Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC845; [1960]3SCR250
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. In accordance with the directives issued by the Prima Ministers of India and Pakistan, on September 10, 1958, the Commonwealth Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and the Foreign Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth, Government of Pakistan, discussed 10 items of dispute between the two countries and signed a joint note recording their agreement in respect of the said disputes and submitted it to their respective Prima Ministers; and with a view to removing causes of tension and resolving border disputes and problems relating to Indo-Pakistan Border Areas and establishing peaceful conditions along those areas, the Prima Ministers, acting on behalf of their respective Governments, entered into an agreement settling some of the said disputes and problems in the manner set out in the said joint note. This agreement has been called the Indo-Pakistan Agreement and will be referred to hereafter as the Agreement. 2. In the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1080; [1960]3SCR887
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 443 of 1955 and 40-41 of 1956. Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P.L. Vohra, for the petitioners (In all the petitions). R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the State of Madras. K. V. Suryanarayana Iyer, Advocate-General for the State of Kerala and T. M. Sen, for the State of Kerala. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. R. Krishna Pillai, for respondents Nos. 2 to 9. Purshottam Trikamdas and M. B. Krishna Pillai, for respondent No. 12 (In Petn. Nos. 40-41 of 56). A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. R. Krishnaswami, for respondents Nos. 13 and 15-17 (In Petn. No. 443 of 55). K. B. Krishnaswami for respondents Nos. 11 and 14 (In all the petitions). Purshottam Trikamdas and K. R. Krishnaswami, for respondent No. 12 (In Petn. No. 443 of 55). A.V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. R. Krishna Pillai, for Intervener No. 1. Sar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1113; (1960)62BOMLR915; [1961]1SCR1
S.K. Das, J.1. This is an unfortunate case in which a complaint filed in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, on October 31, 1956, by one Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar, respondent herein, has to be finally disposed of in the year 1960 in circumstances which we shall state at once. On June 3, 1956, in the evening, a public meeting was held at a place called Chowpatty in Bombay which was to be addressed by the Prime Minister of India. The meeting was called in connection with an agitation which was then going on for the reorganisation of the State of Bombay. There was considerable disturbance at the meeting as a result whereof it had to be dispersed, and large crowds of people began to wander about in various localities around Chowpatty including an area round Charni Road Station. The case of the complaining respondent was that at about 8 p.m. his younger brother Sitaram was crossing Queen's Road near a building called Laud Mansion. At that time there was a large crowd on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC298; [1961]1SCR957
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The question of law which arises for our decision in this appeal is with the Kalambandis under which the appellant's right to receive Rs. 21/8/- per month by way of Bachat (balance) is guaranteed constitute an existing law within the meaning of Art. 372 of the Constitution. This question arises in this way. The appellant Madhaorao Phalke describes himself and an Ekkan and claims that as such Ekkan he and his ancestors have been receiving the monthly payment of Rs. 21/8/- from the State of Madhya Bharat. It appears that the appellant's ancestors had accompanied the Scindias to Gwalior from Maharashtra about 200 years ago, and had rendered military service in conquering the territory of Gwalior. In recognition of this service the appellant's ancestors were granted a fixed amount of money per month, and this amount has been received by the appellant's family for several generation past. The right to receive this amount has been recognised by the Rulers of Gwalior in s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC552; [1961]3SCR77
Sinha, C.J.1. In this batch of 22 petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners impugn the constitutionality of the Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Act, XV of 1955, as amended by the Travancore-Cochin Land Tax (Amendment) Act, X of 1957, which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act. The Act came into force on June 21, 1955, and the Amending Act on August 6, 1957. The petitioners are owners of forest areas in certain parts of the State of Kerala, which, before the reorganisation of States, formed part of the State of Madras. The respondents to the petitions are : (1) the State of Kerala and (2) the District Collector, Palghat : These petitions are based on allegations, which are, more or less, similar, and the following allegations made in Writ Petition No. 42 of 1958 may be taken as typical and an extreme case, which was placed before us in detail to bring into bold relief the full significance and effect of the legislation impugned in these cases. The petitioner in Petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC73; [1962]1SCR702
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, confirming the decree of the trial Judge dismissing the suit. It comes before us on a certificate under Arts. 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Rajasthan after the Reorganisation of the States. 2. The suit was filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 23,998-12-0 as price of goods supplied in the year 1947 to the Ruler of Jaipur State, (including interest) and damages suffered by the appellant due to the refusal of the defendants to take delivery of some other goods similarly ordered. In addition to the ex-Ruler of Jaipur, his Military Secretary and one Mohabat Singh, an employee of the ex-Ruler, were also joined as defendants, on the plea that they had placed the orders as agents of the ex-Ruler. The suit was filed on February 28, 1951. The ex-Ruler raised the plea that the suit was incompetent, as the consent of the Central Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1596; [1962]2SCR159
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal, with the special leave of this Court, against an order of Naik, J., of the High Court of Bombay in Civil Revision Application No. 320 of 1959, by which he disallowed certain pleas raised by the appellants. The respondent is the landlord. 2. On September 11, 1942, the appellants had executed a rent note, under which they were in occupation of the premises in dispute. The period of the tenancy was 15 years, and it expired by the efflux of time on March 14, 1957. The landlord thereupon filed a suit on April 25, 1957, for possession of the premises, in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Erandol. Meanwhile, under s. 6 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (to be called the Act, in this judgment), a notification was issued, applying Part II of the Act to the area where the property is situated. The appellants claimed protection of s. 12 in Part II of the Act, which deprived the landlord of the ri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC71; [1962]2SCR535
Ayyangar, J. 1. These two appeals are by special leave of this Court and arise out of orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing two writ petitions filed before it by the respective appellants in the two appeals. 2. On January 14, 1953, the Government of Madras issued a notification reading, to quote only the material words, 'in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 1(4) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948), read with s. 2 of the Madras Scheduled Areas Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1951 : 'The Governor of Madras hereby appoints the 4th of February 1953, as the date on which the provisions of the said Act......... shall come into force in the Estates in the Scheduled Areas of the West Godavari District which are specified in the schedule below :-' and the schedule set out inter alia : '1. Agency Area of Gangole 'A' Estate, consisting of............... 2. .............................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC145; [1962]2SCR794
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh, which stands substituted for the State of Vindhya Pradesh under the States Reorganisation, Act, 1956, and is directed against an order of the Judicial Commissioner, Rewa, by which he modified, on review, his judgment and decree in a civil suit filed by the respondents against the State of Vindhya Pradesh. The appeal has been filed on a certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner, Rewa. 2. The only question urged in this appeal is that the suit brought against the State of Vindhya Pradesh was defective, because the proper defendant was the Union of India. Since the question is one of law, it relieves us of the duty of narrating all the facts. Briefly stated, the suit was for damages valued at Rs. 1,00,000/- and for a permanent injunction against the State of Vindhya Pradesh. The suit was filed in the following circumstances : The respondents are bidi merchants, and for that purpose, had obtained on October 18, 195...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC276; 1985(5)LC2194(SC); [1962]3SCR338
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, raise the question whether a Customs Officer, either under the Land Customs Act, 1924 (Act XIX of 1924) or under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act VIII of 1878), is a police officer within the meaning of that expression in section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. Barkat Ram, respondent in this appeal, was the engine driver of 78 Down Train which reached Amritsar at about 4-15 P. M., on June 8, 1957. The train came from Pakistan. In consequence of information received with respect to the smuggling of gold by the engine crew, the Land Customs staff boarded the engine at Attari and other staff of the Department surrounded the engine on its arrival at Amritsar. The engine was searched and a quantity of gold was recovered, having been found lying concealed underneath the coal in the front part of the coal tender in the engine. The respondent was further interrogated at the Customs Station and, as a result of further search, another quantity ...
Tag this Judgment!