Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC232; [1957]1SCR98
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 22, 1955, passed by the Letters Patent Bench of the Nagpur High Court reversing those of a single Judge of that Court, dated December 13, 1954, refusing to issue a writ in the nature of a certiorari. 2. The facts of this case lie in a short compass and may be stated as follows : The Suwarna Transport Company Limited, which will be referred to as the first respondent in the course of this judgment, held seven permits for running buses on the Buldana-Malkapur route, as the sole operator on that route. It applied for another permit for the same route. The appellant, The New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd., as also another party called the Navjivan Transport Service (not cited in this Court) applied for a similar permit on that route. On May 26, 1953, all the three applicants aforesaid were heard by the Regional Transport Authority of Amraoti, which is the third respondent in this Court, in connection wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC216; 1957CriLJ481
S.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by-special leave from the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court dated the 27th of April 1955, by which the appellant Balbir Singh, a student aged about 19, has been convicted of the offence of murdering one Mst. Chinti and sentenced to transportation for life under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. By the said order the High Court has also convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 457, Indian Penal Code. The High Court has directed that the two sentences shall run concurrently.2. The appellant Balbir Singh and one Jagir Singh, another boy aged about 16, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Hoshiarpur with the aid of four assessors. The charges on which they were tried were the following. Both Balbir Singh and Jagir Singh were charged with having murdered Mst. Chinti and her two sons, Kewal Singh and Autar Singh, aged 11 and 5 respectively. Mst. Chinti, a woman aged about 27 or 28, it was alleged, was st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC49; [1956]1SCR691
Venkatarama Ayyar, J. 1. These appeals arise out of orders of assessment made on the appellant by the Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, for the years of account 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44. The appellant applied under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to refer to the High Court certain questions which according to it arose out of the orders; but the Tribunal rejected the applications. The appellant then moved the High Court under section 66(2) of the Act for an order requiring the Tribunal to refer those questions to the court, but the learned Judges held that the questions on which reference was sought by the appellant were pure questions of fact, and dismissed the applications. The matter now comes before us by way of special appeal. 2. The facts material for the purpose of these appeals may shortly be stated. The assessee is a public company registered under the Indian Companies Act, and its Managing Agents are the firm of Messrs K. R. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1957]31ITR28(SC)
VENKATARAMA AYYAR, J. - These appeals arise out of order of assessment made on the appellant by the Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, for the years of account 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44. The appellant applied under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to refer to the High Court certain questions which according to its arose out of the orders; but the Tribunal rejected the applications. The appellant then moved the High Court under section 66 (2) of the Act for an order requiring the Tribunal to refer Those questions of the court, but the learned Judges held that the question on which reference was sought by the appellant were pure questions of fact, and dismissed the applications. The matter now comes before us by way of special appeal.The facts material for the purpose of these appeals may shortly be stated. The assessee is a public company registered under the Indian companies Act, and its Managing Agents are the firm of Messrs K. R. Thya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC211; 1957CriLJ328
Imam, J.1. The appellant was sentenced to transportation for life by the Temporary Sessions Judge of Aligarh for the murder of Chimmanlal aged about six years. He appealed against his conviction to the Allahabad High Court and his appeal was heard by Desai J. and Mehrotra J. There was a difference of opinion between them, Desai J. being of the opinion that the appellant was guilty of the offence of murder while Mehrotra J. was of the opinion that he was not guilty. The case was then placed before a third Judge of the High Court and it was heard by Agarwala J. who agreed with Desai J, Accordingly, the appellant's conviction for murder was upheld and his appeal was dismissed. The High Court certified the case as a fit one for appeal to this Court.2. It is said that Chimmanlal was murdered on or about 2-12-1950. On that date Chimmanlal had left his father's shop at about 5 p. m. to go home which was a short distance away. He, however, never reached home. His father Shanker Lal came home a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC202
Govinda Menon, J. 1. These to appeals arise out of the acquisition of 'Dilkusha' Estate, situated outside the city of Lucknow. The State of Uttar Pradesh is the appellant in Appeal No. 186 of 1955, whereas the claimant H. S. Gupta is the appellant in Appeal No. 187 of 1955.2. On the 3rd September 1947, the Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow, made an award by which he held that the claimant was entitled to get compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,88,000 along with 15 per cent, for compulsory acquisition under Section 3(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, as well as damages to the extent of Rs. 350 per mensem resulting from the diminution of profits from 17-6-1947, i.e., the date of publication of declaration, under Section 6, till the date of taking over possession of the property, viz. 6th September 1947. Not being satisfied with the award, at the instance of the claimant a reference was made to the District Judge of Lucknow under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the learned District ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC206; (1956)IILLJ291SC
Bhagwati, J.1. The facts and circumstances which led to the present Appeal may be shortly stated as under.2. The appellant, the management of the Tea Estates in Assam represented by the Indian Tea Association, Calcutta, used to supply certain quantities of rice and other articles of food at concession rates to their workmen. Before February 1950, the supply of rice at such concession rates to an adult male worker was 5 seers per week. From February 1950, the rice quota was reduced by half-a-seer per week and for the said cut the employers agreed to pay cash compensation at the rate of 6 pies per working day. Due to shortage of cereals, the Government of India notified on the 18th November 1950, 'an All-India Cereal Ration Scale which laid down that no adult male worker was entitled to get more than 3 1/2 seers of rice per week'. The result was a further cut of another seer of rice per week in the supply of rice at concession rates. The workmen claimed compensation in cash for this cut ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC13; 1957(0)BLJR48; 1957CriLJ1; (1957)IILLJ538SC; [1956]1SCR682
Bhagwati, J.1. This Appeal with a certificate of fitness under article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner at Ajmer raises an important question as to the connotation of the word 'officer' contained in section 21(9), Indian Penal Code. 2. The appellant was a Class III servant employed as a metal examiner, also called Chaser, in the Railway Carriage Workshops at Ajmer. He was charged under section 161, Indian Penal Code with having accepted from one Nanak Singh currency notes of the value of Rs. 150 as illegal gratification as a motive for securing a job for one Kallu. He was also charged under section 5(1) (d) of Act II of 1947 with abusing his position as a public servant and obtaining for himself by corrupt or illegal means pecuniary advantage in the shape of Rs. 150 from the said Nanak Singh. He was further charged with having committed an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code for having induced the said Nanak Singh to deliver to hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC18; 1957(0)BLJR52; [1956]1SCR664
S.K. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated the 7th of May 1954 by which the High Court dismissed an application of the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorari under the provisions of article 226 of the Constitution. The appeal raises the question of the validity of the assessment of a tax on the appellant for the year 1950-51 by the Town Area Committee of Karhal under the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the United Provinces Town Areas Act, 1914 (U. P. Act II of 1914), hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The appellant resides in the town of Manipuri and carries on the business of plying a motor bus on hire. The appellant's bus plies on alternate days between Etawah and Manipuri, and the town of Karhal falls on the route between Etawah and Manipuri. It is not now disputed that passengers travelling in the appellant's bus used to get down or get in at a bus stand ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC34; (1957)59BOMLR93; [1956]1SCR675
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by leave of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay from the decision of a Division Bench of that Court reversing that of the trial court in respect of items 3, 4 and 6 in the list of the properties attached to the plaint as the subject-matter of the dispute. In respect of the other items of property in dispute the courts below have given concurrent decisions and that part of their judgments is no more in controversy at this stage. The three items aforesaid of the property along with the others in dispute had been decreed in favour of the original plaintiffs 2 and 3 as Watan property. But on appeal by the third defendant, the High Court reversed the decision of the trial court only in respect of those three items and confirmed the decision of the trial court in respect of the rest of the plaint properties. 2. The propositus was one Shreemant who died on the 23rd November, 1941 leaving him surviving his wife Radhabai. Radhabai died on the 9th May, 1945 and o...
Tag this Judgment!