Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC228; [1958]1SCR1015
Bose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a writ petition for mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. The appellant was a District and Sessions Judge in the former Bikaner State. He was appointed on January 29, 1948, in the grade of Rs. 500-40-700 and worked as such till April 7, 1949. 3. On that date a new State of Rajasthan was formed by the integration of a number of States (including the former State of Bikaner) by means of a Covenant signed by the High Contracting Parties. 4. Article XVI(1) of the Covenant ran thus : 'The Untied State hereby guarantees either the continuance in service of the permanent members of the public services of the former Rajasthan State and of each of the new Covenanting States on conditions which will not be less advantageous than those on which they were serving on the 1st November 1948 or the payment of reasonable compensation or retirement on proportionate pension.' 5. The integration necessarily involved a reorganisation of the various services in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC245; (1958)IMLJ148(SC); [1958]1SCR1021
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal by special leave against the order passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on January 25, 1955, calling upon him to pay court fees on the valuation of Rs. 15,00,000 both on his plaint and on his memorandum of appeal and it raises some interesting questions of law under the provisions of the Court Fees Act (which will be described hereafter as the Act). 2. The appellant had filed Civil Suit No. 311 of 1951 on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. In this suit he had claimed partition of the joint family properties and an account in respect of the joint family assets managed by the respondent. The appellant is the son of Subbiah Chettiar. His case was that Subbiah had been adopted by Lakshmi Achi in 1922. Lakshmi Achi was the widow of the undivided paternal uncle of the respondent. As a result of his adoption Subbiah became a coparcener in his adoptive family and, as Subbiah's son, the appellant claimed to have a share ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC253; (1958)IMLJ127(SC); [1962]Supp(2)SCR496B
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. On February 28, 1934, the appellant who is the religious head of the Dawoodi Bohara Community, passed an order excommunicating one Tyebbhai Moosaji Koicha. On July 17, 1920, the appellant had excommunicated two persons, Tahirbhai and Hasan Ali, and the validity of the order was questioned in a suit instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Barhampur. The litigation went up to the Privy Council, which held that the appellant as the religious head had the power to excommunicate a member of the community, but that that power could only be exercised after observing the requisite formalities, and as in that case that had not been done, the order of excommunication was invalid. Vide Hasan Ali v. Mansoorali . 2. Apprehending that the order dated February 28, 1934, was open to challenge under the decision in Hasan Ali v. Mansoorali (supra) on the ground that it had not complied with the requisite formalities, the appellant started fresh proceedings, and on Apri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC148; 1958CriLJ279; [1958]1SCR1001
Imam, J.1. The High Court of Calcutta certified under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution that the case before us was a fit one for appeal to this Court. The ground for the granting of the certificate, as stated by the High Court, will be considered in due course.2. The appellant was convicted under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code by a Special Judge who sentenced him under s. 161 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. No separate sentence was passed under s. 5(2) of the Act. He unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court against his conviction and sentence.3. The charge framed against the appellant under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, in substance, stated that on or about May 12, 1952, he had accepted Rs. 100 as illegal gratification from V.S. Doraiswamy as a motive or rewar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC152; 1958CriLJ282; (1958)36MysLJ(SC)341; [1958]1SCR998
Das, C.J. 1. This is an application for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner who was detained by an order made by the District Magistrate, Karnal under s. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act on the August 18, 1957, and which was approved by the State Government on August 29, 1957. 2. In para 10(xii) of his petition the petitioner stated that he made representations before the Advisory Board and personally appeared twice before it, but the Board had not yet passed any order and he contends that his detention has become illegal and bad. Under s. 10 of the Preventive Detention Act, the Advisory Board is enjoined, after going through the procedure therein laid down, to make it report to the State Government within ten weeks from the date of the detention. On the report being made the State Government has to take steps under s. 11 of the Act. If the report is against the detention the Government has no option but must release the detenu forthwith. In such a case the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC183; (1958)IIMLJ32(SC); [1958]1SCR988
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. The facts material for purposes of this appeal have been stated by us in our order dated February 6, 1957, and may be briefly recapitulated. The suit property is agricultural land of the extent of 10 Bighas, 13 Biswas. On July 8, 1930, the then owners of the land, Ram Prashad and Udairaj, executed a usufructuary mortgage over it and certain other properties, with which we are not concerned in this litigation, in favour of Dwaraka Prashad, Naubat Singh and Munshilal. The lands were originally held in Sir by the mortgagors, but as part of their bargain with the mortgagees, they applied to have their names removed from the Sir, and that was done by an order dated June 18, 1930, the lands being thereafter entered as Khudkasht in the names of the mortgagees. In 1941, Ram Prashad, the surviving mortgagor, filed Suit No. 132 of 1941 for redemption of the mortgage. The suit was contested, but it was eventually decreed, the amount due to the mortgagees being fixed at Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC187; (1958)ILLJ9SC; [1958]1SCR973
Imam, J. 1. These two appeals by special leave have been heard together as they arise out of a single judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow, dated September 30, 1953, passed in seven appeals before it. As the question for consideration in the appeals before this Court is the same, this judgment will govern both the appeals before us. Civil Appeals Nos. 14 and 15 of 1955 arise out of Appeal Nos. III-198 of 1953 and III-321 of 1953 respectively before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. 2. The question for consideration before the Labour Appellate Tribunal was whether the awards from which the seven appeals had been filed before that Tribunal were valid in law and made with jurisdiction. It is this very question which arises in the appeals before us. 3. Before dealing with the question raised in these appeals it is necessary to state certain facts. On March 15, 1951, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh made a General Order consisting of numerous clauses under powers conferred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC194; 1958CriLJ303; (1958)36MysLJ(SC)107; [1958]1SCR962
Imam, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the substantial question for consideration is whether the reference made to the Calcutta High Court by the Additional Sessions Judge of Alipur under s. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was competent and, if not, whether the High Court acted with jurisdiction in convicting or acquitting any of the accused who were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge and a jury.2. There were eight accused on trial in the Court of Session all of whom were charged under Sections 147 and 304/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Four of them, namely, accused No. 1, Sashi Mohan Debnath, accused No. 2, Rajendra Debnath, accused No. 3, Manindra Debnath and accused No. 6, Rohini Kumar Debnath were further charged under s. 201, Indian Penal Code. The trial Judge delivered a charge to the jury which was favourable to the accused. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty under s. 304/149 of the Indian Penal Code, which the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC199; [1958]1SCR950
Sarkar, J.1. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether title had been acquired to certain lands by adverse possession. 2. Ram Ditta was a Hindu Jat of village Bhathal in District Bassi which was originally in Patiala but subsequently came to be included in Patiala & Eastern Punjab States Union. He died in April or May 1920 leaving certain lands which were the subject matter of dispute in the suit out of which this appeal arises. Ram Ditta had a son named Jeona who predeceased him leaving a widow, Harnam Kaur. Harnam Kaur has a daughter, Kirpal Kaur and the latter is the appellant before us. Kirpal Kaur has a son of the name of Satwant Singh. Ram Ditta had certain collateral relations and the dispute was between them on the one hand and Harnam Kaur and Kirpal Kaur on the other. These collaterals are the contesting respondents in this appeal. 3. On Ram Ditta's death Harnam Kaur took possession of the lands, and on August 24, 1920, she obtained a mutation of the settlement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC269; [1958]33ITR245(SC); (1958)IMLJ121(SC); [1958]1SCR938
Kapur, J. 1. This is an appeal brought pursuant to a certificate under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the erstwhile Pepsu High Court pronounced on March 10, 1953, modifying in appeal the order of the Liquidation Judge. 2. The facts are fully recited in the judgments of the courts below and comparatively a brief recital will be sufficient for the purpose of this judgment. The appellant company was incorporated in 1934 under the Companies Act of the erstwhile Patiala State. It carried on the business of commission agency for dealing in forward transactions in various kinds of grain and other commodities. The respondent - firm Ganpat Rai Hira Lal of Narnaul - besides being a shareholder of the appellant company had dealings with it and entered into several forward transactions of sale and purchase of grain and other commodities. The appellant, acting as a commission agent of the respondent and its other constituents entered into sev...
Tag this Judgment!