Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC438; (1960)62BOMLR244; [1960]2SCR393
S.K. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from a decision of the High Court of Bombay, dated January 31, 1955, by which it dismissed with costs a writ application (No. 1100 of 1954) made by the petitioners therein, who are now appellants before us. It raises for consideration and decision a land revenue problem of some complexity, which resulted from the enactment of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, (Bombay Act LXII of 1949), hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act. The problem is if the appellants, holders of certain lands known as 'Lal-liti' lands, are liable to the State Government concerned for payment of land revenue under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (Bombay Act V of 1879), hereinafter referred to as the Revenue Code, after the enforcement of the provisions of the Abolition Act. 2. The problem has to be considered in the light of certain incidents of taluqdari tenures in the Ahmedabad district of Gujrat, with special reference...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant247; AIR1961Mys247
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. Respondents 3 and 4 who were Excise Assistant Inspectors in the service of the new State of Mysore were promoted as Excise Inspectors in December, 1958. The petitioner who is an Excise Assistant Inspector of that State seeks their removal by quo-warrantor from their posts and his own appointment by mandamus to one of them. He applies for a further direction that, after his appointment in that way, he should be placed, in the list of seniority, above respondent 5, who, although appointed as Excise Inspector in December, 1957, is, according to him, is junior in the service of the State.2. The dates on which these four persons entered the service of the former State of Mysore and those on which they were promoted as Excise Assistant Inspectors arc set out in the following tabular statement:--NameRank inthe provisional Inter-State Seniority list.Date of employment. Date ofpromotion as Excise Assistant InspectorRudraradhya(Petitioner)1213-7-194514-9-1949Chikkarangiah(Res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker335; 1960CriLJ1455
Ansari, J. 1. This petition seeks to vacate the conviction and sentence under Section 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act, which the District Magistrate, Ernakulam, had passed against the accused, and which has with slight modification been sustained by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner and his wife were travelling from Colombo by the Italian Steamer 'M. V. Australia,' which they had boarded on October 4, 1958, and the tickets show the port of their disembarkation to be Genoa.A Voiles-Wagon car was also being carried in the same boat as part of the petitioner's luggage, and had been used by him while he and his wife stayed in Ceylon on their honeymoon. It had been booked through the Automobile Agency, Colombo, for disembarkation at Genoa. The ship that started from Colombo on December 4, 1958, called at the Port of Cochin on December 5, 1958 and on its arrival, the Customs Inspector, Pw. 1, who had some information, went on board, and interrogated the petitioner and his wife to ascertain ...
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 : AIR1961SC156; [1961]1SCR259
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The Associated Hotels of India Ltd., and its Managing Director Mohan Singh Oberoi (hereafter called appellants 1 and 2 respectively) had filed an application in the High Court of Punjab under O. 45, r. 15 of the Civil Procedure Code for executing a decree passed by the Federal Court of Pakistan in favour of appellant 2 and against Jodha Mal Kuthalia (hereafter called the respondent). The said application was dismissed but, on an application made by the appellants under Art. 133(1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution, the said High Court granted a certificate to the appellants and it is with the said certificate that they have preferred the present appeal before this Court. 2. It is necessary at the outset to state the material facts leading to the appellants' application before the High Court under O. 45, r. 15. It appears that by an agreement dated October 2, 1947, the respondent had agreed to sell to the appellants certain property known as Nedous Hotel at Lahore for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1961Mad450
1. By a notification dated 22-6-1960 and bearing S. R. O. No. A. 4436 of 1960 issued in the Public Department, the Government of Madras appointed Mr. Alagiriswami, to be Government Pleader with effect from 1-7-1960 on his retirement from the Madras State Higher Judicial Service". In the present petition the validity of this appointment is questioned.2. Mr. Alagiriswami, the first respondent, was enrolled as an advocate of this Court on 16-3-1936. Some five and the three-quarter years later, that is to say, on 3-12-1941, he was appointed as District Munsif and served in that capacity in different places till 5-4-1947. In that year he was appointed as Private Secretary to the then Chief Minister of Madras, which position he held till 1950. Between 1950 and 1953 he underwent training as Legal Draftsman in New Delhi. On the termination of his training he was appointed as Secretary to the Trade Marks Committee and thereafter as Special Officer for the Revision of the Trade Marks Act.On his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker210
Ansari, C.J. 1. The constitutionality of the Kanam Tenancy Act, No. XXIV of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been challenged in these ten writ petitions. Three landlords or 'jenmies' are the petitioners in O. P. Nos. 339/56, 106/57 and 206/58, and claim part of the Act to be violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31. The remaining seven petitions are by the holders of kanam tenures, who dispute the Cochin Devaswom Board's right to auction their properties due to their failure to pay rent in kind, whose money value had yet to be determined in exercise of the powers under the Act.The Devaswom Board, in the replies, not only adopt the plea of the Act not being constitutional due to the landlords' fundamental rights having been infringed; but further claim the Act not having repealed the earlier enactments, under which holders of kanam tenures in the Devaswom lands, were subject to special powers, that authorised auctioning of the tenants' proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC459; [1961]2SCR537
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is a petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution in which the validity of the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 (XXVII of 1952), is challenged. The first petitioner is a public limited company which has its registered office at Bombay. A large majority of its shareholders are citizens of India; some of them are themselves companies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 are the Directors of Petitioner No. 1, the second petitioner being the Chairman of its Board of Directors. These petitioners are all citizens of India. At all material times the first petitioner carried on and still carries on the business of producing and selling coal excavated from its collieries at Rampur in the State of Orissa. Two leases have been executed in its favour; the first was executed on October 17, 1941, by the Governor of Orissa whereby all that piece or parcel of land in the registration district of Sambalpur admeasuring about 334...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj297; (1961)2GLR454
Shelat, J. 1. By a deed of Ijara dated June 4, 1936, the then ruler of the State of Navanagar granted to the petitioner's father lands admeasuring 2300 acres situate in the villages Vadala and Pata Meghpar in consideration of the grantee paying a sum of Rs. 4128-4-0 as annual assessment. It appears that after the grant was made the petitioner-had several tenants settled on those lands and a village called Juvanpur was established there. It appears from Clause (5) of the Deed of Ijara that about 102 acres and 37 Gunthas, out of the 2300 acres were cultivable lands and were in fact cultivated by tenants residing in Mota Vadala and Pata Meghpar. The grantee was allowed to have the Services of these tenants for the first year but thereafter he was to engage other tenants and have them settled n these lauds. Clause (7) of the Ijara provided that the amount of Butta rights for 14 years was to be. credited to the names of the original, tenants of Butta lands included in these 2300 acres. So f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker267
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In both these writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the vires of Section 49-A of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 are challenged. Section 49-A which was added to the original Act by the Banking Companies (Amendment) Ac; 1959 -- Act 33/1959 is as follows:'Section 49-A: No person other than a banking company, the Reserve Bank, the State Bank of India, or any other banking institution notified by the Central Government in this behalf. shall accept from the public deposits of money withdrawable by cheque;Provided that nothing contained in the section shall apply to any Savings Bank scheme run by the Government.'2. The petitioner in O. P. 1371/59 claims to be an individual, doing banking business, by receiving deposits from the public for the Purpose of lending to others and that the deposit is repayable by cheque or otherwise. The petitioner therein claims to have been doing this business from 1952.3. The petitioner further alleges_ that b...
Tag this Judgment!