Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC298; (1955)57BOMLR723; [1955]1SCR1311
Venkatarama Ayyar, J. 1. The point for decision in this appeal is as to the liability of certainlands situated within the City of Bombay to be assessed to revenue under the BombayCity Land Revenue Act No. II of 1876. These lands were originally known asForas lands, and the rights of the occupants of those lands were settled byBombay Act No. VI of 1851, called the Foras Act. What these rights are, is amatter in controversy between the parties, and will be presently considered.Between 1864 and 1867 the Government acquired these lands for the purpose ofthe B.B.C.I. Railway under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act No. VI of1857. On 22-11-1938 these lands, being no longer required for the purpose ofthe Railway, were sold by the Governor-General to Lady Pochkhanawalla andothers as joint tenants under a deed, Exhibit A. On 28-3-1939 the survivor ofthe purchasers under Exhibit A conveyed the lands in trust under Exhibit B, andthe respondents are the trustees appointed under that deed. 2. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC309; 1955CriLJ865; [1955]1SCR1302
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. The appellant was a Sub-Divisional Officer in the Public Works Department, Pepsu, and was, at the material dates, in charge of certain works at a place called Karhali. It was part of his duties to disburse the wages to the workmen employed in the works, and the procedure usually followed was that he drew the amount required from the treasury, and paid the same to the employees against their signatures or thumb-impressions in the monthly acquittance roll. In the roll for April 1951, one Parma was mentioned as a khalasi (menial servant), and a sum of Rs. 51 shown as paid to him for his wages, the payment being vouched by thumb-impression. The case of the prosecution was that there was, in fact, no person of the name of Parma, that the thumb-impression found in the acquittance roll was that of the appellant himself, that he had included a fictitious name in the acquittance roll, with intent to himself draw the amount, and that by this expedient he has received Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC367; 1955CriLJ876; [1955]1SCR1284
Bose, J.1. The petitioner, Hans Muller, who is not a citizen of India, and who is said to be a West German subject, was arrested by the Calcutta Police on the 18th September, 1954 and was placed under preventive detention. The order was made by the West Bengal Government under section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 (Act IV of 1950) on the ground that his detention was 'with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India'. 2. The grounds were served on the 22nd of September, 1954. The second ground runs - 'That you are a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (Act XXXI of 1946) and that it has become necessary to make arrangements for your expulsion from India and for this purpose you are required to be detained under section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 until the issue of an appropriate order of expulsion from the Central Government'. 3. On the day after his arrest, namely on the 19th September, 1954 he wrote to the Consul-Ge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC574; 1955CriLJ1296
Bhagwati, J.1. The appellant along with 5 other persons was charged under Section 366, Penal Code, for kidnapping or abducting one Chameli, a minor daughter of a railway employee one Net Ram, in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. The other accused were also charged with having committed offences under various other sections of the Penal Code but which are not necessary to mention for purposes of this appeal. The accused Prahlad Singh and Dhani Ram were acquitted, the accused Baburam was convicted under Section 366 and 368 and the accused Gokaran was convicted under Section 368 Penal Code. The accused Niranjan was also convicted under Section 366 and 368 and the Appellant was convicted under Section 366 Penal Code and was sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment.On an appeal being taken to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) the accused Babu Ram and Gokaran were given the benefit of doubt and their convictions and sentences were set ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC314; (1955)57BOMLR671; [1955]1SCR1268
Sinha J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order datedthe 23rd August, 1954 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dismissing theappellant's petition for a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writdirected against the election of the 2nd and 3rd respondents as President andVice-President respectively of the Gadag-Betgeri Municipal Borough, the 1strespondent in this appeal. 2. The facts of this case are not in dispute and may shortly be stated asfollows : The 1st respondent is a municipality governed by the provisions ofthe Municipal Boroughs Act (Bombay Act XVIII of 1925) which hereinafter shallbe referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity. The appellant is on of the32 councillors constituting the municipality. The last general election to themunicipality took place on the 7th May 1951. The term of the councillors wasthree years computed from the date of the first general meeting held after thegeneral election aforesaid - in this case the 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC320; 1955CriLJ869
S.R. Das, J.1. Gurbakhsh Singh along with his brother Labh Singh, his son Piara Singh and his brother's son Jawahri was sent up for trial under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, for having murdered one Mohinder Singh and also under Section 307 read with Section 34, Penal Code, for having inflicted gun-shot injuries on one Thakar Singh (P. W. 17).The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Labh Singh, Piara Singh and Jawahri of both the charges but convicted Gurbakhsh Singh under both Section 302 and Section 307 and sentenced him under the former section to death and under the latter section to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment.The High Court having dismissed his appeal and accepted the reference the present appeal has been brought by special leave of this Court by Gurbakhsh Singh against his conviction and sentences.2. The prosecution case is that on 27th or 28th October 1953 there was an altercation between Sundar Singh, brother of Suja Singh and their employee Mohinder Singh on,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC322; 1955CriLJ871
Bhagwati, J.1. The Appellant in this appeal by special leave was a Head Constable of Police who was posted as an accountant in the National Volunteer Corps office in Ferozpore District. On 7-2-1950 he withdrew from the Treasury a sum of Rs. 11,579-8-0 on the strength of a contingent voucher being a subsistence allowance bill for the month of February, 1950, purporting to be signed by Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepore. These signatures of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh were alleged to be forged and the Appellant was charged that he on or about 7-2-1950 fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine a forged document, viz., subsistence allowance bill for the month of February, 1950 which he knew or had reasons to believe at the time he used it to be a forged document and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 467 read with 471, Penal Code.2. The Additional District Magistrate, Ferozepore, who tried the case negatived the contention o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC282; 1955(0)BLJR278; [1955]1SCR1259
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. These are two connected appeals arising out of a common judgment of the High Court of Patna on two applications to it dated the 5th July, 1950 and 28th July, 1950, under article 226 of the Constitution. The State of Bihar is the appellant in both the appeals. The first three respondents in Appeal No. 97 are the sons of the fourth respondent therein, viz. Kumar Rani Sayeeda Khatoon (hereinafter referred to as Kumar Rani). The said Kumar Rani is also the first respondent in Appeal No. 98. The other respondents in both the appeals are Government Officers under the appellant, the State of Bihar. The applications before the High Court arose with reference to action taken against (1) the property, and (2) the person, of Kumar Rani by the Officers of the Government of Bihar, under the following circumstances. 2. Kumar Rani was admittedly born in the territory of India and claims to be the lawfully wedded wife of Captain Maharaj Kumar Gopal Saran Narayan Singh of Gaya by v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC325
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. These two are appeals on leave granted by the High Court of Bombay under Article 133(1) (c) of the Constitution against its common judgment in Second Appeals Nos. 936 and 937 of 1947. The appellant in each of these appeals is the State of Bombay and the respondent is Mulji Jetha & Company.The respondent owned three survey numbers at Jalgaon in the State of Bombay being Survey Nos. 253-A, 254-A, and 253-B, which, prior to the year 1911, were used and assessed as agricultural lands. In the year 1911, the respondent made * an application under Section 35, Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (Bombay Act V of 1879) (hereinafter referred to as the Code), to the Collector of Jalgaon for permission to divert the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 253-A and 254-A from agricultural to non-agricultural use for the purpose of constructing thereon a structure in accordance with a plan submitted along with that application. In the year 1912, he made another similar application in respect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC258; (1955)ILLJ346SC; [1955]1SCR1241
Das, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, dated the 18th November 1954 which was made on an application made by the appellant company on the 6th September 1954 under section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 (Act XLVIII of 1950) which is hereinafter refereed to as the 1950 Act. 2. The appellant company carries on business as assemblers of motor vehicles from 'completely knocked down' assemblies imported into India. There was some appeal pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal arising out of disputes between the appellant company and its workmen. It is alleged that the name of the appellant company had been removed by the Government of India from the list of approved manufacturers maintained by them and that, in the result, it had been unable to secure further import licenses for the import of completely knocked down assemblies of motor vehicles and that consequently on and from the 1st Nov...
Tag this Judgment!