Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1406; [1963]1SCR491
S.K. Das, J.1. These are three consolidated appeals which arise from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court dated August, 9, 1957. They have been preferred to this Court on the strength of a certificate granted by the said High Court under Art. 132 of the Constitution certifying that the cases involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Art. 301 and other connected articles relating to trade, commerce and intercourse within the territory of India, contained in Part XIII of the Constitution. These appeals were originally heard by a Bench of five Judges and on April 4, 1961, that Bench recorded an order to the effect that having regard to the importance of the constitutional issues involved and the views expressed in the decision of this Court in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. The State of Assam : [1961]1SCR809 , the appeals should be heard by a larger Bench. The appeals were then placed before the learned Chief Justice for necessary orders, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1047; [1963]Supp2SCR691
Gajendragadkar, J.1. In challenging the validity of the Orissa Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1961 (No. 28 of 1961) (hereinafter called the Act), this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution raises an important question about the scope and effect of the provisions of Art. 19(6). The petitioner Akadasi Pradhan owns about 130 acres of land in village Bettagada, Sub-division Rairakhel in the District of Sambalpur, and in about 80 acres of the said land he grows Kendu leaves. Kendu leaves are used in the manufacture of Bidis; and so, prior to 1961, the petitioner used to carry on extensive trade in the sale of Kendu leaves by transporting them to various places in and outside the District of Sambalpur. But since the Act was passed in 1961 and it came into force on the 3rd of January, 1962, the State has acquired a monopoly in the trade of Kendu leaves, and that has put severe restrictions on the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g). That, in substan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC381; 1964CriLJ217; [1964]4SCR797
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1963. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 26, 1963, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Mis. No. 186 of 1963. Criminal Appeals Nos. 86 to 93 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 21, 1963 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 155, 102, 108, 105, 104, 101 and 107 of 1963 and judgment and order dated February 1963 of the same High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 99 of 1963. Criminal Appeals Nos. 109 to 111 of 1963. Appeals from the judgment and order dated May 31, 1963 of the Maharashtra High Court in Criminal Applications Nos. 217, 218 and 114 of 1963. Criminal Appeals Nos. 114 to 126 of 1963. Appeals from the judgment and order dated May 31, 1963 of the Maharashtra High Court in Criminal Applications Nos. 271, 265, 270, 267, 219, 220, 269, 264, 263, 266 and 273 of 1963. Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1643; 1967(0)BLJR818; [1967]2SCR762
Subbarao, C.J.1. These three writ petitions raise the important question of the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. 2. Writ Petition No. 153 of 1966, is filed by the petitioners therein against the State of Punjab and the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The petitioners are the son, daughter and grand-daughters of one Henry Golak Nath, who died on July 30, 1953. The Financial Commissioner, in revision against the order made by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, held by an order dated January 22, 1962 that an area of 418 standard acres and 9 1/4 units was surplus in the hands of the petitioners under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act X of 1953, read with s. 10-B thereof. The petitioners, alleging that the relevant provisions of the said Act whereunder the said area was declared surplus were void on the ground that they infringed their rights under cls. (f) and (g) of Art. 19 and Art. 14 of the Constitution, filed a writ in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC564; [1970]40CompCas325(SC); (1970)1SCC248; [1970]3SCR530
J.C. Shah, J.1. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper--hereinafter called 'the petitioner'--holds shares in the Central Bank of India Ltd., the Bank of Baroda Ltd., the Union Bank of India Ltd., and the Bank of India Ltd., and has accounts--current and fixed deposit --with those Banks : he is also a director of the Central Bank of India Ltd. By these petitions he claims a declaration that the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance 8 of 1969 promulgated on July 19, 1969, and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969 which replaced the Ordinance with certain modifications impair his rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution, and are on that account invalid.2. In India there was till 1949 no comprehensive legislation governing banking business and banking institutions. The Central Legislature enacted the Banking Companies Act 10 of 1949 (later called 'The Banking Regulation Act') to consolidate and amend the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC481; (1970)2SCC780; [1971]2SCR446
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 491 of 1969. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.R.K. Garg, D. P. Singh, S. C. Agrawala, R. K. Jain, V. J. Francis and S. Chakravarti, for the petitioner. Niren De, Attorney-General, Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor- General, J. M. Mukhi, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatulla, C.J. This petition seeks a declaration against the Union of India and the Chairman Central Board of Film Censors, that the provisions of Part 11 of the Cinematograph Act 1952 together with the rules prescribed by the Central Government, February 6, 1960, in the purported exercise of its powers under S. 5-B of the Act are unconstitutional and void. As a consequence the petitioner asks for a writ of mandamus Or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the direction contained in a letter (Annexure X) dated July 3, 1969 for deletion of certain sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC530; (1971)1SCC85; [1971]3SCR9
ORDERIn exercise of the power vested in him under Article 366(22) of the Constitution, the President hereby directs that with effect from the date of this Order His Highness Maharajdhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur do cease to be recognised as the Ruler of Gwalior. align='right'>By order and in the name of the President.Sd./-L. P. SINGHSecretary to the Government of India2. All these orders were notified together in the Gazette of India of September 19, 1970, Part II. They resulted in the forthwith stoppage of the Privy Purses received by the Rulers and the discontinuance of their personal privileges.3. These writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were filed by some of the Rulers as test cases to question the orders. They ask for a writ, direction or order, declaring the Presidential Order to be unconstitutional, mala fide, ultra vires and void, and for quashing it, a writ, direction or order declaring that the several petitioners continue to be Rulers and thus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2258; 1975(0)BLJR242; [1973]90ITR97(SC); (1974)3SCC126; [1973]3SCR973
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This appeal on certificate is directed against the judgment of Patna High Court whereby that court answered the following three questions referred to it under Section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (Act No. 27 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the assessee :(1) Whether in computing the market value of the shares the assessee is entitled to the deduction of a sum of Rs. 2,30,546 by way of brokerage commission; (2) Whether on a true construction of Section 5(1)(viii) and 5(1)(xv) of the Wealth Tax Act, the assessee is entitled to the exclusion of the value of jewellery amounting to Rs. 27,27,330 from the computation of his total wealth?(3) Whether any part of the amount of Rs. 36,87,419 fixed as compensation payable to the assessee under the Bihar Land Reforms Act is liable for inclusion in the total wealth of the assessee?2. The assessee was former Maharajadhiraja of Darbhanga. The matter relates to the assessment year 1957-58, the relevant valuatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1461; (1973)4SCC225; [1973]SuppSCR1
1. I propose to divide my judgment into eight parts. Part I will deal with Introduction; Part II with interpretation of Golakhnath case; Part III with the interpretation of the original Article 368, as it existed prior to its amendment; Part IV with the validity of the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act; Part V with the validity of Section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VI with the validity of Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VII with Constitution (Twenty- ninth Amendment) Act; and Part VIII with conclusions.PART I-Introduction2. All the six writ petitions involve common questions as to the validity of the Twenty- fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth Amendments of the Constitution. I may give a few facts in Writ petition No. 135 of 1970 to show how the question arises in this petition. Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 was filed by the petitioner on March 21, 1970 under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1975)3SCC475
ORDERJaganmohan Reddy, J.1. learned Counsel for the parties have reported that the parties have entered into settlement. It has been agreed that the plaintiff-respondents would be entitled, out of the lands in dispute, to the lands comprised in items Nos. 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and land measuring 2.71 acres out of 3.71 acres comprised in item No 9, of the properties set out in the Schedule to the plaint in O.S. No. 29 of 1960. The plaintiff respondents would deliver possession of one acre of land out of item No. 9 In addition to that the plaintiff-respondents would handover possession of the lands comprised in items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 10 to the defendants-appellants. Out of the amount deposited by the plaintiff-respondents in the trial court, the defendants-appellants would be entitled to withdraw Rs. 4,500/-. No party would have any claim for mesne profits against the other till the date of this order. The plaintiff respondents would handover possession of the land which is now b...
Tag this Judgment!