Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC9; 1951(0)KLT35(SC); [1950]1SCR792
Fazal Ali, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in West Bengal, reversing the decision of a single Judge of that Court, who had refused to set aside an award given by the arbitration tribunal of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce on a submission made by the respondents. The facts of the case are as follows. 2. On the 25th January, 1946, the appellants entered into a contract with the respondents for the sale of 5,000 maunds of jute, which was evidenced by a 'sold note' (Exhibit A), which is in the form of a letter addressed to the respondents, commencing with these words : 'We have this day sold by your order and for your account to the undersigned, etc.' The word 'undersigned' admittedly refers to the appellants, and, at the end of the contract, below their signature, the word 'brokers' is written. On the same day, a 'brought note' (Exhibit B) was addressed by the appellants to the Bengal Jute Mill Company, with the following statem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC411; 17(1951)CLT1(SC)
Fazl Ali, J.1. I do not wish to express dissent from the order proposed by my learned brothers, as the order seems to be the logical consequence of the findings arrived at by the High Court in revision, which tend to throw very great doubt on one of the crucial questions in the case, namely, whether any theft was committed at all. It is clear that if there was no theft, the appellant's conviction for offences of which the main ingredient is theft, cannot be sustained. But I must confess that a careful reading of the judgment of the High Court has produced an uneasy feeling in my mind that the High Court has not bestowed the same care and attention upon the facts and the evidence of the case as they have received from the first two courts. There can be no doubt that where the interests of justice demand, the findings of the Courts, which normally deal with the facts of a case, may be reopened and may even be reversed by the High Court, but, before that is done, every item of relevant ev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC14; [1951]19ITR108(SC); [1950]1SCR799
Fazl Ali, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated the 9th September, 1948, declining to call upon the Board of Revenue to state a case under section 21(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944 (Act VI of 1944), with reference to an assessment made under that Act. 2. The Bihar Sales Tax Act was passed in 1944, and Section 4 of the Act provides that 'every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Act exceeded Rs. 5,000 shall be liable to pay tax under the Act on sales effected after the date so notified.' It is not disputed that, having regard to the definitions of dealer, goods and sale under the Act, the appellant, who has been doing contract work on a fairly extensive scale for the Central Public Works Department and the East Indian Railway, comes within the category of a dealer mentioned in section 4. Section 7 of the Act provides that 'no dealer shall, while being liable under section 4 to pay ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC9
Mahajan, J.1. These two appeals were presented to the Judicial Committee of the State and are now before us under Article 374(4) of the Constitution.2. On 30-1-1913 a suit was brought by the father of the present plaintiffs against the present appellants for a declaration of his title in respect of three survey numbers, 36, 38 and 54, which were assessed at Rs. 84/- land revenue. It was also prayed that a sale deed that had been executed in respect of this property by defendants 1 and 3 in favour of defendant 2 be cancelled. The defendants denied the plaintiff's claim. They pleaded that the plaintiff was not a shikmedar in the land in suit and that he was not the owner of it under any sale deed and was not in possession of it. Issues 2 and 3 in this suit were in these terms:'2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession as a shikmedar on half of the land in dispute and whether the other half was sold in his favour by the pattadar in the sum of Rs. 64/- and therefore he is in possession as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC50
Mahajan, J.1. A decree for pre-emption of the property in suit was passed in favour of the plaintiff and he was ordered to deposit the sale price within two months from the date of the decree. An appeal was taken against this decision but it was withdrawn. The pre-emption money was not deposited within the time fixed in the decree. The preemptor made an application to the court for making the deposit without disclosing that the time fixed by the decree had elapsed. The application was allowed. The defendant, when apprised of the situation, made an application to the court to the effect that the plaintiff's, suit stood dismissed owing to his failure in making the deposit in time and that he was not entitled to execute the decree. The trial Judge held that the pre-emption money not having been paid within the time fixed in the decree the suit stood dismissed. On appeal this decision was set aside but on second appeal it was restored and it was held that the suit stood dismissed under Ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC139; [1950]1SCR766
-Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is directed against an appellate judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated September 6, 1943, by which the learned Judges reversed a decision of the Civil Judge, Etawah, made in Original Suit No. 28 of 1936. 2. The suit was one commenced by the plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal, for recovery of possession of two items of immovable property one a residential house and other, a shop - both of which are situated in the town of Etawah. The properties admittedly formed part of the estate of one Mangal Sen who died sometime towards the end of the last century, leaving behind him, as his heirs, his two widows, Mst. Mithani and Mst. Rani. Mangal Sen had a son named Chhedi Lal and a daughter named Janki Kuar born of his wife Mst. Rani, but both of them died during his lifetime. Chhedi Lal had no issue and he was survived by his widow Mst. Meria, while Janki left a son named Thakur Prasad. Janki's husband married another wife and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC120; [1950]1SCR781
Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated April 22, 1943, which reversed on appeal those of the Civil Judge of Basti dated 6th of November 1939. 2. The suit, out of which the appeal arises, was commenced by the plaintiff, whose successor the present appellant is, to recover a sum of Rs. 11,935 by enforcement of a simple mortgage bond. The mortgage deed is dated the 8th of March 1926 and was executed by Raja Pateshwari Pratap Narain Singh, the then holder of Basti Raj which is an impartible estate governed by the rule of primogeniture, in favour of Bhikhiram Sahu, the father of the original plaintiff Ramdeo, to secure a loan of Rs. 5,500 advanced by the mortgagee on hypothecation of certain immovable properties appertaining to the estate of the mortgagor. The loan carried interest at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum and there was a stipulation to pay the mortgage money within one year from the date of the bond....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC118; [1950]1SCR759
Mahajan, J.1. These two applications for enforcement of the fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India have been made by a proprietor and an employee respectively of a bidi manufacturing concern of District Sagar (State of Madhya Pradesh). It is contended that the law in force in the State authorizing it to prohibit the manufacture of bidis in certain villages including the one wherein the applicants reside is inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution and is consequently void. 2. The Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of Bidis (Agricultural Purposes) Act, LXIV of 1948, was passed on 19th October 1948 and was the law in force in the State at the commencement of the Constitution. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are in these terms :- '3. The Deputy Commissioner may by notification fix a period to be an agricultural season with respect to such villages as may be specified therein. 4. (1) The Deputy Commissioner ma...
Tag this Judgment!