Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR1210
Tambe, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1951) by one Ramdayal Ayodhyaprasad Gupta, a defeated candidate at the election held on January 24, 1958, for electing five members to the Legislative Council of the State of Bombay from the Vidarbha Local Authorities' Constituency.' The questions raised in this appeal relate to the scope and ambit of expressions 'Municipality' and 'Janapada Sabha (Rural Circle)' appearing in the Fourth Schedule of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1950).2. Article 171 of the Constitution relates to the composition of the Legislative Council. It provides that the Legislative Council of a State shall consist of members elected from certain electorates referred to in Sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Clause (3) of this article and of certain nominated members as provided in Sub-clause (e) of the said Clause (3). We are here concerned with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant253; AIR1959Mys253; ILR1959KAR1
1. This second appeal raises a small but very important point of law. It relates to the interpretation of the expression 'time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree' as mentioned in Sub-section 2 of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The suit in this case was No. 121/1 of 1951-52 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gulbarga. The Judgment in that suit was delivered on 30-9-54 but the decree was actually signed as late as on 21-12-54. The appeal No. 37/4/56 was filed in the District Court of Gulbarga on .23-12-54. A preliminary objection having been raised that the appeal was barred under Art, 152 of the Limitation Act, the same was upheld by the learned District Judge and it was dismissed on 28-3-57. It is against this that the present appeal has been filed.2. According to the learned District Judge, tho period of 30 days under Article 152 of the Limitation Act has to be counted from the date of the decree which means the date of the judgment ) i.e., 80-9-54. That is how the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1959Raj149
Dave, J. 1. This case comes on a reference made by learned Judges of a Division Bench of this Court in a first appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Kishangarh, dated the 14th of August, 1951 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for Rs. 9,500/37- with future interest at 6 per cent and costs.2. The said reference is embodied in the following terms:'Whether advantage can be taken under Section 15 OB the Kishangarh State Limitation Act, corresponding to Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, of the pendency of a suit in the courts of the erstwhile territory of the Ajmer-Merwara, in subsequent suit in Kishangarh Court in view of the accession of Kishangarh State to the Dominion of India and thereafter its becoming a part of the Union of India, and specially the merger of the erstwhile State of Ajmer with Rajas-than under the States Reorganization Act, 1956?'3. In order to appreciate the full implication of the question raised before us, it would be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP84
Bhutt, C.J. 1. This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter called the Act), has been filed by Naunihalsingh, an elector, whose petition challenging the election of Kishorilal Paliwal, respondent 1, and Nabha, respondent 2, to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Gadarwara Double Member Constituency, for the general and reserved seat respectively, was dismissed by the Election Tribunal, Hoshangabad. The returned candidates have filed a cross-objection for costs. 2. Kishorilal Paliwal and Nabha, respondents 1 and 2, were set up as candidates for the election by the Congress party for the general and reserved seat respectively of the Gadarwara Double Member Constituency. Niranjansingh, respondent 3, and Gokul, respondent 4, were likewise set up for election to the general and reserved seat respectively, by the Praja Socialist Party, Ramgulam, respondent 5, and Ramchand Paliwal, respondent 6, were independent candidates for the general...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1959P& H440
S.S. Dulat, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the validity of certain proceedings-started against the petitioners under the Patiala Recovery of State Dues Act (No. IV of 2002 Bk.). The proceedings are for the recovery of a large sum of money mentioned as Rs. 4,98,589/1/6 due from the petitioners to the Patiala State Bank. Similar proceedings for the recovery of a much smaller sum of money said to be Rs. 25,691/- have also been separately started against the petitioners, and' another similar writ petition (Civil Writ 389 of 1958) has been filed to challenge those proceedings. The grounds in support of both the petitions are identical and it is convenient to deal with them together.2. The petitioners are a joint Hindu family firm styled Messrs. Tilakram Rambaksh of Lehragaga. They admittedly had dealings with the Patiala State Bank and there was a transaction of a loan between the parties on 23-5-1953 out of which the present claim has arisen.3. The Pati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker67a; (1959)IILLJ610Ker
M.S. Menon, J. 1. These petitions wore heard together. They challenge the validity of a notification of the Government of Kerala dated 26-2-1958 under Section 3(1)(a)of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act XI of 1948). That notification was published in the Kerala Gazette on 4-3-1958 and (omitting the schedule thereto) reads as follows :'In exorcise of the powers conferred by cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act XI of 1948) Government are hereby pleased to fix the minimum rotes of wages payable to the employees in Agricultural Operations in the territories referred to in Section 5(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Central Act XXXVII of 1956) as Malabar District, the same having been previously published as required by cl. (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act. This notification shall come into force with effect from the date of this notification.' 2. The territories which constitute the Main-bar District in the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant26; AIR1961Mys26
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner before us was appointed as a probationary Assistant Engineer by the erstwhile State of Hyderabad in the year 1926. In June 1949, he was posted as Executive Engineer for the Bandsura Project Division in that State. In that division, he was in charge of a project known as the Khasapur Project.2. In 1951, the petitioner was called upon by the Government of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad to explain some irregularities said to have been committed by him while he was in charge of that project. On 16-3-1955 he was asked by a notice to show cause why action should not be taken in regard to four charges which had been framed against him.3. In 1956, after an enquiry was held into that matter, charges 1 and 2 were dropped. In respect of the third charge, the petitioner was exonerated but the fourth charge was held to have been proved and it was decided by the Government of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker96
ORDERN. Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution complaining against the acquisition by Government under the Land Acquisition Act, of 6 cents out of S. No. 56/2 in Badagara amsom in Kurumbranad Taluk belonging in jenm to the Kovilakarn of Kadathanat Valia Raja and outstanding on kanom Kuzhikanam with the petitioner.2. It appeared that Kannan, a Harijan was living in a hut inside the plot proposed to be acquired as lessee under the petitioner and on account of continuous non-payment of rent, proceedings by way of eviction had been taken against him on 11-8-1955. And because he still continued to occupy the premises, proceedings for trespass were started against him by the Police and he had to furnish security for good behaviour. Soon later the question of housing him was taken up by the Madras Government on the motion of the Director of Harijan Welfare and the decision was then taken of acquiring the plot here at Government expense, for the purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP353
Shrivastava, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the petitioner seeks a writ against the non-applicants to compel them to complete the election to the office of the President Municipal Committee, Katni, District Jabalpur. 2. The Collector Jabalpur had published a programme of election to the Municipality of Katni according to which the nomination papers had to be filed by 12-5-1958 and the polling was to take place on 13-6-1958. The petitioner filed his nomination paper for contesting the office of President on 5-5-1958. Section 18 of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Municipalities Act) provided for the election of the President directly by all the voters. It was, however, amended by the Madhya Pra-desh Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1958 (Act No. 14 of 1958) which came into force on 5-5-1958. By this amendment the President is now to be elected by the members of the Committee. Section 7 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1959)2MLJ479
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. The two Second Appeals were referred to the Bench by Ramaswami, J., and the Civil Revision Petition was referred by Ramachandra Iyer J. in view of the conflict between the decisions in Kishanlal Roopchand and Co. v. Indian Dominion (1955) 1 M.L.J. 79 and The Governor-General in Council v. Ajit Bhai Jayantilal (1952) 2 M.L.J. 24. In the former case, Mack, J., took the view that in a case where a particular consignment of goods was carried over more than one railway, each railway administration should be treated as a separate entity and a separate juristic personality, and, though all the railways concerned were owned by the Government, a separate notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act should be given to each railway administration on the pain of the plaintiff failing to recover any compensation for loss of goods. In the other case, Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., took the view that, in the case of loss of a consignment carried over two Government railways, n...
Tag this Judgment!