Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC118
A.R. Das, J.1. The facts on which this petition is founded are similar to these in petition No. 132 of 1951 Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee, Jalalabad, : [1952]1SCR572 except that the respondent Committee in this petition which was a Town Area Committee governed by the U. P. Town Area Act (II [2] of 1914), was converted into a Notified Area Committee with effect from 1-7- 1949. The principal questions raised in this petition are covered by our decision in the other petition I have mentioned and it is not necessary to reiterate the same. It is, therefore, necessary only to consider one additional point urged on this petition.2. After the respondent Committee became a Notifide Area Committee the Commissioner, Meerut Division, by a notification extended to the respondent Committee the provisions of Sections 333 and 333A, D. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (II [2] of 1916). Under the last mentioned section all taxes, fees, licenses, fines or penalties imposed, prescribed or levied by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC115; [1952]1SCR572
Das J.1. This is an application under article 32 of the Constitution made by Mohammad Yasin for the protection of his fundamental right of carrying on his business which, according to him, is being infringed by the respondent. 2. The case sought to be made out in the petition may be shortly stated as follows :- The petitioner is a wholesale dealer in fresh vegetables and fruits at Jalabad in the district of Muzaffarnagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh and claims to have been carrying on such business for the last 7 years or so at his shop situated in the town of Jalalabad. The vegetable and fruit growers used to bring their goods to the town and get them auctioned through any of the vegetable dealers of their choice who used to charge one anna in the rupee as and by way of commission. The respondent Committee which is a Town Area Committee has framed certain bye-laws under which all right and power to levy or collect commission on sale or purchase of vegetables and fruits within the lim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC123; 1952CriLJ805; [1952]1SCR435
Das, J. 1. The appellant before as was tried by a Special Court constituted under the Saurashtra Public Safety Measures (Third Amendment) Ordinance No. LXVI of 1949 for offences alleged to have been committed by him under section 302, 307 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. On December 20, 1950, he was found guilty of the offences charged against him and was convicted and sentenced to death under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under each of the charges under sections 307 and 392, Indian Penal Code, the sentences of imprisonment running concurrently. He appealed to the High Court of Saurashtra but the High Court, by its judgment pronounced on February 28, 1951, rejected his appeal and confirmed his conviction and the sentences passed by the Special Court. By its order made on March 21, 1951, however the High Court granted him a certificate for appeal to this Court both under article 132 and article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. This appeal has a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC119; [1952]22CompCas111(SC); (1952)IMLJ741(SC); [1952]1SCR501
Fazl Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Punjab High Court up holding the decision of a Subordinate Judge of Delhi relating to a petition filed by the appellant-company under section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act against the respondents. 2. The material facts are these. On the 22nd April, 1947, the appellant company insured a car belonging to the first respondent and issued a policy which fully sets out the terms and conditions of the agreement relating to the insurance. The first respondent left his car in a garage at Lahore and came away to India on the 31st July, 1947. Subsequently, he learned about the loss of his car, and sent a legal notice dated the 18th March, 1948, through his advocate Mr. A. R. Kapur to the Head Office of the company at Calcutta, claiming a sum of Rs. 7,000 for the loss of the car. On the 10th April, 1948, Mr. Kapur received a letter from the Branch Manager of the Company's office at Amritsar asking for information rega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC145; [1952]1SCR478
Bose, J.1. This is a litigation between two branches a family whose common ancestor was one Megh Raj Singh The family tree is a follows : Megh Raj Singh--------------|-------------| |Jawahar Singh Madan Singh| |Shanker Lal (d. 1884) Brijlal (d. 1890)| _____|___________Daughter : Mst. Mohan Dei | |(d. Oct. 1929) Kishan Lal Mahabir PrasadHusband Narain Das (d. 21-5-1940) (d. 1921)_______|______ ___|_____________ || | | | |Shri Kishan Das Mst. Deoki Jugal Kishore Amar Nath |(d. March 1929) (d. 1894) Plff 1. Plff 2. |__|_______________ || | ___________________|Dhiyan Singh Jai Bhagwan Singh | |Deft. 1 Deft. 2 Ghas Ram Onkar Prasad2. The dispute is about property which, according to the plaintiffs, formed part of Shanker Lal's estate. The plaintiffs state that the two branches of family were separate at all material times; that on Shanker Lal's death in 1884 his daughter Mst. Mohan Dei (the defendants' grandmother) succeeded to a limited estate. The reversion opened out on her death in Octo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC153; [1952]1SCR491
Bose, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit on two mortgages. The first was executed on the 7th of April, 1931, by the defendant and his father. The second was dated the 17th of December, 1935. and was executed by the defendant alone. The first was for a sum of Rs. 9,500 the second for Rs. 3,500. The same property was mortgaged each time. The claim on the two deeds together was for Rs. 20,774-3-0. 2. These mortgages were in favour of one Narayan Gopal Sathe. On the 28th March, 1940. The mortgagee assigned them both to the plaintiff who now sues on them. 3. The defence was that both mortgages were satisfied. The main evidence on which the defendant relied to prove satisfaction was an agreement dated the 17th of the October, 1937, executed by the mortgagee Narayan Gopal Sathe in favour of the defendant. The document has been excluded from the evidence by the trial Court as well as by the High Court. On appeal on the ground that it required registration. If this document is excluded...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC503
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decree of the High Court of Nagpur which reversed the decree of the Additional District Judge, Khamgaon, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. Leave to appeal was granted as the value of the subject-matter of the suit in the trial Court was Rs. 35,000 and as there were substantial questions of law.2. The property involved is a Ginning and a Pressing factory situated at Khamgaon and the case for the plaintiff is that they belonged originally to Sir Hukumchand and his son Rajkumarsing from whom he purchased the factories for a sum of Rs. 35,000 under a registered sale deed, dated 26-11-1939. Prior to the sale, there was a letter or note on 3-11-1939, setting out the agreement between the parties relating to the sale. On the next day, possession of the factories was handed over to one Seth Chapsi Dhanji at Khamgaon on behalf of the plaintiff. Two days afterwards, i.e. on the 6th of November, Sir Hukumchand entered into a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC149; 1952CriLJ832; (1952)IMLJ736(SC); [1952]1SCR425
Mukhereja, J.1. This appeal has come up before us on special leave granted by this court on May 23, 1950, and it is directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated April 10, 1950, by which the learned Judges found the appellant guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to serve simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The appellant is the publisher and managing editor of a Telgu Weekly known as 'Praja Rajyam' which is edited and published at Nellore in the State of Madras. In the issue of the said paper dated 10th February, 1949, an article appeared under the caption 'Is the Sub- Magistrate, Kovvur, corrupt? ' The purport of the article was that Surya Narayan Murthi, the stationary Sub-Magistrate of Kovvur, was known to the people of the locality to be a bribe taker and to be in the habit of harassing litigants in various ways. He was said to have a broker, through whom negotiations in connection with these corrupt practices were carried on Several sp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC156; (1952)54BOMLR433; 1952CriLJ836; [1952]1SCR418
Chandrasekhara Aiyar J.1. The facts out of which this Criminal Appeal has arisen are not long. The appellant W. H. Kind, who is carrying on a business in Bombay, under the name and style of Associated Commercial Enterprises, was the tenant of a flat on the second floor of a building called 'Ganga Vihar' Marine Drive, Bombay, which belongs to a lady named Durgeshwari Devi. The tenancy was a monthly one, the rent being Rs. 215. It is said that the appellant wanted to go to the United Kingdom for treatment of his failing eye-sight and he got into touch with the complainant Mulchand Kodumal Bhatia, who is the second respondent in this appeal, through one Sayed for the purpose of making necessary arrangements about the flat occupied by him in view of his intended departure. The prosecution case is that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000 which was later on reduced to Rs. 29,500 as consideration for putting the complainant in vacant possession of the flat and an additional amount of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!