Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961AP50
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. Two of the residents of Balakrishnapuram, Tiruitanj Taluk, which was till the 1st of April, 1930 a part of Chittoor District, question the vires of the Andhra Pradesh and Madras (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity). They seek a writ of mandamus to restrain the State of Andhra Pradesh from enforcing the provisions of the said Act.2. It is necessary to trace briefly the origin of the Act. On 1st October 1953, the Andhra State was formed under the Andhra State Act, 1953. At that time, the boundaries between the Andhra State and the State of Madras and Mysore were not finally settled and the Prime Minister of India announced that a Boundary Commission or Commissions might have to be appointed to determine the exact boundaries of these States. Pursuant to this, several steps were taken for adjusting the boundaries between Andhra and Madras States and a census of the various border villages was collected by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961AP390
Srinivasachari, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of our learned brother, Ansari, J. The facts relating to this appeal briefly are that one Bhumayya, son of Sambiah, was the owner oF house No. 489-16-B (new) known as 'Rukmini Vilas' situated in Mahubpura, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. The said Bhumiah executed a will on 23rd Isfanclar, 1349 Fasti (23rd January 1940), under which he bequeathed the house by dividing it into three portions giving away two portions to his sons, who are defendants 1 and 2 in the case, and one portion to his wife, Rukkamma.Three rooms on the ground floor and three rooms on the top floor, marked red in the plan annexed to the will, were given over to the wife, while two rooms on the first floor and three rooms on the ground-floor, marked yellow in the plan were given over to the sons. The further recital in the will is to the effect that the upstairs of the house and three rooms on the ground floor were in the occupation of Dr. Bopardikar with whom the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys81; ILR1960KAR766
M. Sadasivayya, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dated 14-11-1959 by the Election Tribunal, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Election Petition No. 258 of 1957 on its file. Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa as a candidate on behalf of the Lok Sevak Sangha and Shankaragouda Basan Gouda as a candidate on behalf of the Congress Party, contested for a seat in the Mysore Legislative Assembly from the Yelburga Constituency of Raichur District, Mysore State, in the last general election of 1957. Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa having polled only 14,500 votes, Shankargouda Basan Gouda was declared duly elected, he having polled 20,541 votes.Thereupon, Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Act alleging that because of the various corrupt practices committed by the respondent, his agent and persons interested in the respondent ...
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 : US Supreme Court
Locomotive Engineers v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. - 363 U.S. 528 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court Locomotive Engineers v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 363 U.S. 528 (1960) Locomotive Engineers v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. No. 165 Argued April 20, 1960 Decided June 20, 1960 363 U.S. 528 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus After changing from short-range steam locomotives to longer-range diesel locomotives, respondent railroads issued general orders doubling the length of their way-freight runs, thereby eliminating the jobs of two of their five-man way-freight crews and changing the home or away-from-home terminals of the remaining crews. After unsuccessfully invoking the services of the National Mediation Board, the unions representing the members of these crews called a strike. The railroads submitted the dispute to the National Railroad Adjustment Board and sued for injunctive relief. The District Court enjoined the strike p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)62BOMLR863
Mudholkar, J.1. The petitioner is the Central Provinces Transport Services (to which we shall hereinafter refer as CPTS) which is under the ownership of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Before the States Reorganisation Act came into force, the CPTS as well as the Provincial Transport Services (to which we shall hereinafter refer as PTS) were owned by the former Govern meat of Madhya Pradesh and operated in Madhya Pradesh State in their respective areas. After the reorganisation of the States the CPTS were allotted to the State of Madhya Pradesh and the PTS were allotted to the Government of the State of Bombay.2. Permit No. 31 of 1955 was issued in favour of the CPTS by the Regional Transport Authority, enabling them to ply their buses on the Nagpur-Ramtek road on bazar days. This permit was granted for three years on March 15, 1955. On January 10, 1958, the CPTS made an application for renewal of their permit to the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur. That application was granted o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker52
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The appellant is an Upper Division Clerk in the Public Works Department, whose Original Petition (No. 726 of 1959) for quashing Exts. P-3 and P-4 circular orders of the Government of' Travancore-Cochin hits been dismissed by the learned Judge before whom it came up for admission. The matter relates to fixation of the rank of the petitioner in the integrated gradation list of the ministerial staff of the Public Works Department.It appears that the rule in Travancore before the integration of the Travancore and Cochin States on 1-7-1949 was that junior clerks, who were promoted to higher grade by virtue of their test qualifications, will retain seniority over their former seniors who subsequently pass the tests and secure promotion. On 7-5-1951 the Government of Travancore-Cochin modified this rule to the effect that, if the senior got the test before the vacancy became permanent, he will be allowed to supersede the junior who got an officiating promotion earlier by v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1960Guj40; (1960)GLR82(GJ)
Desai, C.J.(1) The question of considerable importance and consequence that has to be decided by this Full Bench relates to the binding nature of the precedents of the Bombay High Court on this High Court. The question is whether the Gujarat High Court is bound by the decisions of the Bombay High Court delivered before 1-5-1960. The petition which gave rise to it came up for consideration before my brother Miabhoy and myself when in the course of the arguments at the bar the learned Advocate General relied on a decision of the High Court of Bombay. Learned counsel on the other side argued that this Court was not bound by a decision of the High Court of Bombay. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Andhra High Court, Subbarayudu v. State (S) AIR 1955 Andhra 87 decided by a Full Bench of that High Court. It was there held that the binding nature of the precedents of one Court on another depended upon the fact whether such Courts are Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction; and the Andh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker75
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J. 1. Two questions are raised in this Civil Revision Petition, one regarding the interpretation of an order, Ext. A3, as to whether it is an order appointing a receiver and the other regarding the appeal ability of an order refusing to remove a receiver. The trial court held that Ext. A3 was not an order appointing a receiver, but the order only allowed the petitioner herein to continue in possession of the properties on certain terms and in that view it dismissed the application filed by the respondent herein to remove the petitioner from receivership.The respondent herein filed an appeal before the lower appellate court, which reversed the decision of the trial court and directed the discharge of the receiver. The petitioner, who was respondent in the lower appellate court and who was directed to be removed from receivership, has filed the present Civil Revision Petition and, as I have already indicated, two contentions have been urged before me, one regarding th...
Tag this Judgment!