Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC76; 1953(1)BLJR140; 1953CriLJ521; (1953)IMLJ376(SC); [1953]4SCR418
Mahajan, J. 1. Ajmer Singh, a young man of about 22 years of age was tried for the murder of Bagher Singh, his first cousin, and was acquitted by the Sessions Judge of Ferozepore by his judgment dated 13th May, 1950. On appeal by the State Government, the order of acquittal was set aside by the High Court and the appellants was convicted under section 304, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. This is an appeal by special leave against that decision. 2. One Nikka Singh had three sons, Bhagwan Singh, Lal Singh and Sunder Singh. Bhagwan Singh died issueless some years ago and disputes arose between Lal Singh and his brother Sundar Singh in regard to the division of the property of Bhagwan Singh. Sunder Singh was in possession of some of his landed properties and Lal Singh obtained a number of decrees against him but Sunder Singh declined to restore possession of the properties to his brother Lal Singh. In view of this litigation the relations between Lal S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC73; (1953)55BOMLR271; [1953]4SCR226
Das J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay passed on January 25, 1952, in Civil Revision Application No. 1119 of 1951. It arises out of a suit filed in the Bombay Small Causes Court under section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, for ejectment from and compensation at the rate of Rs. 370 per month from November 1, 1947, for the use and occupation of the second floor flat of Sunama House situate in Cumballa Hill, Bombay. The plaintiffs are the trustees of the will of Framroze D. B. Taraporewala deceased and as such the owners of the Sunama House. The defendants are two in number, namely, the first defendant Mrs. Dinbai K. Lala to whom the said flat was let out by the plaintiffs on or about September 1, 1942, at Rs. 370 per month and the second defendant a limited company to whom the first defendant had sublet the said flat as from November 16, 1947, at the same rent. The defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC91; [1953]4SCR404
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal which has come before us on a certificate granted by the High Court of Hyderabad under article 132(1) of the Constitution is directed against judgment of a Full Bench of that Court dated November 7, 1950, passed on a petition under article 226 of the Constitution. By this judgment the learned Judges of the High Court declared an Act, known as the Waliuddowla Succession Act of 1950, void under article 13(2) of the Constitution to the extent that it affected the rights of the present respondents 1 to 12 who were the petitioners in the article 226 proceeding. The object of the impugned Act, which received the assent of H.E.H. the Nizam as Rajpramukh of Hyderabad on April 24, 1950, was to put an end to the disputes that existed at the time regarding succession to the matrooka or personal estate of Nawab Waliuddowla, a wealthy nobleman and a high dignitary of Hyderabad, and what, in substance, the Act provided was to dismiss the claims of succession to the said p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC54
Mahajan, J. 1. The appellants, Sanwat Khan and Kaloo Khan, were convicted by the sessions judge of Nagaur for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for the murder of one Mahant Ganeshdas and his servant Ganpatia and were sentenced to death. They appealed to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and their case also came up for confirmation of the sentence under Section 374, Cr. P. C., before that Court.The High Court confirmed the conviction but commuted the sentence of death into one of imprisonment for life. To this extent the appeal of both the accused persons was allowed. This is an appeal by special leave against the above decision of the High Court.2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that Mahant Ganeshdas who was a wealthy person used to live in the temple of Shri Gopalji situated on a hillock near Panchota about a mile and a half from that village. Ganpatia Daroga used to live with him at the temple. On the morning of 1-1-1948 it was discovered that both o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC98; [1953]23CompCas1(SC); (1953)IMLJ364(SC); [1953]4SCR351
Das, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the Official Receiver representing Sha Mulchand & Company Ltd. (in liquidation) under section 38 of the Indian Companies Act for rectification of the register of the Jawahar Mills Ltd. 2. Sha Mulchand & Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was incorporated in 1937 as a private limited company. At all material times it consisted of two member, T. V. T. Govindaraju Chettiar and K. N. Sundara Ayyar. The Jawahar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the Mills') was also incorporated in 1937 with an authorised capital of Rs. 10,00,000 divided into one lac shares of Rs. 10 each. The Company was the managing agent of the Mills from its inception and applied for and was allowed 5,000 ten-rupee shares Nos. 15048 to 20047 on which Rs. 5 per share had been paid. The Company continued to act as the managing agent of the Mills till the 30th June, 1939, on which date it resigned the managing agency. Prior to the Company's resign...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC12
Bhagwati, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras confirming the decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai allowing the plaintiffs' claim.2. The plaintiff 1, the sister's son and the plaintiff 2, the step-brother of one Shanmugham filed the suit out of which this appeal arises against the defendants, the members of the junior branch of a family which in 1888 and until 1908 was a joint and undivided Hindu family and of which one Ramanatha was the karta and the managing member, for the recovery of the defendants' half share in the moneys deposited by the father of Shanmugham on 15-8-1888 with the joint family.These moneys represented the Stridhanam money, 'Eadu pon Kalutturu' money and sundry jewels etc. money of Shanmugham's mother, and had aggregated to a sum of Rs. 1,310 inclusive of interest on 15-8-1888. Veerappa Chettiar, the father of Shanmugham was related to Ramanatha and. the joint family carried on business as Na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC65; (1953)IMLJ449(SC); [1953]4SCR377
Mahajan, J.1. In our opinions the decision cam be rested on either of the ground, which have been raised by our brothers Das and Ghulam Hasan respectively. We would therefore allow the appeal on both the grounds. Das, J.2. I have had the privilege of perusing the judgment delivered by my learned brother Hasan and I agree with his conclusion that this appeal should be allowed. I would, however, prefer to rest my decision on a ground different from that which has commended itself to my learned brother and as to which I do not wish to express any opinion on this occasion. 3. The relevant facts material for the purpose of disposing of this appeal have been very clearly and fully set forth in the judgment of Hasan J. and I need not set them out in detail here. Suffice it to say that on June 12, 1931, the High Court, Original Side, which is the Court which had passed the decree, transmitted the same for execution to the Asansol Court through the District Judge of Burdwan and that the Asansol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC52; 1953CriLJ508; (1953)IMLJ203(SC); [1953]4SCR210
Bose, J.1. This is a habeas corpus petition under article 32 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner was detained on the 16th of October, 1951, under then Preventive Detention Act of 1950 as amended in 1951. Her detention was actually longer than this but the earlier detentions were under a different set of orders which are not relevant to the present matter. The present detention is based on an order of the District Magistrate, Thana, and merely says that the petitioner be detained, without specifying any period. The order of confirmation was passed on the 4th of January, 1952, and there again no period was specified. The petitioner's case is that as no period was specified in the order her period of detention expired on the 31st of March, 1952, because of the amending Act of 1951; or at the outside on the 30th of September, 1952, because of Act XXXIV of 1952 which effected a further amendment. 3. The reply on behalf of the State of Bombay is that the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC63; (1953)IMLJ227(SC); [1953]4SCR644
Bose, J. 1. This is an appeal under article 132(1) of the Constitution. Leave of appeal was granted by the High Court at Calcutta. 2. The appellant was convicted under section 7(1) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1946 for an offence said to have been committed on the 24th of October, 1950. The conviction was on two counts : (1) for selling cloth above the controlled are and (2) for not issuing a cash memo. The sentence was rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 200 with another three months in default. The trial was before the 8th Presidency Magistrate at Calcutta who adopted a summary procedure. 3. There was an application for revision before the High Court but it was dismissed. An application for leave to appeal to this Court was then filed. It was granted on a ground which was not taken either in the original court or in the revision before the High Court, namely that the Essential Supplies Act of 1946 under which the appellant was convinced was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC58; (1953)IMLJ195(SC); [1953]4SCR302; (1953)1LLJ195(SC)
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. 1. Pratul Chandra Mitra was the Head Clerk, and Phanindra Nath Ghose, the Sanitary Inspector of the Budge Budge Municipality, and they were also members of the Municipal Workers' Union. On receipt of complaints against them for negligence, insubordination and indiscipline, the Chairman of the Municipality suspended them on 13th July, 1949, drew up separate proceedings, and called for an explanation within a specified date. After the explanations were received, they were considered at a meeting of the Commissioners held on 6th August, 1949, and by a majority, the Commissioners confirmed the order of suspension and directed the dismissal of the two employees. At the instance of the Municipal Workers' Union, who questioned the propriety of the dismissal, the matter was referred by the State of West Bengal on 24th September, 1949, to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal made its award on 13th February, 1950, that ...
Tag this Judgment!