Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC38; [1952]1SCR153
Mahajan, J.1. The question involved in the appeal relates to the right of succession to six Birbhum ghatwalis governed by Regulation XXIX of 1814, annexed to Gaddi Pathrol and lying within Tappasarath in the Santhal Parganas. The genealogy of the contestants appears from the following pedigree table :- Digbijoy Singh | ----------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Gurohari Singh Kanhai Singh Bhairo Singh Balram Singh (Ghatwal) | | Pratar Singh | -------------------- | | | | | Banwari Singh Pitambar Katku Singh (Died issueless) Bharat Singh (Ghatwal) | | Kharagdhari Singh (Ghatwal) | | Ram Chandra Singh (Ghatwal) | ------------------------ | |Brijbehari Singh Sarju Prasad Singh (Ghatwal) (Original plaintiff) | | | |Krishna Prasad Singh Hargobind Prasad Singh(Ghatwal) (Substituted plaintiff) | | | |Kali Prasad Singh Durga Prasad(Ghatwal) (Died issueless) |Phaldani Kumari(Defendant)2. Tikait Kali Prasad Sing, the last gaddidar of Pathrol, died in the year 1935...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC14; 1953CriLJ542; [1952]1SCR172
Mahajan, J. 1.These two appeals by special leave are limited to the question of sentence only. In case No. 1783/P of 1950, which has given rise to Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1951, the appellant Adamji Umar Dalal was tried along with five other persons on the following charges :- 'Firstly, that you at Bombay on or about the 29th day of December, 1949, in contravention of Government Notification No. 342/IV B, dated 27-1-46 issued under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, attempted to export by rail out of the State Of Bombay to Jalna, a place beyond the limits of Bombay State, 50 barrels of kerosene oil, without having any permit in that behalf, by misdescribing or causing the misdescription of the said barrels of oil as high speed diesel oil, and thereby committed an offence punishable under sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. 2. Secondly, that you at Bombay, on or about the 29th day of December, 1949, attempted to export by rail 50 barrels...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC23; [1952]1SCR269
Mukherja, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendant and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff respondent, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Chaibassa, for recovery of possession of the land described in schedule to the plaint, on the allegation that the defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of the same, and that the tenancy was determined by a notice to quit. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the decision was affirmed, on appeal, by the District Judge, Purulia, and on Second Appeal, by a Division Bench of the High Court of Patna. The defendant was now come up to this court on the strength of a certificate granted under section 110, Civil Procedure Code. 2. Mr. Setalvad, appearing on behalf of the defendant-appellant, stated to us at the outset that he would not dispute the validity or sufficiency of the notice to quit served upon his client, if on the facts of this case he is held to be a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the premis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC16; (1952)54BOMLR383; [1952]1SCR135
Bose, J.1. The question here is whether an order should issue under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act against the appellant, who is the Commissioner of Police, Bombay. 2. The respondent, Gordhandas Bhanji, wanted to build a cinema house on a plot of land at Andheri in the year 1945. At that date Andheri did not form a part of Bombay and under the rules then in force it was necessary to obtain permission from the District magistrate of that area in the form of a No Objection Certificate, Accordingly, the respondent made the necessary application on the 12th of September, 1945. Permission was refused on the 30th September, 1945, on the ground that the public of the locality objected and also because there was already one cinema theatre at Andheri and so it was not necessary to have another 'for the present.' 3. On the 1st of October, 1945, Andheri became a part of Greater Bombay and the jurisdiction to grant or refuse a license was transferred to the Commissioner of Police, Bombay. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC433; (1952)IIMLJ342(SC)
Fazl Ali, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of a suit filed by Koney Narayana Rao and 3 others (who are the respondents in Appeal No. 26 and the appellants in Appeal No. 27 and will hereinafter be referred to as 'the plaintiffs') against one 'Ganga Raju (since deceased) and his adopted son, Mothey Anja Ratna Raja Kumar (who is the appellant in Appeal No. 26 and the respondent in Appeal No. 27).2. The plaintiffs are the illegitimate sons of Ganga Raju, and their suit was for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400 per mensem for each of them with a charge on the joint family property of Ganga Raju. Both the District Judge of West Godavari who tried the suit, and the Madras High Court have held that the plaintiffs are the illegitimate sons of Ganga Raju and that they are entitled to maintenance. The trial court decreed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem for each of the plaintiffs, but the High Court has enhanced the amount of maintenance to Rs. 200 per mensem. Both the parties have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC439; [1951]20ITR572(SC)
Fazl Ali, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Calcutta in a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The facts which are material for the purpose of deciding this appeal, may be briefly stated as follows :- The respondent, Messrs. Isthmian Steamship Lines (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') is a company incorporated in the United States of America and owns steamships which visit India. The company's Indian profits which are computed on the basis of 'day on round voyage' are assessed to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act as a 'company' through its agents, Messrs. Angus Co., Ltd. In the course of the assessment for the years 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44, the company claimed that its unabsorbed depreciation at the end of 1938-39 should be deemed to be a part of the depreciation allowance for 1939-40 and therefore such unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed to be further carried forward under Section 10(2) (vi) of the Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC468
Bose, J.1. Two brothers Hate Singh and Bheru Singh were convicted of the murder of one Shiv Singh and sentenced to death. The Madhya Bharat High Court confirmed the convictions and upheld the sentences. Both appealed to this Court. Bheru Singh's appeal was dismissed 'in limine' because he admitted the shooting from the start and took all the blame on himself. He adhered to these admissions throughout the trial and also in the appeal to the High Court. There is also the testimony of two eye-witnesses against him which in view of his admissions cannot but be believed so far as he is concerned. But there appeared to be an element of doubt in the other case, so Hate Singh's appeal was admitted for hearing and that is the appeal we are now dealing with. Hate Singh has denied complicity in the crime all through.2. Put very shortly the prosecution case is that there was a sudden quarrel between the deceased Shiv Singh and the accused Bheru Singh because Shiv Singh hit Hate Singh's young broth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC9; [1952]SuppSCR36
Fazl Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against a decision of the High Court at Allahabad, reversing the decision of the trial court, in a suit instituted by the appellant to recover damages from the respondent-firm for breach of a contract. 2. It appears that between the 10th and 18th April, 1941, the parties entered into 5 contracts, by which the respondent-firm undertook to supply to the appellant 184 bales of cloth of certain specifications manu-factured by the New Victoria Mills, Kanpur, and the Raza Textile Mills, Rampur. Only 11 bales were taken up and there was dispute about the remaining 85 bales. On the 17th October, 1941, a settlement was arrived at between the parties, and it was agreed that the respondent-firm should deliver to the appellant 61 bales, and that the goods should be delivered by the 17th November, 1941. The actual text of the agreement (exhibit 4) was as follows :- '61 bales as noted below are to be given to you by us. We shall continue sending goo...
Tag this Judgment!