Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1960Mad58
(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 inKishanlal Roopchand and Co. v. Indian Dominion, , and the Governor General in Council v. Ajit Bhai Jayantilal, . 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 action notice under Sec. 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, notice under Sec. 77 given to one such railway which en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP455; 1960CriLJ1184
Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Court of the Additional Munsif and First Class Magistrate, Secunderabad dated the 27th March 1958, made in Criminal Case No. 460/3 of 1957, finding the accused not guilty of charges under Section 86(2) of the Em-ployees's State Insurance Act, 1948 and ordering dismissal of the complaint made by the complainant in the case.2 The complaint in this case was preferred by one Insurance Inspector, Aziz Qureshi, on behalf of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation at Secunderabad, against one Bade Saheb as the principal employer of Shivaji Press carrying on business at Secunderabad. The complaint was filed, under Section 86(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act of 1948.3 The learned Additional Munsif and First Class Magistrate, Secunderabad, held that the Inspector Aziz Qureshi is only authorised under Ex. P-1 to represent the corporation in all cases falling within the jurisdiction of Mahabubnagar, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Barenblatt v. United States - 360 U.S. 109 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959) Barenblatt v. United States No. 35 Argued November 18, 1958 Decided June 8, 1959 360 U.S. 109 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus Summoned to testify before a Subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities, which was investigating alleged Communist infiltration into the field of education, petitioner, formerly a graduate student and teaching fellow at the University of Michigan, refused to answer questions as to whether he was then or had ever been a member of the Communist Party. He disclaimed reliance upon the privilege against self-incrimination, but objected generally to the right of the Subcommittee to inquire into his "political" and "religious" beliefs or any "other personal or private affairs" or "associational activities" upon grounds set forth in a previous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Greene v. McElroy - 360 U.S. 474 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 (1959) Greene v. McElroy No. 180 Argued April 1, 1959 Decided June 29, 1959 360 U.S. 474 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner, an aeronautical engineer, was general manager of a private corporation engaged in developing and producing for the Armed Forces goods involving military secrets, under contracts requiring the corporation to exclude from its premises persons not having security clearances. Under regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Defense without explicit authorization by either the President or Congress, and after administrative hearings in which he was denied access to much of the information adverse to him and any opportunity to confront or cross-examine witnesses against him, petitioner was deprived of his security clearance on the grounds of alleged Communistic associations and sympathies. As a co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant220; AIR1960Mys220; ILR1959KAR523
(1) This is a second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Extra Assistant Judge of Dharwar dated 27-12-1954 in appeal No. 677 of 1955 reversing the decree in Original Suit No. 68 of 1951 on the file of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Gadag.(2) The plaintiff who is the appellant in this appeal sued for recovery of money of Rs. 930/- inclusive of interest on the basis of a pronote dated 29-9-47 said to have been executed by one Davalsab the deceased for a sum of Rs. 400/-. He further pleaded that the said Davalsab paid an amount of Rs. 200/- towards interest on 9th August, 1950 which was endorsed on the pronote under his signature. The defendant Davalsab died within three days of the institution of the suit and his widow and minor children were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased.In their written statements while admitting the execution of the pronote they inter alia contended that Davalsab did not make any payment on 9th August, 1950 n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant37; AIR1961Mys37; ILR1959KAR829; (1960)IILLJ574Kant
ORDERA.R. Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner is a Deputy Chief Engineer in the service of the State of Mysore. On 25 March 1959, the Government of Mysore placed him under suspension pending enquiry into four charges framed against him. In this writ petition, the petitioner asks that that order should be quashed. 2. The impugned order was made in the following circumstances. 3. The petitioner entered the service of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad in the year 1926, as a Probationary Assistant Engineer. In June 1949 by which time he had become an Executive Engineer, he was in charge of a project known as the Khasapur Project in the Bandsura Project Division of that State. In June 1951 he was called upon to explain some irregularities stated have been committed by him in the performance of his official duties. On 16 March 1955, a notice was issued to him to show cause why he should not be proceeded against in respect of four charges which were enumerated in the enclosure to that notice. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960HP1
T. Ramabhadaran, J.C.1. This appeal, by a plaintiff, arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 32,726/-/-, representing the balance due to him (the plaintiff) from defendants 1 and 2 (Sansar Chand and Hari Chand) on account of the sale of the right to levy octroi at Chamba for 2005 B. The remaining defendants stood sureties for defendants 1 and 2 and were accordingly impleaded in the suit. After a protracted trial, the suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Chamba on 31-8-1957. Hence, this appeal.2. When this appeal came up for hearing at Chamba on the 9th ultimo, three preliminary objections were raised by the learned counsel for the respondents to its competency. (A) The memorandum of appeal was not properly signed or presented, since Shri L.N. Sethi was not the Government Advocate of Chamba at the relevant period. (B) Talbana had not yet been paid. (C) The appeal was time-barred because when it was presented to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR1638
Kotval, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the then High Court of Judicature at Nagpur upon leave granted by Mr. Justice P.P. Deo. The appeal comes before this Court pursuant to a certificate issued by the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 59 of the States Reorganization Act.2. The subject-matter in dispute in appeal is a field, survey No. 23, area 29 acres 25 gunthas, situated in the village Walki, tahsil and district Amravati. This field belonged to the respondent Dharamchand who is a resident of Calcutta. The appellant Gangaram was at all material times the working patwari of the village Walki. Under Section 140 of the Berar Land Revenue Code, the Deputy Commissioner, Amravati, having certified that the respondent was in arrears of land revenue amounting to Rs. 58-15-3 in respect of the year 1940-41, the said field was put to auction by the revenue authorities on April 24, 1941, at Badnera. At the auction the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1960Cal637,64CWN458
Bachawat, J.1. The appeal No. 129 of 1958 is from an order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The appeal Mo. 130 of 1958 is from an order confirming reduction of capital. Both these orders were passed by Bose, J. The two appeals have been heard together. This judgment is intended to cover both the appeals.2. The respondent company is a public company limited by shares. It was incorporated in 1945 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The appellant holds 2000 preference shares in the share capital of the company. The authorised share capital of the company is Rs. 50,00,000/- divided into 3,75,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10/- each, 10,000 5 per cent cumulative participating preference shares of Rs. 100/- each and 50,000 deferred shares of Rs. 5/- each. The memorandum of the company states that shares have the rights, privileges and conditions attached thereto as are provided by the regulations of the company for the time being with pow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP130
ORDERShiv Dayal, J.1. This revision raises an interesting point. The question is whether the Rules made by the High Court at Nagpur in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'The Code') and which were in force in the former State of Madhya Pradesh as it existed before the Reorganization of States on 1-11-1956, are enforceable in that territory of the new Madhya Pradesh which upto 31-10-1950 was called the Part B State of Madhya Bharat.2. The material facts are these. In execution of a decree against Kailash Chandm (judgment-debtor), Akabai (decree-holder) got his house attached. Munnilal and others filed an objection petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 13-3-1959. Without deciding that petition, the executing Court fixed 1-7-1959, for the sale of the house. The objectors then filed an application on May 8, 1959 praying that the sale be stayed until the disposal of their objection petition. The e...
Tag this Judgment!