Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC554; (1955)57BOMLR17; [1955]1SCR503
Venkatarama Ayyar, J. 1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the appellant on a hundi for Rs. 10,000 dated 4th December, 1947, drawn in his favour by Haji Jethabhai Gokul and Co. of Basra on the respondents, who are merchants and commission agents in Bombay. The hundi was sent by registered post to the appellant in Bombay, and was actually received by one Parikh Vrajlal Narandas, who presented it to the respondents on 10th December, 1947, and received payment therefore. It may be mentioned that the appellant had been doing business in forward contracts through Vrajlal as his commission agent, and was actually residing at his Pedhi. On 12th January, 1948, the appellant sent a notice to the respondents repudiating the authority of Vrajlal to act for him and demanding the return of the hundi, to which they sent a reply on 10th February, 1948, denying their liability and stating that Vrajlal was the agent of the appellant, and that the amount was paid to him bona fid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC545; [1954]26ITR1(SC); [1955]1SCR448
Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J.1. The principal question canvassed in this case is whether certain sections of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, i.e., Act XXX of 1947, have become void from the date of the commencement of the Constitution of India by reason of article 14 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner, Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. Ltd., is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Suraj Mall Mohta is also the managing director of another company Messers. Jute and Gunny Brokers Ltd. A reference had been made by the Central Government under the provisions of section 5(I) of the Act before 1st September, 1948, of the case of Messers. Jute and Gunny Brokers Ltd. to the Investigation Commission appointed under Act XXX of 1947. During the investigation of that case which was numbered 831/30 in the records of the Commission, and during the investigation of some other cases similarly referred to the Commission, it was said to have been discovered that the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC645
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madras reversing the acquittal of the appellant and convicting him under Section 44 of the Madras District Police Act. The facts which have given rise to this prosecution and which are not in dispute are as follows. The appellant who belonged to Kurnool was in the year 1948, Sub-Inspector of Police in the Nellore District of the then State of Madras, having been recruited into the Police service in the year 1932. From the 11th May to the 25th June, 1948, he was on sanctioned leave and went to Cuddapah. On the expiry of the leave, he applied for extension of leave for two months enclosing a medical certificate and requested that his pay may be sent to the Station House Officer, Kurnool.He was on that date eligible for leave to average pay for seven months. On receiving the application, the District Superintendent of Police, Nellore, sent a requisition to the District Medical Officer, Kurnool...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC560; 1954(2)BLJR481; (1954)56BOMLR1221; 1954CriLJ1417; [1955]1SCR501
Bose, J.1. This is a petition under article 32 of Constitution and raises the same question on the merits as in the connected summons case in which we have just delivered judgment. The facts will be found there. In the present matter it is enough to say that no question arises about the breach of a fundamental right. But as a matter touching the jurisdiction of the Bar Council Tribunal and that of the Bombay High Court was argued, we will deal with it shortly. 2. Mr. G's first objection is that the proceedings before the Tribunal were ultra vires because there was no proper order of appointment. At a very early stage he applied to the Registrar and also to the Prothonotary for a copy of the order of the Chief Justice constituting the Tribunal. He was told by the Prothonotary that the order was oral. 3. Mr. 'G' put in two written statements before the Tribunal and did not challenge this statement of fact in either. He contented himself with saying that the order was not 'judicial' and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1954(2)BLJR477; (1954)56BOMLR1220; [1955]1SCR490
Bose, J.1. This matter arises out of a summons issued to Mr. G, a Senior Advocate of this Court under Order IV, rule 30, of the Supreme Court Rules, to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. 2. Mr. G was called to the Bar in England and was later enrolled as an Advocate of the Bombay High Court. He is also an Advocate of this Court. On 20th December, 1952, he entered into an agreement with a client whereby the client undertook to pay him 50 per cent. of any recoveries he might make in the legal proceedings in respect of which he was engaged. On this being reported to the High Court the matter was referred to the Bombay Bar Council and was investigated by three of its members under section 11(1) of the Bar Councils Act. They recorded their opinion that this amounted to professional misconduct. The High Court agreed and suspended Mr. G from practice as an Advocate of the Bombay High Court for six months. The learned Judges considered that they had no power to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC561; (1954)56BOMLR1211; [1955]1SCR568
Das, J.1. These three appeals, filed by the State of Bombay, with a certificate granted by the Bombay High Court, are directed against the Judgment and Order pronounced by that High Court on the 15th February, 1954, on three Civil Applications under article 226. By that Judgment and Order the High Court held that the circular order No. SSN 2054(a) issued by the State of Bombay, Education Department, on the 6th January, 1954, was bad in that it contravened the provisions of article 29(2) and article 337 and directed the issue of a writ prohibiting the State from enforcing the order against the authorities of Barnes High School established and run by the Education Society of Bombay (hereinafter referred as the Society). 2. The Society, which is the first respondent in Appeal No. 64 of 1954, is a Joint Stock Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The other two respondents in that appeal - Ven'ble Archdeacon A. S. H. Johnson and Mrs. Glynne Howell are members and Direct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC587; [1955]1SCR549
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Election Tribunal, Himachal Pradesh, dismissing Election Petition No. 14 of 1952. On 12th October, 1951, five candidates (respondents 1 to 5 herein) were duly nominated for election to the Legislative Assembly of State of Himachal Pradesh for the Rohru Constituency in Mahasu District. The polling took place on 23rd November, 1951, and on 30th November, 1951, the first respondent was declared elected, he having secured the largest number of votes. The result was published in the Official Gazette on 20th December, 1951. On 14th February, 1952, one of the unsuccessful candidates, Gyan Singh, (fifth respondent herein) filed Election Petition No. 14 of 1952 challenging the validity of the election of the first respondent. On 4th August, 1952, he applied to withdraw from the petition, and that was permitted by an order of the Tribunal dated 20th September, 1952. The appellant, who is one of the electors in the Rohru Constitue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC648
Mahajan, C.J.1. The incident with which we are concerned in this appeal by special leave, took place at about 4-30 P. M. on the 31st October 1952 in Meladi Desam (Malabar) in the house of P.W. 1, Mr. P. Achuthan, a vakil of 27 years' standing. The murdered man was his clerk, Kolangarakandi Kannan, who belonged to the Thiyya community, and who was a prominent person in the social circles of that community. He was taking keen interest on behalf of the Hindus and was, disliked by the Moplas between whom and the Thiyyas there was considerable communal tension during that period.2. The prosecution case is that on account of his active interest on behalf of the Hindu community the Moplas wanted to put an end to his life. A riotous mob had collected that day shortly before the incident at the railway station and within half an hour of the dispersal of the mob, it is said that the present appellants along with accused 3 to 7 proceeded to the house of the vakil and rushing into the room where K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC652
Bhagwati, J.1. In this appeal with special leave we are only concerned with the question whether the offence committed by the Appellant falls under Section 302 or Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The Appellant along with his father Budhwa and his brother Damru was charged with having committed the murder of one Tiharu who was a cousin of Budhwa. The prosecution case was that about the time of night meal on the 26th May 1951 there was an exchange of abuse between the deceased and the three accused.The three accused went over to the courtyard of the deceased with lathis in their hands. Damru threw a lathi towards the deceased and the deceased shouted out that he was struck and advanced a step or two towards the accused. The Appellant dealt a blow on the head of the deceased with the lathi in his hand. As a result of the blow the deceased fell down and bled from the injury on the head. After he fell down Budhwa dealt a blow to the deceased and all the three accused ran into their h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC592; [1955]1SCR305
Bose, J. 1. We are concerned in this appeal with the sale of a liquor contract for the year 1953-54 in the State of Mysore. 2. The appellant, Guruswamy, and the fourth respondent, Thimmappa, are rival liquor contractors. The contract for the City and Taluk of Bangalore was auctioned by the third respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, on 27th April, 1953. The appellant's bid of Rs. 1,80,000 a month was the highest, so the contract was knocked by down in his favour subject to formal confirmation by the Deputy Commissioner. On the same day the appellant deposited Rs. 1,99,618-12-0. 3. The fourth respondent, Thimmappa, was present at the auction but did not bid. Instead of that he went direct to the Excise Commissioner behind the appellant's back and made an offer of Rs. 1,85,000. 4. On 11th May, 1953, the Excise Commissioner passed the following order : - 'The highest bid received in the recent auction sale is Rs. 1,80,000 per mensem. As Sri Thimmappa has now offered Rs. 1,85,000 per mensem...
Tag this Judgment!