Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC296; (1953)ILLJ733SC; (1953)IMLJ773(SC); [1953]4SCR686
Patanjali Sastri, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from a decision dated September 22, 1952, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Calcutta setting aside an award dated February 9, 1952, made by the Industrial Tribunal constituted to adjudicate on certain disputes between the appellant, the Punjab National Bank Ltd., Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and its workmen, the respondents represented by their Union. 2. The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly stated. Several other disputes between the parties had already been referred on February 21, 1950 to another Industrial Tribunal presided over by Sri K. S. Campbell-Puri, and during the pendency of the proceedings before the said Tribunal, the Bank alleged that the respondents along with other workmen numbering more than a thousand illegally commenced a general strike on April 18, 1951, in connection with a fresh dispute. Thereupon, notice was issued to the strikers that unless they returned to work by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC336
Bose, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The suit was for possession and, in the alternative, for redemption of the plaint properties.2. The first plaintiff was a tenant of the suit lands under the Orissa Tenancy Act. He mortgaged them to the defendant on 13-9-1930 by way of simple mortgage. The rent, payable by the first plaintiff to the landlord, fell into arrears and so the landlord sued him for the arrears. A decree was obtained and the property was put up for sale. In order to safeguard his rights the defendant paid up the arrears and then obtained possession of the property under Section 225, Orissa Tenancy Act.3. This latter fact was at first denied but that is no longer in dispute; therefore it must be accepted that the defendant obtained possession under Section 225 on 27-11-1934 and that he has been in possession ever since.4. The rent fell into arrears again and the landlord sued for a second time. This time no one paid and so the property was put up for sale -again. It was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC298; (1954)56BOMLR6; [1953]4SCR691
Ghulam Hasan, J. 1. In order to understand and appreciate the point arising for consideration in this case, it will be necessary to set out a few preliminary facts :- One Aboobaker Abdul Rehman, a resident of Bombay, received on December 16, 1949, from the Additional Custodian, Bombay, a notice under section 7 of Ordinance No XXVII of 1949 calling upon him to show cause why his interest in certain specific property should not be declared to be evacuee property. A further notice issued on January 11, 1950, required him to show cause why he should not be declared an evacuee and all his properties declared to be evacuee properties. On February 8, 1950, the Additional Custodian decided that Aboobaker was not a evacuee, but at the same time issued a fresh notice to him under section 19, requiring him to show cause why he should not be declared an 'intending evacuee' and on the following day, February 9, he declared Aboobaker as an 'intending evacuee' upon the same evidence. Aboobaker does n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC293; 1953(1)BLJR413; 1953CriLJ1232; (1953)IMLJ775(SC); [1953]4SCR836
Mahajan, J.1. These two appeals arise in the following circumstances : One Mokshadamoyee Dassi, mother of Dhirendra Nath Bera, died some time in the evening of the 3rd September, 1949. At the moment of her death Dhirendra Nath was not present at the house. On his return at about 8-30 p.m. he along with some other persons took the dead body to the cremation ground. It appears that Nurul Huda, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1952, had lodged information at the police station to the effect that Dhirendra Nath had beaten and throttled his mother to death. When the funeral pyre was in flames, Nurul Huda along with the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1952 and accompanied by the sub-inspector of police arrived at the cremation ground. The appellants pointed out the dead body and told the sub-inspector that the complainant had killed his mother by throttling her and that there were marks of injury on the body which they could show to the sub-inspector if he caused the body t...
Tag this Judgment!