Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC278; (1954)56BOMLR1; [1953]4SCR825
Bose, J.1. The appellants have been convicted under sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Supplies Act (No. XXIV of 1946) on two counts. The first appellant is a registered joint stock company, the Seksaria Mills Ltd. It was fined Rs. 10,000 on each of the two counts, that is to say, a total fine of Rs. 20,000, and this was upheld in appeal. The second appellant is the Director of the Mills. He was sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 2,00,000 on each count. In appeal the sentence of imprisonment was set aside and the fine reduced to Rs. 10,000 on each count. The third appellant is the General Manager of the Mills. He was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2,000 on each count. This has been upheld. The fourth appellant is the Sales Manager of the Mills. He was sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 on each count. In appeal the sentence of imprisonment was upheld but the fine was reduced to Rs. 10,000 on each count. The substantive ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC274; 1953CriLJ1105; (1953)IMLJ739(SC); [1953]4SCR677
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal, which has come before us on a certificate granted by the Madras High Court under articles 134(1)(c) and 132(1) of the Constitution, is directed against an appellate judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1952, by which the learned Judges affirmed an order of the Seventh Presidency Magistrate, Madras, dated February 25, 1952, convicting the appellant of an offence punishable under section 15 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000; in default to suffer imprisonment for a period of 3 months. 2. The appellant is a partner of a firm of merchants called 'Indo-Malayan Trading Company' which has its head office in the city of Madras and carries on the business of selling and purchasing groundnut oil, sago and kirana articles. For the period - April 1, 1947, to December 31, 1947 - the company was assessed to sales tax under the Madras Act IX of 1939 for an amount of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC282; (1953)55BOMLR529; 19(1953)CLT507(SC); [1953]4SCR809
Mahajan, J.1. The appellant on 28th July, 1951, was convicted on a charge under section 366, Indian Penal Code, for having kidnapped at Poona a minor girl Shilavati in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years after a trial before the third additional Sessions Judge of that place sitting with a jury of five. The jury returned a verdict of guilty by a majority of three to two. The Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the verdict was not perverse. He therefore accepted it. The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court but this was summarily dismissed. This appeal is before us by special leave. 2. The prosecution case was that on the 12th December, 1949, the appellant who was a music teacher went to the house of Shilavati and on the pretext that there was a girl waiting in his house and that he wanted to compare the voice of Shilavati with the voice of the girl took her to his house, and with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC287; 1953CriLJ1158; [1953]4SCR661
Mukherjea, J.1. The appellant before us, who in the year 1947 was a Revenue Officer in the District of Warangal within the State of Hyderabad, was brought to trial before the Special Judge of Warangal appointed under Regulation X of 1359F. On charges of murder, attempt to murder, arson, rioting and other offences punishable under various sections of the Hyderabad Penal Code. The offences were alleged to have been committed on or about the 9th of December, 1947, and the First Information Report was lodged, a considerable time afterwards, on 31st January, 1949. On 28th August, 1949, there was an order in terms of section 3 of the Special Tribunal Regulation No. V of 1358 F., which was in force at that time, directing the appellant to be tried by the Special Tribunal (A). The accused being a public officer, the sanction of the Military Governor was necessary to prosecute him and this sanction was given on 20th September, 1949. On 13th December, 1949, a new Regulation, being Regulation No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC252; (1953)55BOMLR536; (1953)IMLJ743(SC); [1953]4SCR1069; [1953]4STC133(SC)
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay declaring the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1952, (Act XXIV of 1952), ultra vires the State Legislature and issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus against the State of Bombay and the Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay, appellants herein, directing them to forbear and desist from enforcing the provisions of the said Act against the respondents who are dealers in motor cars in Bombay. 2. The Legislature of the State of Bombay enacted the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and it was brought into force on October 9, 1952, by notification issued under section 1(3) of the Act, except sections 5, 9, 10 and 47 which came into operation on November 1, 1952, as notified under section 2(3). On the same day the rules made by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by section 45 of the Act also came into force. 3. On November 3, 1952, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC235; [1953]23CompCas307(SC); (1953)IMLJ729(SC); [1953]4SCR789
Mahajan, J. 1. The dispute in this appeal is between a constituent and a firm of stock-brokers. Some time before April, 1936, the plaintiff, then a young man, came into possession of property worth about 2 lakhs of rupees on a partition between him and his brothers. In the hope of getting rich by obtaining quick dividends by speculating on the stock exchange he, through the defendant firm and certain other stock-holders, entered into a series of speculative transactions and it seems he did not fare badly in the beginning. But subsequent events tell a different tale. 2. In 1937, two iron and steel companies in North India, viz., Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., and the Bengal Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., merged into one concern and a new issue of shares was made. The scheme was that for every five shares which a person held in the Indian Iron Co. Ltd. on 22nd April, 1937, one fully paid up share would be given to him at a price of Rs. 25. The market price at the time this scheme was announced wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC462; 1953(0)KLT295(SC)
S.R. Das, J.1. K. Damodaran, the appellant before us, one P. Gopala Menon, one of the sons of the late Maharaja of Cochin, and one Balanarayanan Nambiar were sent up for trial for alleged offences under Sections 389, 400, 448 and 104, Cochin Penal Code corresponding to Sections 409, 420, 468 and 108, Indian Penal Code. Balanarayanan Nambiar died during the pendency of the proceedings. The learned Judge of the Special Tribunal who held the trial framed two counts of charges against the appellant (hereinafter referred to as A1). The first count charged him with having on or about 15-7-1947 at Ernakulam cheated one M. M. Paul (P. W. 1), the Director of Food Supplies, Government of Cochin, by dishonestly inducing him to deliver to the appellant Rs. 1,10,740/- which was the property of the Government of Cochin and thereby having committed an offence under Section 400, Cochin Penal Code, corresponding to Section 420, Indian Penal Code. The second count was also a charge of cheating under the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC241; (1953)IILLJ321SC; [1953]4SCR780
Bhagwati, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, confirming an award made by the Regional Conciliation Board (Textiles & Hosiery), Kanpur, in an industrial dispute between the appellants and the respondents. 2. The respondents 2, 3 and 4 were employees of the appellants, respondent 2 was employed in the clerical cadre while respondents 3 and 4 were employed as wrapping boy and piecer respectively and their service conditions were governed by the standing orders of the Employers' Association of Northern India, Kanpur, of which association the appellants were members. 3. There was a theft in the canteen within the mill premises between the night of January 6 and 7, 1950, and some money belonging to the appellants invested in the canteen account was stolen from the safe. A report of the theft was made to the police authorities and an investigation was made by the police as well as the appellants in the matter with no re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC250; [1953]4SCR655
Bose, J.1. This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution in which the petitioner seeks redress for what, according to him, is a breach of his fundamental rights under articles 14 and 16(1) of the constitution. It was argued at considerable length by the petitioner in person. Then, when our judgment was nearly ready, he put in a petition asking for a rehearing and for permission to file some fresh papers. When that was refused he came again on another day and asked for leave to engage an agent and appear through counsel as he felt he had not been able to do justice to his case in person. (It may be mentioned that though he had originally engaged an agent he dismissed him before the hearing when he appeared in person.) We granted his request and counsel reargued the case for him but has not carried the matter any further. The facts are these. 2. In October, 1945, the petitioner was employed by the government of India on a five year contract in the Directorate General of Resettl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC244; (1953)55BOMLR526; 1953CriLJ1049; [1953]4SCR773
Mahajan, J.1. The respondents were charged with having committed an offence punishable under section 9(2) read with section 4 of the Bombay Building (Control on Erection) Act, 1948, for commencing the work of erection of a cinema theatre without obtaining the necessary permission from the controller of buildings, Bombay. The sub-divisional magistrate, Ratnagiri, held that the Act not having been validly extended to Ratnagiri, no permission of the controller of buildings was necessary for the construction. He accordingly acquitted them. On appeal by the State Government, the order of acquittal was maintained by the High Court. This appeal is before us by special leave from the concurrent orders of acquittal. 2. Special leave was granted on the Attorney-General for India undertaking on behalf of the State Government of Bombay that whatever the decision of the court might be, no proceedings will be taken against the respondents in respect of the subject-matter under appeal. At the hearing...
Tag this Judgment!