Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC138; [1952]1SCR402
Bose, J.1. The plaintiff appeals. 2. The suit relates to a Saranjam estate in the State of Bombay. The plaintiff claims to be the sole Saranjamdar and seeks certain declarations and other reliefs appropriate to such a claim. 3. The first and second defendants are members of the plaintiff's family while the third defendant is the State of Bombay (Province of Bombay at the date of the suit). 4. The only question is whether the suit is barred by section 4 (a) of Bombay Act X of 1876 (Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act). 5. The following genealogical tree will show the relationship between the parties : Bhujangrao Appasaheb(British grantee)|Daulatrao I(died 24-7-1864)-----------------------------------------------------------------| | |Bhujangrao I Malojirao Yeshwantrao alias(died 1881) | Annasaheb| | |(widow) Krishnabai Daulatrao III Bhujangrao IIDaulatrao II (Def. 1) (Def. 2)(died 8-5-1931)|Bhujangrao III6. The facts are as follows. A common ancestor of the present parties was given the Gaj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC106; 1952CriLJ656; (1952)IMLJ733(SC); [1952]1SCR395
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution submitted through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of the petitioner from custody. 2. On 5th July, 1950 the petitioner was arrested and detained under an order of the District Magistrate of Amritsar in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and the grounds of his detention were served on him as required by section 7 of the Act on 10th July, 1950. the Act having been amended by the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951, with effect from 22nd February, 1951, a fresh order No. 7853 - ADSB, dated 17th May, 1951 was issued in the following terms :- 'Whereas the Governor of Punjab is satisfied with respect to the person known as Naranjan Singh Nathawan s/o Lehna Singh of village Chak Sikandar, P. S. Ramdas, Amritsar District with a view to preventing him from acting in manner prejudicial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC64; (1952)IMLJ775(SC); [1952]1SCR218
Fazl Ali, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of the Madras High Court dismissing the petition of the appellant praying for a writ of certiorari. 2.The appellant was one of the persons who had filed nomination papers for election to the Madras Legislative Assembly from the Namakkal Constituency in Salem district. On the 28th November, 1951, the Returning Officer for that constituency took up for scrutiny the nomination papers filed by the various candidates and on the same day he rejected the appellant's nomination paper on certain grounds which need not be set out as they are not material to the point raised in this appeal. The appellant thereupon moved the High court under article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination paper and to direct the Returning Officer to include his name in the list of valid nominations to be published. The High Court dismissed the appellant's application on the ground t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC75; 1952CriLJ510; [1952]1SCR284
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State of West Bengal from a judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta quashing the conviction of the respondent by the Special Court established under section 3 of the West Bengal Special Courts Ordinance, 1949, (Ordinance No. 3 of 1949) which was replaced in March, 1950, by the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, (West Bengal Act X of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The respondent and 49 other persons were charged with various offences alleged to have been committed by them in the course of their raid as an armed gang on a certain factory known as the Jessop Factory at Dum Dum, and they were convicted and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment by the Special Court to which the case was sent for trial by the Governor of West Bengal by a notification dated 26th January, 1950, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 (1) of the Act. Thereupon the respondent applied to the High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!