Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC122
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The three appellants and another Abdul Hai Khan were tried by the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur for the murder of one Sikandar Khan, and they were acquitted. The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal of the High Court. The acquittal was set aside and they were convicted under Sections 147 and 302/149, Penal Code, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and transportation for life respectively, the sentences being made to run concurrently. The appellants have come up before this Court on special leave. Abdul Hai Khan, the other accused died in jail earlier.2. The case for the prosecution shortly stated is this, Sikandar Khan, his son, Amanat Ullah Khan (P. W. 1), and syce Muneshwar Chamar (P. W. 7) left their village, Mania, at about 10:45 A. M. on 21.12.1947 to go to Dildarnagar to catch a train for Ghazipur, where they had to be present in connection with certain criminal proceedings arising out of the murder of one Munir Khan. They were joi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1951)53BOMLR982; (1951)IIMLJ141; [1951]2SCR682
Fazl Ali, J. 1. These appeals arise from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay upon the application of one F. N. Balsara (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), assailing the validity of certain specific provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act No. XXV of 1949), as well as of the Act as whole. The petitioner, claiming to be an Indian citizen, prayed to the High Court inter alia for the writ of mandamus against the State of Bombay and the Prohibition Commissioner ordering them to forbear from enforcing against him the provisions of the Prohibition Act and for the issue of a writ of mandamus ordering them (1) to allow him to exercise his right to possess, consume and use certain articles, namely, whisky, brandy, wine, beer, medicated wine, eau-de-cologne, etc, and to import and export across the Customs frontier and to purchase, possess consume and use any stock of foreign liquor, eau-de-cologne, lavender water, medicated wines and medici...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC316; (1951)IIMLJ288(SC); [1951]2SCR676
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna setting aside an order of acquittal of the appellants by the Sessions Judge, Purnea, and directing their retrial. 2. The appellants were prosecuted for alleged offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 302 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of one Polai Lal Biswas who lodged a complaint against them before the police. The prosecution case was that, while the complainant was harvesting the paddy crop on his field at about 10 a.m. on 29th November, 1949, a mob of about fifty persons came on to the field armed with ballams, lathis and other weapons and that the first appellant Logendranath Jha, who was leading the mob, demanded a settlement of all outstanding disputes with the complainant and said he would not allow the paddy to be removed unless the disputes were settled. An altercation followed as a result of which Logendra ordered an assault by his m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC315; (1951)IIMLJ139(SC); [1951]2SCR671
Bose, J.1. This is a criminal appeal against a conviction under section 16 of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940, as amended in 1943, read with section 7(1). 2. The appellant is a shopkeeper who owns and runs a shop in the Cantonment Area of Ferozepore. He has no 'employees' within the meaning of the Act but is assisted by his son in running the shop. The shop is divided into two sections. In one, articles of haberdashery are sold; in the other, articles of stationery. Section 7(1) of the Act as amended requires that - 'Save as otherwise provided by this Act, every shop... shall remain closed on a close day.' Sub-section (2)(i) states that - 'The choice of a close day shall rest with the owner or occupier of a shop ....and shall be intimated to the prescribed authority within etc.'3. The appellant made the following choice. He elected to close the haberdashery section on Mondays and the stationery section on Saturdays and gave the necessary intimation to the prescribed authority to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1951]2SCR747
Kania, C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the President of India under article 143 of the Constitution asking the Court's opinion on the three questions submitted for its consideration and report. The three questions are as follows :- '(1) Was section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, or any of the provisions thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent ultra vires the Legislature which passed the said Act ?' 2. Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, mentioned in the question, runs as follows :- 'The Provincial Government may, by notification in the official gazette, extend with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit to the Province of Delhi or any part thereof, any enactment which is in force in any part of British India at the date of such notification.' '(2) Was the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, or any of the provisions thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent ultra vires the Legislature which passed the said Act ?' 3. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC109; (1952)IMLJ746(SC); [1951]2SCR655
MUKHERJEA J.1. This appeal is directed against an appellate judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated the 12th January, 1948, reversing in part, a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore passed in O.S. No. 3 of 1940. 2. To appreciate the material facts of the case and the controversy that now centers between the parties, it would be convenient to refer to a short genealogy which is given below :- Udatha Narayanappa- Chanchamma (d. 1933)||Venkata Narasamma (d. 1926)-Pitti Rangayya (d. 1914)||Venkatadri-Rajakantamma||----------------------------------------------------| | | |Durairaja Rajavathi Balakrishna KrishnababuluPlff.1. Plff.2. Plff.3. Plff.4. 3. The properties in dispute which are described in schedule A to the plaint admittedly belonged to one Narayanappa who was the father of the paternal grandmother of the plaintiffs. Narayanappa died interstate sometime before 1884 leaving him surviving his wife Chanchamma and a daughter named Venkata Narasamma. Narasam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC301; (1951)IIMLJ105; [1951]2SCR621
Kania, C.J. 1. I agree with the Judgment prepared by Sastri J. and have nothing more to add. Patanjali Sastri, J. 2. The common question which arises for consideration in these petitions is whether certain provisions of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951, purporting to amend the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, so as to authorise detention of the petitioners to be continued beyond the expiry of one year are ultra vires and inoperative. 3. The amending Act (hereinafter referred to as the new Act) came into force on 22nd February, 1951, and by substituting the figures '1952' for '1951' in sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) it continues the operation of the old Act till 31st March, 1952. 4. The petitioners in all these cases were, at the commencement of the new Act, under detention in pursuance of orders made under section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the old Act and, save in a few cases where the detention was also at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC72; [1951]2SCR603
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court dated 2nd March, 1949, by which the learned judges reversed, on appeal, a decision of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Saran in Title Suit No. 24 of 1941. 2. The controversy between the parties to the suit centers round only one question of fact, viz., whether the plaintiff's father, who dies in 1926, was joint with or separate from his nephew, the defendant No. 1, at the time of his death. If he died separate, it is not disputed that his properties would devolve by inheritance upon his widow and after the death of the widow would vest in his daughter, who is the plaintiff in the suit. If, on the other hand, he died joint, his interest in the joint properties would pass by survivorship to defendant No. 1, who together with his male descendant constitute a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law. 3. It may be convenient at the outset to give a brief resum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC285; [1951]2SCR560
Fazl Ali, J. 1. The principal question for determination in this appeal is whether a certain lease had validly terminated by efflux of time or whether there was 'holding over' by the lessee of the leasehold property as contemplated in section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. The circumstances under which this question and several subsidiary questions to which reference will be made later have arisen may be briefly stated as follows : 2. The Province of Bengal, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No. 1 or plaintiff) is admittedly the owner of an area of 1125 bighas and odd of land in village Akra. On the 17th February, 1928, the respondent No. 1 executed a lease (exhibit 3) in respect of the said land for 10 years for manufacture of bricks in favour of the appellant, at a rental of Rs. 6,000 a year. The lease was to commence from the 24th February, 1928, and a year's rent was payable in advance. By the terms of the said lease, the lessee was prohibited from assigning or suble...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC278; [1951]21CompCas194(SC); [1951]20ITR1(SC); [1951]2SCR594
Bose, J.1. This is an assessee's appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Calcutta delivered on a reference made to it under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. 2. The question submitted for the High Court's opinion was as follows :- 'Whether in the circumstances of this case, the interest paid by the assessee on debentures was incurred solely for the purpose of making or earning such income, profits or gains which are assessable under sub-section (1) of section 12.' 3. The assessee is a private limited company which was incorporated on 3rd January, 1927. It is an investment company known as the Eastern Investments Limited. The objects set out in the memorandum of association are to buy, sell and otherwise deal with shares, securities, bonds and so forth generally. The company was originally formed for acquiring, holding and otherwise dealing with shares and Government securities which had previously belonged to one Lord Cable. The share capital of the company at the date of its in...
Tag this Judgment!