Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC165; [1954]1SCR958
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. Two appeals have been filed by the plaintiff because of the exercise of two decrees prepared by the High Court. The appeals are in substance against the dismissal of the suit. We accordingly treat them as one appeal. 2. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court at Patna dated March 27, 1952, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by reversing the judgment and decree dated February 7, 1951, of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Sasaram, District Shahabad, who had decreed the suit. Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Lime Co., instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract made by it with the State of Bihar, hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 1. To this suit Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. was impleaded as defendant No. 2. 3. The facts leading up to the present appeal are these : Defendant No. 1 is admittedly the owner of what is called Murli Hills situate in the Sub-Division of Sasaram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC170; (1954)IMLJ162(SC); [1954]1SCR558
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta declaring certain provisions of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned Act') unconstitutional and void. 2. The impugned Act was passed on October 1, 1948, primarily for the settlement of immigrants who had migrated into the Province of West Bengal due to communal disturbances in East Bengal, and it provides for the acquisition and development of land for public purposes including the purpose aforesaid. A registered Society called the West Bengal Settlement Kanungoe Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., respondent No. 4 herein, was authorised to undertake a development scheme, and the Government of the State of West Bengal, the appellant herein, acquired and made over certain lands to the society for purposes of the development scheme on payment of the estimated cost of the acquisition. On July 28, 1950, the respondents 1 to 3, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC173; 1954(2)BLJR159; (1954)56BOMLR276; 1954CriLJ451; (1954)IMLJ157(SC); [1954]1SCR435
Bhagwati, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay accepting the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, under section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and convicting the appellant of an offence under section 26 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to four years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution was that at or about 10.30 or 11 p.m. on the 25th August, 1951, the complainant Abdul Satar was going towards Dhobi Galli through the Bibijan Street. At the junction of the Chakla Street with Bibijan Street, he was attacked by the appellant. The appellant first attempted to strike him on his right shoulder, but Abdul Satar caught hold of his hand. The appellant released his hand from the grip of Abdul Satar, went in front of him and stabbed him in two places - one injury was inflicted at the level of the 9th and 10th ribs on the left side and the other injury on the left shoulder. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC198; [1954]25ITR27(SC); (1954)IMLJ146(SC)
Bhagwati, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of judicature at Madras upon a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(I) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The appellant company, the assessee, is incorporated in the United Kingdom under the English Companies Act and has its registered office in London. It own a spinning and weaving mill at Pondicherry in French India where it ., Madras, have been appointed the agents of the assessee under an agreement dated the July 11, 1939, and have been invested with full powers in connection with the business of the assessee in the matter of purchasing stock, singing bills and other negotiable instruments and receipts and settling. compounding or compromising any claim by against the assessee. The yarn and cotton manufactured in Pondicherry were sold mostly in British India and partly outside British India. In the accounting years 1941 and 1942 all the contracts in respect of the sales i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC176; (1954)IMLJ152(SC); [1954]1SCR424
Mukherjea, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated the 31st January, 1950, reversing, on appeal, those of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, passed in Original Suit No. 96 of 1944. 2. The suit, out of which the appeal arises, was commenced by the infant plaintiff, now appellant before us, represented by his material uncle as next friend, for recovery of possession, on partition, of a half share in the properties described in the schedule to the plaint on the allegation that they were the joint family properties of himself and his father, the defendant No. 1, in which he had an equal share with the latter. The plaintiff is admittedly the son of defendant No. 2, who is one of the legally married wives of defendant No. 1, but the latter denied that he was the father of the plaintiff and charged the plaintiff's mother with misconduct. The defendant No. 3 in the suit, who is the other living wife of defendant No. 1 and has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC179; 1954(2)BLJR113; (1954)IMLJ143(SC); [1954]1SCR418
Mukherjea, J.1. This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ, in the nature of habeas corpus, directing the release of the petitioner, Shibban Lal Saksena, who is said to be unlawfully detained in the District Jail at Gorakhpur. 2. The petitioner was arrested on the 5th of January, 1953, under an order, signed by the District Magistrate of Gorakhpur, and the order expressly directed the detention of the petitioner in the custody of the Superintendent, District Jail, Gorakhpur, under sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause (a) of section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1050, as amended by later Acts. On the 7th of January following, the grounds of detention were communicated to the detenue in accordance with the provision of section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act and the grounds, it appears, were of a two-fold character, falling respectively under the two categories contemplated by sub-clause (ii) and sub-clause (iii) of section 3(1)(a) o...
Tag this Judgment!