Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC544; 1956CriLJ948
Venkatarama Ayyar, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad confirming the conviction of the appellant by the two courts below on a charge under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. In response to a notice dated 4th November, 1949, the District Development Officer, Etawah, inviting tenders for the supply of bricks in connection with a Flood Relief Housing Scheme, the appellant made a tender which was accepted and he was required to deposit in accordance with the rules, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- by way of security. Accordingly, on the 17th of November, 1949, he delivered a cheque dated 16th November for Rs. 4,000/- drawn on the Punjab National Bank Ltd., Kanpur, while in fact there was only a sum of Rs. 5/- to his credit on that date.It must be noted that according to Clause 11 of Ex. P-2, which prescribes the procedure to be adopted in the matter of acceptance of tenders, the deposit should be in cash or postal securities. The cheque presented ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC153; 1956CriLJ326; [1955]2SCR1013
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. The appellant was a candidate for election to the House of the People from the Karnal Reserved Constituency during the last General Elections. The proviso to section 33(3) of the Representation of the People Act (XLIII of 1951), omitting what is not material, enacts 'that in a constituency where any seat is reserved for the Scheduled Castes, no candidate shall be deemed to be qualified to be chosen to fill that seat unless his nomination paper is accompanied by a declaration verified in the prescribed manner that the candidate is a member of the Scheduled Castes for which the sea has been so reserved and the declaration specifies the particular caste of which the candidate is a member and also the area in relation to which such caste is one of the Scheduled Castes'. Rule 6 of the Election Rule provides that the declaration referred to in the above proviso shall be verified by the candidate on oath or solemn affirmation before a Magistrate. Schedule II contains t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC102; (1956)58BOMLR510; 1956CriLJ280; (1956)IMLJ85(SC); [1955]2SCR1006
Das, J.1. This Rule was issued by this Court under Order IV, rule 30 of the Rules of this Court after receipt of a report from the Bombay High Court that that High Court had, by its order made on the 13th October, 1955 in Civil Application No. 1506 of 1955, suspended the respondent from practice as an Advocate of that High Court for a period of one year from the date of the said order. By the rule the respondent has been required to show cause why, in view of the matter specified in the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court referred to above, appropriate action, disciplinary or otherwise, should not be taken against him by this Court. 2. The respondent is an Advocate of some standing in the Bombay High Court and as such was also enrolled as an Advocate of this Court. It appears that in the earlier part of the year 1953 the Advocate was prosecuted before Mr. Sonavane, one of the Presidency Magistrates at Bombay, on a charge of having committed an offence under the Bombay Prohibiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC110; 1956CriLJ285; [1955]2SCR995
Venkatarama Ayyar, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta affirming the order of the Municipal Magistrate, whereby he dismissed an application filed by the appellant under section 363 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for demolition of certain constructions on the ground that they had been erected without the previous permission of the authorities and in contravention of the prescription laid down in the building rules. 2. The respondent is the owner of house No. 36, Armenian Street, Calcutta. On 28-10-1950 the Building Inspector of the Corporation discovered that some new masonry structures were being constructed on the fifth storey of that house. A notice under section 365 of the Act was immediately served on the respondent directing him to stop forthwith further constructions pending an application to the Magistrate under section 363 of the Act. What followed thereon is graphically described by the learned Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC108; 1956CriLJ283; [1955]2SCR983
Bose, J.1. This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution for writ of habeas corpus. The petition was presented by Mr. R.V.S. Mani, an advocate of the Nagpur High Court, on behalf of Shrimati Vidya Verma and was directed against her father Dr. Shiv Narayan Verma of Nagpur. 2. Mr. Mani had no power of attorney from the land and when the office pointed out that he could to present a petition without producing the necessary authority he amended the petition and described himself as the next friend of the lady. 3. When the matter first camp up for hearing we directed a notice to issue to the father but later the same day it was brought to our notice that the opposite party was not either the Union of India or a State, nor was it some official acting under the orders of one or the other, but a private person. The question therefore arose of our power under article 32 to issue a writ of this kind against a private party. Accordingly, before the notice was sent out we recalled it and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC105; (1956)58BOMLR507; [1955]2SCR977
Venkatarama Ayyar, J. 1. This appeal raises a question as to the powers of a Custodian of Evacuee Property to cancel a lease granted by him under section 12 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (XXXI of 1950), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Messrs Abdul Karim and Brothers owned, along with certain other properties which are not the subject-matter of the present appeal, three mills with bungalows and chawls at Ambernath in Thana District and the Bobbin Factory at Tardeo in Bombay. They having migrated to Pakistan, these properties were declared by a notification dated 12-9-1951 issued under section 7 of the Act as evacuee property, and under section 8(1) of the Act, they became vested in the respondent as the Custodian for the State. The appellants are displaced persons, and on 30-8-1952 the respondent entered into an agreement with them, Exhibit A, which is, as aptly characterised by learned counsel for the appellants, of a composite character, consisting of three distinc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC546; 1956CriLJ950
Imam, J.1. The real question in this appeal is whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34, Penal Code is legal in the circumstances of the present case. The Magistrate, who tried the appellants framed a charge under Sections 148, 323 and 326 read with Section 149, Penal Code. He found them and seven others guilty of this charge and convicted them accordingly. The Second Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut, in appeal, acquitted all the accused except the appellants whose conviction ho maintained but reduced their sentence.The appellants moved the High Court of Allahabad in its revisional jurisdiction and the High Court held that as a result of the Additional Sessions Judge's judgment the appellants could not be convicted under Section 148 or Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 149, Penal Code as the ingredients to establish the existence of an unlawful assembly were absent. The High Court, however, convicted the appellants under Sections ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC548
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted on 31-5-1935 by the first respondent, Mst. Naimunnisa Bibi and her sister, Khadija-ul-Kubra Bibi, since deceased, for partition of their shares in the estate of their father, Sheik Ataullah, who died sometime in 1892. The defendants to the action were their brothers, Sheik Kifayatullah and Sheik Mohammad Baqar.The plaintiffs alleged that after the death of their father, Sheik Ataullah, they and the defendants were living together as members of one family, that the first defendant was in management of the properties on behalf of all of them, that on 10-8-1933 the defendants executed a deed of waqf-alal-aulad for the benefit of their descendants, and that the said deed was a denial of their rights. They accordingly prayed for partition and delivery of 14/48th share in the estate of the deceased Sheik Ataullah, which they claimed as belonging to them, for an account of the management of the same by the first defendant fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC66; 1956CriLJ156; [1955]2SCR955
Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal with certificate under article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution arises out of an application under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act (XXXII of 1952) and section 8 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act (XXXVII of 1850) read with article 227 of the Constitution filed by the respondent against the appellant in the High Court of Judicature of Patna and raises an important question as to whether the Commissioner appointed under Act XXXVII of 1850 is a Court. 2. The respondent is a Member of the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch). The State Government received reports to the effect that the respondent had been guilty of serious misconduct and corrupt practices in the discharge of his official duties while employed as Sub-Divisional Officer at Aurangabad and they accordingly decided that an inquiry into the truth of the various charges against him should be made under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (Act XXXVII of 1850, hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC87; (1956)IMLJ71(SC); [1955]2SCR938
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Madras High Court in a second appeal which reversed the concurrent judgments of the courts below, and granted a decree in favour of the respondents for partition and possession of 126 acres 33 cents out of a parcel of land of the extent of 503 acres 18 cents in the village of Kalavacherla, and of 10 acres 12 cents out of a parcel of land of the extent of 40 acres 47 cents in the village of Nandarada, with mesne profits, past and future. All these lands measuring 543 aces 65 cents were purchased by five co-sharers on 5-6-1988 under two sale deeds, Exhibits P and P-1. One of these shares of the extent of about 218 acres was, at the material dates, held in common by two brothers, Rangaraju and Kumara, the former owning 136 acres 45 cents and the latter 81 acres 45 cents. On 19-8-1908 Kumara executed a simple mortgage, Exhibit Q, over 81 acres 45 cents belonging to him for Rs. 1,000 in favour of Nallappa...
Tag this Judgment!