Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC355
Bose, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of convictions in four criminal cases which were tried under the Special Criminal Courts Act, 1942 (Act 24 of 1942). Special leave to appeal was granted by this Court but the leave was confined to the question of the validity of the Act and leave was only granted to the first, second, third, eleventh and fourteenth petitioners.2. Now that we have heard counsel on both sides at length we consider it unnecessary to decide the constitutional points raised. We are of opinion that the convictions in which sentences for transportation and under have been awarded must in any event stand. That narrows the matter down to the second appellant's case, for he is the only one now under sentence of death.3. The second appellant Nalband Abdul Rahiman was prosecuted in two cases. In one (criminal case No. 1 of 1948-49) he was convicted under Section 302/304, Penal Code, and was sentenced to death. He was also convicted in the same case under Sections 333/34 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC746
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. There is no substance in this appeal but, paradoxical as it may seem, the substance of the relief which the appellant seeks is already available to him. The appeal arises out of an application made under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to bring up and quash an award made by the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) on 5-1-1950, or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition restraining the opposite party from enforcing the said award.2. Various preliminary objections were raised to the maintainability of that application and they were upheld by the learned Judges who accordingly dismissed the application. One of the objections was that Article 226 did not apply to the case as the award in question, having been published and declared binding by the Government on 17-1-1950, became final before the Constitution came into force on 26-1-1950.The answer to this objection by Mr. Chaudhri was the same as his answer to a simi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC745
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Special Leave from an award of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes).2. A preliminary objection is raised to the maintainability of this appeal, the liberty to raise such objection having been reserved to the respondents at the time when Special Leave was granted to the appellants. The objection is that the award was passed on 5-1-1950 and was published under Section 17, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the Government in a notification of the Ministry of Labour dated 17-1-1950 and was also declared binding on the same day for a period of one year. Article 136 has, therefore, no application to the award as it has been held by this Court that the said article has no retrospective operation. This is not disputed by Mr. S. Chaudhuri but he argues that the award was really published only on 28-1-1950, when the notification referred to above appeared in the Gazette of India. We see no force in this argument. The preliminary objection...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC324; [1953]23ITR427(SC); (1953)IMLJ849(SC); [1953]4SCR714
Patanjali Sastri, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta answering a reference under section 66-A of the Indian Income tax Act 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in favour of the respondent herein. 2. The respondent carries on business as selling agents of the Bengal Potteries Ltd., and he was prosecuted under section 13 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Ordinance 1943 (Ordinance No XXXV of 1943) on a charge of selling goods at prices higher than were reasonable in contravention of the provisions of section 6 thereof. It appears that before the prosecution was launched in August 1944, respondent's business premises were searched and a part of his stock was seized and taken away. The respondent defended the case spending a sum of Rs. 10,895, and the prosecution ended in an acquittal on February 16, 1945. In his assessment to income-tax for the 1945-46 the respondent claimed the deduction of the said sum of Rs. 10,895 from the profits ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC325; (1954)56BOMLR13; 1983LC1598D(SC); 1983(13)ELT1284(SC); (1953)IIMLJ113(SC); [1953]4SCR730
Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay raises an important question as to the construction of article 20(2) of the Constitution. 2. The appellant, a citizen of Bharat, arrived at the Santa Cruz airport from Jeddah on the 6th November, 1949. On landing he did not declare that he had brought in gold with him but on search it was found that he had brought 107.2 tolas of gold in contravention of the notification of the Government of India dated the 25th August, 1948. The Customs Authorities thereupon took action under section 167, clause (8), of the Sea Customs Act VIII of 1878, and confiscated the gold by an order dated the 19th December, 1949. The owner of the gold was however given the option to pay in lieu of such confiscation a fine of Rs. 12,000, which option was to be exercised within four months of the date of the order. A copy of the order was sent on the 30th January, 1950, to the appellant. Nobody came forw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC320; 1953(1)BLJR399; [1953]4SCR720
Das, J. 1. This judgment disposes of Civil Appeals No. 62 of 1953 and No. 63 of 1953 which have been heard together. 2. The Motipur Zamindari Company Ltd., the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1953, was incorporated in 1932 under the Indian Companies Act and has its registered office in Bengal. It supplies sugar-cane to a sister concern named Motipur Sugar Factory Ltd. Raja Jankinath Roy and Narendra Nath Roy and Co., Ltd., the appellant in C.A. No. 63 of 1953, was incorporated in 1933 under the Indian Companies Act and also has its registered office in Bengal. This company owns Zamindari properties in Purnea in the State of Bihar as well as in Malda in the State of West Bengal. It carries on business, amongst others, as banker and financier. 3. On the 30th December, 1949, a bill entitled the Bihar Land Reforms Bill was passed by the Bihar Legislature and having been reserved for the consideration of the President received his assent on the 11th September, 1950. The Act so passed an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC318; 1953CriLJ1241; [1953]4SCR708
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing the release of the petitioner Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj who is a medical practitioner Delhi and is now said to be under unlawful detention. 2. The petitioner was arrested on the 10th March, 1953, under an order of the District Magistrate of Delhi made under section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act as amended. The grounds of detention were communicated to the petitioner on the 15th March, 1953. The first paragraph of that communication states that 'the Jan Sangh, the Hindu Mahasabha and the Ram Rajya Parishad have started an unlawful campaign in sympathy with the Praja Parishad Movement of Kashmir for defiance of the law, involving violence and threat to the maintenance of public order' as evidenced by the sub-paragraphs which follow. The incidents referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) to (1) are said to have ranged from the 4th to the 10th March,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC313; (1953)IMLJ841(SC); [1953]4SCR878
Jagannadha Das, J. 1. On the 28th of January, 1948, the appellant, Khumba Mawji, entered into an agreement with the respondent, the Dominion of India (as it then was) to manufacture and supply, to the Bengal Assam Railway, stone boulders and ballast from Chutiapara quarry. The agreement was entered into at Calcutta, though the work was to be carried out in Assam. It was a term of the agreement that if any differences arose between the parties, they were to be referred to the arbitration of two persons, one to be nominated by each side, and that if the arbitrators were not able to agree, the matter was to be decided by an umpire to be nominated by both the arbitrators. Differences having, in fact, arisen, the dispute was referred to two arbitrators and on their disagreement the matter went up to an umpire, one Mr. P. C. Chowdhury. The umpire made two awards on or about the 20th of July, 1949, in favour of the appellant. By one of them he directed a sum of Rs. 3,67,000 to paid by the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC309; [1953]4SCR865
Bose, J. 1. This is a curious case in which the State Government of Assam having granted the first respondent a lease later cancelled its grant and regranted it to another party and now contends that it is not bound by the laws and regulations which ordinarily govern such transactions. 2. Assam is blest with fisheries which are under the control of and belong to the State Government. Periodically the fishing rights are leased out to licensees and the State derives considerable revenue from this source. So valuable are these rights that as long ago as 1886 it was considered undesirable to leave such a lucrative source of revenue to the unfettered discretion and control of either the Provincial Government or a single individual however eminent. Accordingly, legislation was enacted and Regulation I of 1886 (The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886) was passed into law. A Register of Fisheries had to be kept and the Deputy Commissioner was empowered, with the previous sanction of the Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC304; (1953)IMLJ834(SC); [1953]4SCR848
Mahajan, J.1. One Lakshminarayana Iyer, a Hindu Brahmin, who owned considerable properties in the Tirunelveli district, died on 13th December, 1924, leaving him surviving a widow Ranganayaki, and a married daughter Ramalakshmi. Ramalakshmi had married the plaintiff and had a number of children from him. They were all alive in December, 1924, when Lakshminarayana died. Before his death he executed a will on 16th November, 1924, the construction of which is in controversy in this appeal. By this will he gave the following directions :- 'After my lifetime, you, the aforesaid Ranganayaki Ammal, my wife, shall till your lifetime, enjoy the aforesaid entire properties, the outstandings due to me, the debts payable by me, and the chit amounts payable by me. After your lifetime Ramalakshmi Ammal, our daughter and wife of Rama Ayyar Avergal of Melagaram village, and her heirs shall enjoy them with a absolute rights and powers of alienation such as gift, exchange, and sale from son to grandson a...
Tag this Judgment!