Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC683
Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment in Criminal Revision No. 981 of 1950 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad quashing the proceedings taken against the respondents under Section 120-B, I. P. C. read with Rules 81(4) and 121 of the Defence of India Rules and ordering their discharge.2. It was alleged by the prosecution that the respondents infringed the provisions of Section 2 of the Non-Ferrous Metals Control Order, 1942, during the years 1943-1945 and thus committed an offence punishable under the above provisions of the law. No prosecution however was commenced against them till the 16th January 1950 in spite of the fact that a complaint against them had been made to the police in August 1948.There is no satisfactory explanation for this long delay in putting the chalan in Court and for the leisurely conduct of the investigation which concerned the provisions of an Act which it was known to all concerned had an unce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC447; (1954)IIMLJ369(SC); [1955]1SCR415
Bose, J.1. This is petition under article 32 of Constitution. It raises an important question about the post-Constitutional rights to property situate in Indian States that were not part of British India before the Constitution but which acceded to the Dominion of India shortly before the Constitution and became an integral part of the Indian Republic after it. 2. The States in question here are Charkhari and Sarila. In British days they were independents States under the paramountcy of the British Crown. They acknowledged the British Crown as the suzerain power and owned a modified allegiance to it, but none to the Government of India. 3. In 1947 India obtained Independence and became a Dominion by reason of the Indian Independence Act of 1947. The suzerainty of the British Crown over the Indian States lapsed at the same time because of section 7 of that Act. Immediately after, all but three of the Indian States acceded to the new Dominion by executing Instruments of Accession. Among ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC409; [1955]1SCR150
Bhagwati, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta reversing the order of the Third Subordinate Judge, Alipore, dismissing the respondents' applications for re-restoration of certain immovable properties. 2. One Romesh Chandra Acharji Choudhury (deceased) predecessor-in-interest of the appellants borrowed on the 16th August, 1918, Rs. 1,60,000 and Rs. 73,000 from the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents under two deeds of mortgage. There being default in payment of the mortgage amounts a suit to realise the mortgage securities was filed on the 10th March, 1926, in the Third Subordinate Judge's Court, Alipore. A preliminary mortgage decree for Rs. 4,21,851-1-6 was passed on the 4th April, 1929, and a decree absolute for sale was passed on the 13th September, 1929. The mortgaged properties were put up for sale in execution proceedings in 1930 and the decree-holders purchased the properties at auction sale on the 29th Febru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1955]1SCR140
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Election Tribunal, Cuttack, setting aside the election of the appellant to the Legislative Assembly, Orissa, from the Kendrapara Constituency. Four persons, the appellant and respondents Nos. 1 to 3, were duly nominated for election to the seat. One of them, Loknath Das (the third respondent herein), withdrew his candidature, leaving the contest to the other three. At the election which was held between 9th and 15th January, 1952, the appellant secured the largest number of votes and was declared elected. The respondent, Jadumoni Mangaraj, then presented a petition under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, (Act No. XLIII of 1951) alleging various corrupt practices on the part of the appellant, and praying that the election might be set aside. The last date for presenting the petition was 4th April, 1952. It was delivered at the post office at Cuttack on 3rd April, 1952, for being sent by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC417; 1954(2)BLJR451; [1955]1SCR70
Mukherjea, J. 1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, commenced the suit, out of which this appeal arises, in the Court of the Civil Judge at Banaras (being Original Suit No. 79 of 1941) for enforcement of his right of pre-emption in respect of an enclosed plot of land with certain structures upon it, situated within Mohalla Baradeo in the city of Banaras and bearing Municipal No. D 37/48. The premises in suit admittedly belonged to defendants Nos. 2 to 5, who are residents of Calcutta and they sold it by a conveyance executed on the 29th March, 1941, and registered on the 3rd of April following, to defendant No. 1, also a resident of Calcutta, for the price of Rs. 7,000. The plaintiff is the owner of the two premises to wit, premises Nos. D 37/85 and D 37/44, within the same Mohalla of the city of Banaras, which are in close proximity to the property in dispute and adjoin it on the northern and eastern sides respectively. It is averred by the plaintiff that there is from ver...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC660
Jagannadhadas, J.1. These two are appeals by special leave.The two appellants herein along with two others were put up for trial before the Special Judge of the Special Court (Alipur), Calcutta, in respect of three charges, the first against all the four accused in respect of an offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 420, I. P. C. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the second as against Kedar Nath Bajoria, appellant in Cr. A. 84 of 1952 and his son Madan Lal Bajoria, in respect of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and the third against Hari Ram Vaid, appellant in Cr. A. 85 of 1952, and his assistant, Inder Sain Bakshi, in respect of an offence under Section 5 (2) read with Clause (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.Kedar Nath Bajoria and Hari Ram Vaid were both convicted in respect of the charge under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Kedar Nath Bajoria was, in addition, convicted in respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC415; 1954CriLJ1029; [1955]1SCR408
Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J. 1. These are two connected appeals by special leave against an order of the Judicial Commissioner. Himachal Pradesh, dated the 26th December, 1951, rejecting two applications for the issue of writs of mandamus and certiorari under article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The facts giving rise to the two petitions, out of which these two connected appeals arise, are these : One Trilok Nath was running a business in Himachal Pradesh under the name and style of 'Himachal Drug Nurseries' for the extraction, collection and export of medicinal herbs in the year 1949. He was a partner of Messrs. Prabhu Dayal and Gowri Shanker of Jammu and Kashmir State in timber business carried on in that State under the name and style of 'The Kashmir Woods'. It was alleged by him that the business in Chamba was his exclusive business with which the partnership firm 'The Kashmir Woods' had no concern whatsoever. Prabhu Dayal's case was that the firm 'The Kashmir Woods' was started by him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1955]1SCR216
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. These are appeals against the judgments of the High Court of Calcutta convicting the appellants on charges of conspiracy to cheat the Government and of bribery. The facts, so far as they are material, may be briefly stated. The appellant, S. K. Dutt, carried on business as a building contractor under the name and style of British India Construction Company. This firm had a branch at Asansol which was, at the material dates, in charge of the appellant, J. K. Bose. In May, 1942, the military took up construction of dumps and roads in this area, and the appellant, R. W. Mathams, who was the Garrison Engineer at Asansol, was put in charge of it, and the appellant, P. C. Ghose, was functioning as overseer under him. On or about 10th May, 1942, an order was placed with S. K. Dutt for the construction of dumps at a place called Burnpur near Asansol. The words were executed in June and July, 1942, an sums amounting to Rs. 1,74,000 were paid to S. K. Dutt on account ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC575; [1955]1SCR60
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. This appeal is brought against the judgment and decree dated November 10, 1944, of the Lahore High Court (Sir Trevor Harries C.J. and Mr. Justice Mahajan, the present Chief Justice of this Court) reversing the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Gurgaon, as Senior Subordinate Judge, and dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants' suit.2. Dalmir, Dilmor and Chhinga were three brothers and Amir Khan and Sharif Khan were the two collaterals. Alif Khan was the son of Amir Khan. The present dispute is between the descendants of the five branches of the family.3. The suit was brought by the descendants of Dalmir against the descendants of Dilmor, Chhinga, Alif Khan and Sharif Khan. To this suit were also impleaded as defendants some of the descendants of Dalmir. The plaintiffs claimed a declaration that they along with defendants Nos. 17 to 19 are full owners in possession of 819 Bighas 19 Biswas land situate in village Manota Tehsil Ferozepore Jhirka in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC601
Bose, J.1. These are an appeal and a cross appeal against a judgment and decree of the Patna High Court in a suit for possession and mesne profits.2. The property in dispute belonged to one Naubat Lal Jha. He died in 1878 leaving a mother Mst. Sahajwati and two widows Mst. Nunuwati and Mst. Chhemawati. The mother died in 1909 and Mst. Nunuwati in 1911. The surviving widow died on 5-6-1940. The second party plaintiffs claim to be the next reversioners and sue for possession along with the other plaintiffs who are purchasers of a 10 annas share.3. The defence is of a two-fold character. The first is an attack on the plaintiffs' claim to be the next reversioners. That affects all the property in suit. The second is limited to the properties in Schedule III of the plaint.4. The family possessed certain deities. On 5-11-1915 Mst. Chhemawati dedicated the Schedule III properties to these deities and they have been in possession through their shebaits ever since. The defendants claim that the...
Tag this Judgment!