Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC850; (1970)ILLJ633SC; [1968]2SCR186
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated April 29, 1964 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 371 of 1962. By its judgment the High Court held that the preparation of provisional gradation lists by the State of Madhya Pradesh under the relevant provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act 37 of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act', was unwarranted in law and the final list published on April 6, 1962 prepared by the State Government under instructions from the Central Government with regard to the integration of officers of the Engineering Department was illegal and ultra vires and must be quashed by the grant of a writ. 2. The said Act was enacted to provide for the reorganisation of the States of India and for matters connected therewith and came into force with effect from November 1, 1956. By s. 9(1) of the said Act there was formed a 'new State' to be known as the State of Madhya Pradesh compris...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC929; [1968]2SCR805
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the judgment and order, July 24, 1967, of the High Court of Mysore in Election Petition No. 10 of 1967. The High Court has set aside the election of Laxman Siddappa Naik, who is the appellant before us. The appellant had stood from Gokak constituency of the Mysore Legislative Assembly for a seat reserved for a member of the Scheduled Tribes specified in Part VIII para 2 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Five others had filed nomination papers. The nomination paper of one Kaushalya Devi was rejected by the Returning Officer and one Bhimgouda Mallagouda Patil withdrew from the contest within the time permitted by the Act. There were thus four contesting candidates. The result of the poll was as follows :- 1. Shri Laxman Siddappa Naik 175222. Shri Parasappa Hanmantha Karaing 70443. Shri Patel Shivangowd Malgowd 59964. Shri Kattimani Chandappa Jampanna 6202. The elect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC1344; [1968]3SCR433
Hidayatullah, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of a division Bench, October 20, 1967, in a Special Appeal (No. 864 of 1967) of the High Court of Allahabad affirming the dismissal of 61 writ petitions by a learned single Judge of the High Court. This appeal arises from one such petition. The appellant was elected Pramukh of Sarwan Khera Kshettra Samiti and his term of office which was co-terminus with the term of the Samiti, extended to five years. He challenges in this appeal, (as he did in the High Court), two Government notifications issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 (Act 33 of 1963). By these notifications the Government of Uttar Pradesh has redivided the rural area in the district to which the matter relates into new Khands specifying the limits and constituents of their areas and as a consequence has abolished a few khands and created new Khands in their place. The Khand relating to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1969CriLJ23; [1968]3SCR610
Bhargava, J. 1.The appellants, Iman Ali Jogesh Chandra Arjya, were convicted by the Court of Session for an offence punishable under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The facts found by the Court of Session for convicting the appellants were that, on the night between 11th and 12th May, 1962, between 1 and 2 a.m., the appellants, along with about 12 or 13 others, committed dacoity in the house of 1 Tenu Arjya. At the time of committing the dacoity the dacoits broke open the door of the house with the cross-bar of a plough. Four dacoits, including the two appellants, entered the house, while the remaining persons remained standing outside. As soon as the door was broken, Golapi, the wife of Tenu Arjya, was shot at with a gun by Iman Ali appellant, and then the other appellant Jogesh Chandra Arjya shot Tenu Arjya. Both Golapi and her husband Tenu Arjya fell down dead. Thereafter, the dacoits demanded money from Hari Charan Arjya, the son of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC239; (1969)GLR349(SC); [1969]1SCR580
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The only question that falls for decision in this appeal is whether on the basis of the notice issued by the Bombay State Electricity Board on January 8, 1959 under Section 7 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) prior to its amendment in 1959, the appellant can compulsorily purchase from the respondent his concern 'The Bilimora Electric Power Supply Co.'. In his application before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution the respondent challenged the vires of Section 7 of the Act. But that contention remains to be examined. The High Court has chosen to allow the petition solely on the ground that as the requirements of Section 7 have not been complied with, the appellant cannot compel the respondent to sell the undertaking. If we come to the conclusion that that conclusion is unsustainable then the matter will have to go back to the High Court for deciding the constitutionality of Section 7.2. The respondent was giv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC703; [1969]2SCR347
Hegde, J. 1. Though several questions of law were raised in this appeal by special leave, after hearing the Counsel for the parties on one of those questions, namely on what date Section 32(KK) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1955 (Act No. XIII of 1955) (to be hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) should be deemed to have come into force, we did not think it necessary to hear the Counsel for the parties on the other questions raised in the appeal.2. Before examining the question of law referred to hereinbefore it is necessary to set out the material facts.3. The second appellant is the son of the first appellant. The appellants alongwith Charanjit Singh and Darshan, the two other sons of the first appellant were members of a joint Hindu family. That family owned agricultural lands in the village Hathoa, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. The principal Act came into force on March 6, 1955. The preamble to that Act says that it is an Act to amend and consolidate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1742; [1969]2SCR544; [1970]25STC136(SC)
Hidayatullah, C.J. 1. These are 17 petitions challenging the validity of the Punjab General Sales Tax (Amendment and Vali-dation) Act, 1967 (Act No. 7 of 1967) by the Punjab Legislature and the Punjab Sales Tax (Haryana Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967. Thirteen of these petitions challenge the Punjab Amendment Act and four challenge the Haryana Amendment Act.2. The petitioners are firms or companies dealing in cotton or oil seeds. Their business is to purchase ginned and unginned cotton for manufacturing yarn and selling the said cotton also to registered and unregistered dealers both inside and outside the State. The petitioners of the second category purchase oil seeds for use in manufacture of edible oils. The surplus oil-seeds are sold to other dealers, registered or unregistered, inside and outside the State of Punjab. Both these commodities are essential commodities to which the Central Sales Tax Act applies. Certain provisions of these Amending Acts are challenged on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1334; [1971(21)FLR266]; (1970)IILLJ429SC; [1969]2SCR976
Shelat, J. 1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta setting aside the order of a Single Judge of that High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The facts relevant for this judgment may first be set out. The appellant company was at the relevant time carrying on business at various places in India including Calcutta as merchants, selling agents and manufacturers. Its registered office is at Madras. Its business at Calcutta was two fold : (1) as selling agents of certain companies, and (2) of conducting an engineering workshop at Kidderpore. According to the company its agency business began to decline from 1954 and it had, therefore, to retrench some of its employees in that year. The company consequently decided upon a policy of reorganising its business by giving accent to its manufacturing activities and of giving up the agencies held by it. In pursuance of the said policy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC597; (1969)1SCC20; [1969]2SCR997
Mitter, J.1. In the election petition out of which the present appeal arises, the main question canvassed was, whether the nomination paper of respondent No. 8 (appellant No. 2 before this Court) was wrongly rejected. It is admitted that if the rejection was wrong, the election cannot stand. 2. The petitioner challenged the election to the Lambi Assembly Constituency (reserved seat) in the district of Ferozepore. There were eight candidates, the first respondent being the returned candidate. The petition was filed by one of the unsuccessful candidate impleading the other seven candidates, and Kishan Lal whose nomination paper was rejected. According to the petitioner, Kishan Lal was a Hindu and being a Chamar by caste he belonged to a scheduled caste within the meaning of Paragraph 2, read with Part X of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, issued under Article 341 of the Constitution he had filed a declaration under Section 33(2) of the Representation of People Act, statin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC783; (1970)3SCC400; [1969]3SCR254
M. Hidayatullah, C.J.1. These are five writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution 'and three appeals against the decisions of the High Courts of Gujarat and Delhi. The writ petitions have been filed by Mr. Manikant Tiwari (W.P. No. 109/68), Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma (W.P. No. 234/68), Mr. Madhu Limaye (W.P. No. 402/68), Mr. Gulabshankar Amritlal Dholakia (W.P. No. 403/68) and Mr. Node Sadi Rau (W.P. No. 409/68). the appeals from the Delhi High Court's common judgment, 14 May, 1968 on certificate are by Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma (C.A. No. 2118/68) and Major Ranjit Singh (C.A. 1900/68) and the appeal from the decision of the Gujarat High Court is in a writ petition filed by Mr. Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel (C.A. No. 1528/68). The Gujarat High Court, 18 March, 1968, dismissed the petition summarily and the appeal is by special leave of this Court. This judgment will dispose of all of them.2. The several petitioners seek a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction...
Tag this Judgment!