Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC459; [1955]2SCR83
Sinha, J.1. The only question for determination in this appeal by special leave is whether the appellant is disqualified under Section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) for election to the house of the People, as held by the Election Tribunal, North Arcot, Vellore, by its orders dated the 20th January, 1953 in Election Petition No. 35 of 1952. 2. The facts of this case are not in dispute and lie within a narrow compass. The appellant and respondents 1 to 3 contested the last general elections from the Dharmapuri Parliamentary Constituency in the district of Salem in the State of Madras. Respondents 4 to 10 who were added subsequently by an order of the Tribunal were also candidates for election. Their nominations also had been held to be valid but they ultimately withdrew their candidature before the polling took place. The appellant was in due course declared to have been elected to the House of the People. Thereafter, on the 5th March, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC633; (1956)58BOMLR831; 1955CriLJ1410; [1955]2SCR94
Das, J.1. The appellant before us was on the 9th December, 1952 convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, 13th Court, Bombay, of an offence under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act (Act XXV of 1949) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 250 or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay but his appeal was summarily dismissed by a Bench of that Court on the 19th January, 1953. After the dismissal of that appeal the State of Bombay made a Criminal Revision application to the High Court for enhancement of the sentence. Notice having been issued to the appellant under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned counsel for the appellant claimed the appellant's right under section 439(6) to show cause against his conviction. This the High Court did not permit him to do. The High Court, however, did not think fit to make any order for enha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC478; 1955(0)BLJR467; 1955CriLJ1017; [1955]2SCR78
Sinha, J.1. In this appeal we did not think it necessary to her the counsel for the respondents on the merits of the decision appealed from in the view we have taken, as will presently appear, of the terms of the surety bond which was being sought to be enforced against the sureties, the respondents in this Court. The surety bond in question was taken in circumstances which clearly appear from the following resolution of the Government of Bihar dated the 17th October 1946 :- 'Whereas one Maulavi A. Ali Khan, who was convicted under section 120-B read with section 420, Indian Penal Code by the First Special Tribunal, Calcutta and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees one lac which conviction and sentence have been subsequently upheld by the Patna High Court, has submitted to the Provincial Government a petition praying for suspension of his sentence in order to enable him to prefer an appeal against the said conviction and sentence to the Judicial Committee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC468; [1955]2SCR48
Bose, J.1. This appeal and Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1954, which will also be governed by this judgment, raise the same points though there are some differences in the facts. We will deal with Civil Appeal No. 260 of 1953 first.2. The suit there related to an arbitration matter. The appellant before us, whom it will be convenient to call the contractor, entered into a contract with the Dominion of India through an Additional Chief Engineer of the C.P.W.D. on 1-11-1945 for the supply of bricks to the C.P.W.D., a department of the Dominion Government. Disputes arose about a number of matters. Clause 14 of the agreement provided that all disputes arising out of or relating to the contract should be referred to the Superintending Engineer of the Circle for the time being. Accordingly, there was a reference on 21-1-1949 and an award followed on 8-5-1949. It was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, and the contractor prayed that it be accepted and that a decree be passed in ter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1955]2SCR67
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an appeal on leave granted by the High Court of Punjab against its judgment affirming the decree of the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal dated the 19th December, 1940, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff in the appeal is the Committee of Management of Sikh Gurdwaras within the Municipal limits of Amritsar (except the Gurdwara Sri Akal Takhat Sahib, Amritsar). The plaint was filed under section 25-A of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, (Punjab Act VIII of 1925) (herein after referred to as the Act) for possession of certain properties situated in Amritsar, marked and bounded as specified in the plaint and purporting to have been declared as a Sikh Gurdwara by the Government of Punjab under section 17 of the Act by means of the notification No. 9-G dated the 3rd March, 1937. The case of the plaintiff-Committee is that these properties were, and were determined to be, a Sikh Gurdwara by name Gurdwara Bunga Sarkar, by the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal by its decree dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC576
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab by leave granted under Article 133 of the Constitution read with Sections 109 and 110 and Order 45, Rule 2 Civil P. C. The appeal arises out of a suit filed in 1938 by the respondent herein, Raja Shiv Rattan Dev Singh, Raja of Poonch against (1) Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, (2) Local Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee of Sri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, and (3) 57 Sikhs, for a declaration to the effect that a house known as Bunga Raja Dhian Singh in Amritsar and four shops appurtenant thereto, two of which are close to the Sikh Gurdwara, Sri Darbar Sahib, belong to him and are his private property and that they are not a Sikh Gurdwara.The suit which was filed in 1938 was dismissed by the trial Court on certain preliminary issues and that dismissal was reversed on first appeal and the suit was remanded. On second appeal therefrom to the High Court the dismissal by the trial court was restored...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC425; [1955]2SCR1
Bose, J.1. The second respondent Bhurey Lal filed an election petition under section 100 of the Representation of the People Act against the appellant Sangram Singh and two others for setting aside Sangram Singh's election. 2. The proceedings commenced at Kotah and after some hearings the Tribunal made an order on 11-12-1952 that the further sittings would be at Udaipur from the 16th to the 21st March, 1953. It was discovered later that the 16th was a public holiday, so on 5-1-1953 the dates were changed to 'from the 17th March onwards' and the parties were duly notified. 3. On the 17th the appellant did not appear nor did any of the three counsel whom he had engaged, so the Tribunal proceeded ex parte after waiting till 1-15 P.M. 4. The Tribunal examined Bhurey Lal and two witnesses on the 17th, five more witnesses on the 18th and on the 19th the case was adjourned till the 20th. 5. On the 20th one of the appellant's three counsel, Mr. Bharat Raj, appeared but was not allowed to take ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC481
Bose, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits which were heard together along with two other suits with which, we are not now concerned. All four raised the same set of questions except for a few subsidiary matters. They were tried together and by common consent the documents and evidence in the various cases were treated as common to all. They were all governed by one common judgment, both in the first Court and on appeal. The defendants appeal here.2. The plaintiff, Mukand Ram, is common to all four cases. He sues in each suit as the reversioner to one Pandit Nanak Chand who was his maternal grandfather. The family tree-is as below:NANAK CHAND d. 28-7.56W : Mst. PATO d. Jan. 1873______________________________|______________________________| | | Mst. Maba Devi Mst. Durga Devi Mst. Har Devid. 1912 d. 1888 d. 10.9.1918H : Nathmal Das H : Jwala Prasad H : Bhawani| | ShankerMst. Ram Pyare | || | |Bhukhan Saran | |_________________________________________________________ || | | | |Banwar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC404; (1955)ILLJ688SC; [1955]1SCR1427
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the orders of the Lucknow Bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India (hereinafter to be referred to as 'The Appellate Tribunal') dated the 31st August 1953, setting aside the award dated the 13th October, 1952 made by the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta (hereinafter to be referred to as 'The Tribunal') reinstating the appellant as the head cashier with back salary under the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter called 'The Bank'). 2. The facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be stated. The appellant started his service as the head cashier in the Una Branch of the Bank on the 18th June 1949. The Cash Department of the Bank is in charge of Treasurers. The relation between the Bank and the Treasurers is evidenced by an agreement dated the 1st May 1944 (Ex. 1) which will be noticed in detail hereinafter. That was an agreement between the Bank and 'Messrs Rai Bahadur Karam Chand Puri & Bros'. That firm ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC435; 1955CriLJ1010; [1955]1SCR1444
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an appeal by leave granted by the High Court of Allahabad presumable under article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The facts are simple. Three persons including the appellant were, at the material time, parcel porters at the railway station Manikpur in the district Banda of Uttar Pradesh. On the night of the 18th June, 1952, they were found by two watchmen of the Watch and Ward staff attached to the railway station, committing theft of certain packets of biscuits by breaking open a railway parcel containing those packets, which as parcel porters, they had occasion to handle. First information of the same was lodged, before the Sub-Inspector, Railway Police, by one Ram Prasad, Head Watchman. The Railway Police filed the charge-sheet under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code on the 20th June, 1952. The case was taken cognizance of by the Railway Magistrate, Manikpur. All the three accused pleaded guilty. They were convicted by the Magistrate on the 15th July, ...
Tag this Judgment!