Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC33; (1955)ILLJ129SC; [1955]1SCR752
Mukherjea, J.1. We now take up the two connected petitions under article 32 of the Constitution. In one of these petitions, to wit Petition No. 188, Shri Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company'), the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1954, figures as the petitioner, while the other petition, to wit, Petition No. 189, has been filed by a number of employees working under it. To appreciate the contentions of Mr. Seervai, who appears in support of both these petitions, it will be necessary to narrate a few antecedent facts : It appears that sometime in 1950 there was an industrial dispute between the company and its labourers regarding enhancement of wages and the dispute was referred by the Government of Ajmer to an Industrial Tribunal, by a notification dated the 1st December, 1950. The tribunal made its award on the 27th November, 1951, and held that 'the present earning capacity of the mill precludes the award of higher rates of wages and higher dearness allowance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC25; (1954)IILLJ686SC; [1955]1SCR735
Mukherjea, J.1. These two appeals are directed against a common judgment, dated the 16th of February, 1953, passed by the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer, on two analogous petitions under article 226 of the Constitution, in one of which the appellant in Appeal No. 138 of 1954 were the petitioners, while the other was filed by the appellant in Appeal No. 139 of 1954. 2. The petitioners in both the cases prayed for a declaration that the notification, dated 7th of October 1952, issued by the State Government of Ajmer fixing the minimum rates of wages in respect of employment in the textile industry within the State, under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act (Act XI of 1948), was illegal and ultra vires and for issue of writs in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to enforce the same against the petitioners. 3. To appreciate the points that have been canvassed before us, it will be convenient to narrate briefly the material facts in chronological order. On the 15th of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC728; (1954)IIMLJ622(SC); [1955]1SCR707
Mukherjea, J. 1. The appellant in these two analogous appeals, along with many others, have been carrying on the business of plying motor vehicles, as 'stage carriages' on hire, on the Bulandshahr-Delhi route from a number of years past. The running of these vehicles has been regulated so long by the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 which provides, inter alia, for granting of driving licences, the registration of vehicles and exercising control over transport vehicles through permits granted by Regional Transport Authorities Section 42(3) of the Act exempts transport vehicles, owned by or on behalf of the Central Government or the Provincial Government from the necessity of obtaining permits unless the vehicles were used in connection with the business of an Indian State Railway. It appears, that some time after 1947 the Government of U.P. conceived the idea of running their own buses on the public thoroughfares. They first started running buses only as competitors with the private operators...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC41; (1955)57BOMLR595; [1955]1SCR777
Bose, J.1. This judgment will govern Civil Appeals Nos. 146 and 147 of 1952 as well. We will first deal with the questions that are common to them all. They arise out of three petitions made in the Bombay High Court for writs of mandamus under article 266 of the Constitution. The writs have been granted and the State of Bombay appeals. 2. The facts are these. The Governor of Bombay, acting through the Assistant Controller of Accommodation, issued orders under section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, in Civil Appeals Nos. 145 and 146 of 1952 and under section 5(1) in Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1952, requisitioning the premises of the three respondents. The question is whether these orders are ultra vires. They are attacked on a number of grounds the first of which goes to the root of the matter. It is contended that these two sections are ultra vires articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution. 3. The respondents are either the owners or the tenants of the premises req...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC36; 1955CriLJ152; [1955]1SCR697
Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J.1. This appeal, by leave of the High Court of Judicature at Simla, raises a novel and interesting question of law, viz., whether a person accused of an offence under the Indian Penal Code and committed in a district which after the partition of India became Pakistan, could be tried for that offence by a Criminal Court in India after his migration to that country, and thereafter acquiring the status of a citizen. 2. The material facts relevant to this enquiry are these : 3. The respondent, Ram Narain, acting on behalf of his firm Ram Narain Joginder Nath, carrying on business at Mailsi in Multan District, was allowed a cash credit limit of rupees three lakhs by the Mailsi branch of the Central Bank of India Ltd. (the appellant) on the 23rd December, 1946, shortly before the partition of British India. The account was secured against stocks which were to remain in possession of the borrowers as trustees on behalf of the bank. On 15th August, 1947, when British Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC47; (1955)57BOMLR718; [1955]1SCR691
Jagannadhadas, J.1. These are appeals by leave granted by the High Court of Bombay under article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution against its common judgment disposing of certain applications under article 226. The short point involved in these appeals is whether the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is valid in law. The impugned Act, as its very name indicates, was for the purpose of abolishing Taluqdari tenures in Bombay. Section 3 of the Act enacts that with effect from the date on which the Act was to come into force the taluqdari tenure wherever it prevailed shall be deemed to have been abolished. Under section 5(1)(a) all taluqdari lands are and shall be liable to the payment of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the rules made thereunder. Under section 6, broadly stated, all the items of property which are comprised within the taluqdari and belong to the taluqdar vest in Government as it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC15
Mahajan, C.J. 1. This is plaintiffs' appeal, under a certificate, against the dismissal of their suit by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Jaipur Branch) and. praying for a declaration of their rights of succession to the Gaddi of Indergarh.2. The relevant facts concerning this litigation are these: Maharaja Sumer Singhji was the last jagirdar of Indergarh (District Kotah, Rajasthan). He died without male issue on 24-7-1949 at Delhi. On 2-8-1949 Maharaja Umrao Singh, one of the appellants in the present appeal, instituted a suit against the respondent Maharaja Bhagwati Singh and three others on the allegation that Maharaja Sumer Singhji of Indergarh having died without male issue, the plaintiff was the sole heir of the deceased, and the respondent Bhagwati Singh, minor, was falsely alleging himself to be an adopted son of the late Maharaja and was trying to succeed to his estate; that Maharaja Bhagwati Singh was never adopted by the deceased and consequently the plaintiff was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC752; (1955)57BOMLR589; [1955]1SCR799
Venkatarama Ayyar, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dismissing a revision petition filed by the appellant against his conviction under section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act No. XXIV of 1949. 2. The charge against the appellant was that on 6th April, 1951, he had transported 15 maunds of juwar from his village of Khanjroli to Mandvi without a permit, and had thereby contravened section 5(1) of the Bombay Food Grains (Regulation of Movement and Sale) Order, 1949. This Resident First Class Magistrate of Bardoli who tried the case found him guilty, and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 500. The conviction and sentence were both affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Surat, on appeal. The appellant thereafter took up the matter in revision to the High Court of Bombay, and there for the first time, took the objection that the Resident First Class Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case, be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC280; 1955CriLJ730; [1955]1SCR872
Ghulam Hasan, J. 1. This appeal under article 136 of the Constitution is filed against an order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur, passed in revision under the following circumstances. 2. The two appellants, Kunjilal and Deopal, who are father and son, the latter being aged 17, were prosecuted under section 392 and section 332, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Magistrate, Sagar. They were sentenced under the former to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and under the latter to a fine of Rs. 500 each. Their convictions were upheld on appeal but Kunjilal's sentence was reduced to six months R.I. and Rs. 350 fine, while Deopal was bound over under section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the sentence of imprisonment was set aside. His fine was reduced under section 332, Indian Penal Code, to Rs. 250. They carried the matter further in revision to High Court but it was dismissed. 3. It appears that the export of certain essential supplies such as rice and ghee was prohibi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC747; [1955]1SCR686
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. The appellant is the owner of a permanent cinema theatre called Sri Brahannayaki in Tiruthuraipundi, Tanjore District, and held a licence from the District Magistrate, Tanjore, in respect of the same with effect from September 5, 1950, to September 4, 1951. The licence is granted for one year at a time and is renewable from year to year. He objected to certain conditions in the licence imposed by the District Magistrate, Tanjore, in pursuance of 2 notifications (G.O. Mis. 1054, Home, dated 28th March, 1948, and G.O. Mis. 3422, dated 15th September, 1948) issued by the State of Madras purporting to act in exercise of powers conferred by section 8 of the Cinematograph Act of 1918. The impugned conditions may conveniently be set out here : '4(a) The licensee shall exhibit at each performance one or more approved films of such length and for such length of time, as the Provincial Government or the Central Government may, by general or special order, direct. (b) The lice...
Tag this Judgment!