarpaulins etc. The contract was to be executed by a specified date and the payment was to be made to the petitioner after a certificate of f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-25-1969
Reported in : [1970]25STC332(AP)
Kumarayya, J.1. These two writ petitions, one filed by a registered association, the Madras Mica Association, Gudur, represented by V. Dasa ratha Rami Reddy and the other by a member of the said association, Dasaratha Rami Reddy, himself in his individual capacity calling in ques tion the legality, constitutionality and validity of the Amendment Act 26 of 1961, seek for issue of a writ of mandamus to the State Government, the Commercial Tax Officer, Nellore, and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gudur, directing them to forbear from giving effect to the provi sions of the Second Amendment Act (26 of 1961) read with Sections 7(b) and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act so far as they are applicable to the levy and collection of sales tax on mica and to refund the tax already collected under the said provisions.2. Curiously enough notwithstanding that a direction is sought against collection of tax and also for refund of the tax already collected, these petitions do not specif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-19-1969
Reported in : AIR1969SC1114; (1969)1SCC609; [1969]3SCR752
1. The parties in this appeal are the same as in Civil Appeal No. 286 of 1966 which we declared to have become infructuous because of the operation of Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Act. The judgment in that appeal was delivered by us on February 7, 1969. For the narration of facts in this appeal we have, however, referred to certain orders which were passed by the High Court from the sister appeal. The parties to this appeal as in the other appeal are Sukhram Singh and and Singh of the one part and Smt. Harbheji of the second part. These two parties have been fighting a long drawn litigation over khata No. 271 of village Shahgarh. Two separate proceedings took place before the Revenue Courts and reached this Court by way of special leave, one of which has been disposed of and the other is now before us. The points involved in this appeal are short but in view of the length of litigation a long narration is necessary.2. On March 10, 1954 Smt. Harbheji as bhumidar filed a ...
Tag this Judgment!