Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC119; 1958CriLJ260; 1983LC1674D(SC); 1983(13)ELT1302(SC); [1958]1SCR822
Das, C.J.1. In their respective separate petitions, the petitioners pray (1) for an order, direction or write in the nature of certiorari and/or prohibition calling for the records in the case of the Assistant Collector of Land Customs & Central Excise, Amritsar, against the two petitioners and one Moshe Baruk, on the file of the Additional District Magistrate of Amritsar and for quashing the proceedings therein, habeas corpus for the production before this Court of the persons of the petitioners to be dealt with according to law. 2. The facts appearing from the records are shortly as follows : The petitioner, Leo Roy Frey, purchased a car No. C.D. 75 TT 6587 from an officer of the American Embassy in Paris. This car was sold by the petitioner Frey to the petitioner Thomas Dana, in May 1957. On transfer, the car was registered in the name of the petitioner Dana on May 18, 1957. Both the petitioners thereafter booked their passages through the American Express Company from Geneva to Bom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC160; [1958]1SCR816
Imam, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Madhya Bharat high Court dated July 9, 1955, rejecting an application filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. According to the appellant, his father Habibullah died more than twenty years ago leaving behind the appellant and his brother Bashirullah as his sole heirs. Habibullah, on his death, left immovable properties in the city of Indore. Bashirullah, who was unmarried, went made in 1942 and died in 1950 without any issue. On his death, the appellant became the sole owner of all the properties left by his father Habibullah. On September 21, 1954, the respondent purported to serve on the appellant a notice under s. 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950), hereinafter referred to as the Act. This notice was not served on him and was never pasted on the property concerned. Service of the notice was, according to the appellant, not proper and therefore illegal. 3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC141; 1958CriLJ271; [1958]33ITR1(SC); (1958)36MysLJ(SC)337; [1958]1SCR774
Sinha, J.1. This appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the Calcutta High Court under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, is directed against the judgment and order of a Single Judge of that Court in its criminal revisional jurisdiction, convicting the appellant under s. 488/300 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act), and sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 50, in substitution of the order of conviction under s. 488/299 of the Act, of a fine of Rs. 75, passed by the lower courts. 2. The facts found by the courts below which are necessary to be stated for the purpose of this appeal, are as follows : The appellant who is the owner of the premises No. 10/3, Swarnamoyee Road, Howrah, encroached upon an area of 57' x 3' of the road-side land of the Howrah Municipality to which the provisions of the Act have been extended. A notice, the terms of which we shall set out hereinafter, was served on the appellant to remove the encroachment afores...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC274; (1958)IMLJ93(SC); (1958)36MysLJ(SC)256; [1958]1SCR781
Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal with a certificate of fitness under s. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure raises an important question as to the rights and remedies of a bailor in the event of non-delivery of the goods by the bailee.2. The appellants carried on business in partnership in the firm name and style of 'Ishwarsing Dhiansingh' and were the owners of two motor trucks, one bearing No. AWB 230 (V-8 Ford 1938 Model) and the other bearing No. AWB 253 (Oldsmobile Model 1938). On May 4, 1942, the appellants entered into an agreement for the hiring out of these trucks to the respondent for imparting tuition to the military personnel. Rupees 17 per day per truck was stipulated as the hire and the agreement was terminable on one month's notice by either side.3. Pursuant to the said agreement truck No. AWB 230 was handed over to the respondent on April 29, 1942, and truck No. AWB 253 was given on May 4, 1942. The respondent used truck No. AWB 230 from April 29, 1942, to July 31, 1942, excep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC127; 1958(6)BLJR49; 1958CriLJ268; [1958]1SCR768
Sinha, J.1. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, has the power to enhance the sentence, as it has done in the instant case, beyond the limit of the maximum sentence that could have been imposed by the trial court, on the accused persons. The appellants, along with others, were placed on their trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Chapra in the district of Saran, for the offence of dacoity under s. 395, Indian Penal Code. They, along with two others, were convicted under s. 395, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, by the Assistant Sessions Judge, by his Judgment and order dated December 12, 1953. The other accused were acquitted. The convicted persons preferred an appeal to the High Court at Patna. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, while admitting the appeal, called upon the appellants to show cause why, in the event of their convictions being maintained, their...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC124; 1958(6)BLJR31; 1958CriLJ265; (1958)IILLJ269SC; (1958)36MysLJ(SC)118; [1958]1SCR762
Kapur, J.1. The sole point in this appeal against the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court pronounced on December 31, 1953, is the validity and effect of the sanction given under s. 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947), hereinafter termed the Act. 2. The appellant was prosecuted for receiving illegal gratification and the charge against him was in the following terms : 'That, you, Jaswant Singh, while employed as a Patwari, Fatehpur Rajputan habitually accepted or obtained for yourself illegal gratification and that you received in the sum of Rs. 50 on 19-3-1953 at Subzi Mandi Amritsar from Pal Singh P.W. as a reward for forwarding the application Ex. P.A. with your recommendation for helping Santa Singh father of Pal Singh in the allotment of Ahata No. 10 situate at village Fatehpur Rajputan and thereby committed an offence of Criminal misconduct in the discharge of your duty mentioned in section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, punishable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC311
Jafer Imam, J.1. These nine appeals are by special leave against the order of the State Industrial Court at Nagpur reversing the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner of Nagpur who rejected the applications of the respondents under Section. 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondents had applied to the Labour Commissioner under Section 16 to set aside the order of the appellant dismissing them from the service of the Model Mills Ltd., Nagpur with effect from 11th of January, 1956. The State Industrial Court purported to exercise its revisional powers under Section 16 (5) of the Act.2. In the Model Mills Ltd., Nagpur machines known as 'Seven Bowl Calender Machines', generally described as Calender machines, were used. According to the respondents, at least three persons were required for working each of these machines and this had been the practice for manyyears. The management of the Model Mil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC143; 1958CriLJ273; [1958]1SCR749
Sinha, J.1. This appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court at Calcutta, under art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, is directed against the order of a Division Bench of that Court, dated February 15, 1955, summarily dismissing an appeal from the judgment and order dated January 22, 1955, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge of Alipore, accepting the unanimous verdict of guilty returned by the jury, holding the appellant guilty under s. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed rape on a young girl, named Sudharani Roy, said to be about 14-15 years of age. The learned trial judge, accepting the unanimous verdict of the jury and agreeing with it, imposed a 'deterrent punishment' of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, in view of the fact that he was in loco parentis to the large number of girls who were the inmates of the Nari Kalyan Ashram of which the appellant had been the secretary for a pretty long time. 2. The learned counsel for the State of West Ben...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC207; (1958)60BOMLR636; [1958]33ITR182(SC); (1958)IIMLJ1(SC); [1958]1SCR689
S.K. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 4th March, 1953, in Income-tax Reference No. 27 of 1952, by which the said High Court answered certain questions of law referred to it in the negative. The answer to those questions depends upon the true scope and effect of certain provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), hereinafter referred to as the Act, regarding which there has already been a difference of opinion between two High Courts in India. Unfortunately, we have come to a conclusion different from that of our learned senior brother, Bhagwati, J., and we are explaining in this judgment, as briefly and clearly as we can, the grounds on which our conclusion is founded. 2. Very briefly put, the relevant facts are these. The assessee, respondent before us, is a non-resident company which has its head office in London and branches in India. It sells and publishes books and magazines in vari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC30; (1958)ILLJ1SC; [1958]1SCR651
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant M/s. Crown Aluminium Works, Belur, represented by Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd., and its Workmen represented by Bengal Aluminium Workers' Union. By their order dated July 31, 1952, the Government of West Bengal referred thirteen matters for adjudication to Shri S.K. Niyogi who was appointed to constitute the Sixth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned adjudicator considered the pleas raised, and the evidence less, by the parties before him, investigated into the financial position of the appellant and pronounced his award on October 9, 1953, on all matters referred to him. Both parties were aggrieved by the award and that led to two cross appeals. On July 11, 1955, the Labour Appellate Tribunal disposed of these appeals by a consolidated order. The workmen appear to be satisfied with this order but the appellant is not and so ...
Tag this Judgment!