Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1961Raj143
I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a regular second appeal by the defendant State against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Udaipury dated the 5th November, 1957, in a suit for accounts.2. The facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows. The plaintiff Rao Manohar Singh of Bedla was a jagirdar in the former State of Mewar at all relevant times. That State was integrated in what may be called, for facility of reference, the first United State of Rajasthan in April, 1948. The last mentioned State was amalgamated with the former States of Jodhpur, Jaipur, Bikaner and Jaisalmer and the Matsya Union, as it then was, and the seconds United State of Rajasthan was formed in the middle of 1949.This last-mentioned State Was then formed-into the Part B State of Rajasthan with, the coming into effect of the Constitution on the 26th January, 1950, and is now represented by the present State of Rajasthan as it was formed under the States Reorganization Act, 1956 (No. X...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1961Guj7; (1960)GLR190
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners for an order that the petitioners be appointed guardians of the undivided share of the minor respondents in the property particularly described in Exhibit A to the petition and that the agreement of sale of the said property mentioned in the petition be sanctioned as being for the benefit of the minor respondents and that the petitioners as guardians be authorised to complete the sale on behalf of the minor respondents. The order is sought from this Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. When this petition was presented, I entertained some doubt as to whether this Court has inherent or general jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of the undivided share of a minor in a joint Hindu family and to sanction the sale on behalf of the minor. I, therefore, asked the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners to address full arguments to me on this point. Since the petition is at this stage ex parte, I requested...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant106; AIR1961Mys106
1. This appeal under the provisions of Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, which will hereafter he referred to as the Act, is presented by a returned candidate whose election to the House of the People was declared void by an Election Tribunal. 2. The notification of the President under Section 14 of the Act, calling upon the Parliamentaryconstituencies to elect members to the House or the People was promulgated on January 19, 1957. 3. The Parliamentary constituency with which we are concerned in this appeal was known as the Koppal Parliamentary constituency, in the district of Raichur. The area of that constituency was that which consisted of eight Assembly Constituencies. Three of those constituencies were in the district of Bellary and they were Shirguppa, Hospet and Hedagali. The five constituencies which were in the district of Raichur were Kushtagi, Sindhanoor, Gangavati, Koppal and Yelburga. 4. The election commenced on February 25, 1957, and continued till Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant10; AIR1962Mys10
K.S. Hegde, J.(1) To pronounce on the question of law debated before us, it is necessary to State the relevant facts. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted on 5-11-1950. The matter was taken up in second appeal to the Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad in S.A. 334/1951-52. It went up before a Division Bench consisting of Qamar Hasan and Manohar Pershad, JJ. The question that had to be considered by the Bench was one of fact. The learned Judges differed in their conclusions as to the correct conclusions to be arrived at and therefore referred the matter to a third Judge, but before the matter could be decided by the third Judge the States Reorganisation Act came into force and the area from which this litigation arose came within the jurisdiction of this High Court. Consequently the appeal was transferred to the file of this Court. (2) When the appeal was taken up for hearing by my learned brother Iqbal Hussian. J., the learned counsel for respondent contended that as...
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 : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker155; (1961)ILLJ68Ker
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This is a suit against the Union of India and the State of Travancore-Cochin instituted by an Ex-Military Officer for 'damage's and compensation for the wrongful termination of his employment' to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and other reliefs. The main defence in the case is that the plaintiff, as a member of the Armed Forces, held office during the pleasure of the President by virtue of Article 310 of the Constitution and as such is not entitled to maintain a suit based on a wrongful termination of his employment. If this contention is accepted, the suit has to fail in limine; and I am of the view that the defence contention has to be accented.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:--The plaintiff was a permanent employee of the rank of a Major in the State Forces of the erstwhile Travancore State when that State was integrated with the adjoining State of Cochin to form the State of Travancore-Cochin mentioned in Part B of the First Schedule to the Constituti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP205; 1961CriLJ114
Krishnan, J. 1. This is an appeal by Purushottam Vijay, Editor of the daily called 'Indore Samachar' from a conviction under Section 500 I. P. C. with a sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- with imprisonment in default for one month. The offending article was a longish editorial on the 3rd August 1955, entitled, 'This delay in the appointment of the I. G. Police,' charging the Government of Madhya Bharat and one of the Ministers, Shri Narsingh Rao Dikshit, of regionalism (Pradeshikata). The case, probably the first in the State of Madhya Bharat, lias been tried under the new Section 198-B of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sessions Judge, Indore.2. Actually two complaints were filed and were tried jointly; one in regard to the leading article of 3-8-1955; and the other in regard to a news-item published in the same pacer on the 30th July. However, the appellant has been acquitted of the charge relating to this latter item. In addition to this appeal, there is an application by the State f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1961KAR84; (1961)ILLJ479Kant
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The question, which has been referred to us for decision, shortly stated, arises as follows. 2. The petitioner was directly recruited as an upper division clerk. His first appointment was as junior assistant, Political Department. On 18 September 1943 he was transferred on deputation of the Rationing Department, which was a temporary department. In that department he rose up to the position of a Rationing Officer and was drawing a sum of Rs. 460. On 1 March, 1954 the Rationing Department which, as I said, was a temporary department, ceased to exist and the petitioner was thereupon reverted to his parent department. Instead of being reposted to the Political Department he was first posted to the Labour Department and then to the Public Works Department. The pay which was fixed on such reversion was Rs. 120. The petitioner's case is that when he went on deputation on 18 September, 1943 he was confirmed in the post of junior assistant on a pay of Rs. 120 in the gra...
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 : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1961)ILLJ569AP
ORDERP. Chandra Reddi, C.J.1. The petitioner seeks the removal of an order of dismissal passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on certiorari.2. The material facts giving rise to the writ petition are capable of a concise statement. The petitioner Joined the Hyderabad Revenue Service in 1940 and from 1948 onwards he had been holding the posts of the category of District Collector. In 1956, he was appointed the Deputy Secretary to Government in the Public Works Department, while so, on the basis of a report submitted by the X Branch, OLD., in respect of certain allegations of corruption and other misconduct, the Government of Andhra Pradesh referred the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings under Section 4 of the Hyderabad Public Servants (Tribunal of Inquiry) Act, 1950 (XXIII of 1950) (hereinafter will be referred to as the Act for convenience).2. As many as nineteen charges of corruption were framed against him by the Tribunal and the petitioner was called upon to fur...
Tag this Judgment!