Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC375; 20(1954)CLT1(SC); [1954]1SCR1
Mukherjea, J.1. The six appeals arise out of as many applications, presented to the High Court of Orissa, under article 226 of the Constitution, by the properties of certain permanently settled estates within the State of Orissa, challenging the constitutional validity of the legislation known as the Orissa Estates Abolition Act of 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and praying for mandatory writs against the State Government restraining them from enforcing the provisions of the Acts so far as the estates owned by the petitioners are concerned. 2. The impugned Act was introduced in the Orissa State Legislature on the 17th of January, 1950 and was passed by it on the 28th September, 1951. It was reserved by the State Governor for consideration of the President and the President gave his assent on 23rd January, 1952. The Act thus receives the protection of articles 31(4) and 31A of the Constitution though it was not and could not be included in the list of statutes enumerated in the nin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1954Bom397; (1954)56BOMLR321; ILR1954Bom1278
Chagla, C.J.1. There are two petitions made under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging Sub-section (2) of Section 6, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as being 'ultra vires' of the Legislature and also challenging a notification issued by Government under that Sub-section. There is also a reference made to us by the Civil -Judge, junior Division, Kumta, who had a similar question to consider and who has taken the view that Sub-section (2) of Section 6 is 'ultra vires' and has made a reference under Section 113, Civil P. C. The learned judge has given a very able and carefully considered judgment and his judgment has been of considerable help to us.2. Section 6, Tenancy Act provides for the fixation of a maximum rent and the maximum rent which a landlord is entitled to recover may be fixed irrespective of any agreement, usage, decree or order of the Court or of any law, and Sub-section. (1) provides that the maximum rent payable by a tenant for the lease of any land s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC92; (1954)IMLJ314(SC); [1954]1SCR587
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This appeal raises issues of great public and private importance regarding the extent of protection which the Constitution of India accords to ownership of private property. 2. The first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) purchased the entire Touzi No. 341 of the 24-Parganas Collectorate at a revenue sale held on January 9, 1942. As such purchaser, the respondent acquired under section 37 of the Bengal Revenue Sales Act, 1859 (Central Act No. 11 of 1859) the right 'to avoid and annul all under-tenants and forthwith to eject all under-tenants' with certain exceptions which are not material here. In exercise of that right the respondent gave notices of ejectment and brought a suit in 1946 to evict certain under-tenants, including the second respondent herein, and to recover possession of lands. The suit was decreed against the second respondent who preferred an appeal to the District Judge, 24-Parganas, contending that his under-tenure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1954All608
Kidwai, J.1. The petitioner, referred to in these proceedings as the Rani is the widow of Thakur Jai Inder Bahadur Singh, late Taluqdar of Mahewa who died on 14-11-1349.2. on 1st July, 1923 Jai Inder Bahadur made a gift to the Rani of 8 villages assessed to a Government Revenue of Rs. 10,000/. Subsequently the Rani purchassed other properties also and was in possession of them till 11-5-1934 when the Court of Wards, U. P., assumed superintendence of her estate by virtue of declaration made by the Government under Section 8(1) (b) of the U. P. Court of Wards Act. When the new constitution of India came into operation, the Court of Wards was in possession and the Rani does not seem to have raised any legal objection to this continued possession, though after the death of her husband, she repeatedly petitioned the Government to release her estate on the ground that she could manage it herself.3. On 2-4-1952 a decision was pronounced by a Division Bench of this Court -- vide Mrs. A. Crackn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad1030
Ramaswami, J.1. These are two connected suits filed for a declaration that the assessments of sales-tax made on the plaintiffs are illegal and void.2. The facts are:- The plaintiffs Messrs. India Coffee and Tea Distributing Company Ltd., First Line Beach, Madras, are a firm of commission agents at Madras and other places. Their business consists of sales of tea in this State on behalf of the resident principals and foreign exports on behalf of non-resident principals. In these suits we are concerned only with the latter transactions, viz., foreign exports. The 'modus operand!' of the plaintiffs firm in regard to these foreign exports, is as follows: These commission agents have representatives at London and New York. These representatives enter into contracts with buyers for the supply of tea from particular tea estates and transmit their agreements to the commission agents. The buyers are enjoined to open invariably irrecoverable letters of credit with a bank at Madras. These commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1955Bom28; (1954)56BOMLR1062; ILR1955Bom127
Chagla, C.J.1. These are several petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Bombay Personal inams Abolition Act, 1952, being Act 42 of 1953. The 30 petitioners are inamdars of various inams and the exemption from land revenue in their case is below Rs. 5,000. In petition No. 404 of 1954 the exemption from land revenue in his case exceeds Rs. 5,000. Then there is one inferior holder who holds from the inamdar; that is petition No. 399; and in seven petitions NOS. 632, 846, 847, 921, 023 and 933 the petitioners are alienees from Inamdars and they have purchased the right to receive land revenue from inferior holders. There is one petition No. 1166 where the inamdar is the inamdar of wanta lands.2. Turning first to the Act which is challenged, it applies to inamdars, inam villages and personal inams, and we have the definition of an 'inamdar' in Section 2(1)(c) which defines an inamdar as a holder of a personal inam and includes any person lawfully holding under or through him. In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj291
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are 210 applications under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, (No. 6) of 1952 as amended by The Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs (Amendment) Act (No. 13) of 1954 (hereinafter to be referred together as the Act). We propose to deal with them by one judgment as the points raised in these cases are common.2. The cases may be divided into two broad groups. The first group consists of what may be called ordinary jagirdari cases. The rights of the applicants in these cases arise from grants by the Rulers of the covenanting States. The second group of cases are Bhomichara and Bhomat cases, and it is said that the rights of the applicants in these cases did not arise out of any grant by the Rulers.3. We do not think it necessary to set out the allegations in the various applications in detail. It would, in our opinion, be enough to indicate the points on the basis of which th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad1; 1955CriLJ1
Mack J. 1. As Special Industrial Tribunal appointed by the Government of Madras, I adjudicated, while a sitting Judge of this Court, the disputes between the managements and workers of malgamation Ltd. Madras, in their eleven concerns including 'The Mail', Madras. My award, which may be marked as Ex. P. 1, was pronounced on 8-2-1954 and notified in the Port St. George Gazette on 12-2-1954. It was passed substantially on an agreement signed by Mr. Ladden, Chairman of Amalgamations Ltd., and Sri R. Venkataraman, President of the Simpson and Group Companies Workers' Union, by which they settled all their differences in controversy, but left it to me to decide all matters of punishment for misconduct and reinstatement agreeing to accept my decision as anal. I found it necessary to go into the origin and the history of these disputes in my award. In 'The Mail' of the 5th of April, in the leading editorial with the caption 'He is Right' there appeared the following extract as regards which I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1955Cal319
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This summons raises a point of universal importance to the litigant public and the profession of solicitors in India. The cardinal question on this application is how far, if at all, an attorney's private agreement with client to charge higher fees and remuneration than those obtainable under the Rules of this High Court can prevail. The clear issue in this application is whether such a private agreement supersedes the scale of fees permitted by the High Court. In short the point is if such private agreement gives the attorney immunity from taxation of his fees according to the Rules of this Court. The attorney in this case has charged and obtained from his client fees amounting to Rs. 1,73,033-6-0 under an alleged private agreement. The client considers such fees to be excessive or exorbitant and wants them to be taxed according to the scale laid down by the High Court. The attorney resists on the ground of this private agreement, and claims by virtue thereof...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad100; 1955CriLJ452
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. These are two connected Revision Cases filed against the convictions and sentences of the learned 4th Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras in C. C. Nos. 7937 and 7941 of1953. The convicted person in C. C. No. 7937 of 1953 is B. N. Ramakrishna Naidu who was accused 2 therein and his Revision Case is No. 343 of 1954 and the convicted person in the other case, is Viswanathan Chetti whose Revision Case is 344 of1954. E. N. Ramakrishna Naidu has been fined Rs. 100/- and Viswanathan Chetti has been fined Rs. 50/- and the sandalwood billets in both the cases have been ordered to be confiscated to the Government. The convictions were under Section 65, City Police Act. 2. The short facts are: There were frequent thefts of sandalwood logs in the Government Forest in Chittoor and the adjoining Tirumalai Devasthanam forest. These thefts were taking place between May 1952 and November 1852. The Tirumalai Tirupathi Devasthanam had complained of these thefts to the Tirumal...
Tag this Judgment!