Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC599; [1957]1SCR801
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution by the petitioners, Amar Singh and four others, in the following circumstances. All these five are displaced persons who owned land in the non-suburban village of Chak. No. 159-RB, Tahsil Jaranwala, District Lyallpur in Pakistan. They were also co-sharers in a joint khata owned by some evacuees in village Sultanwind, a suburb of Amritsar in East Punjab. On their displacement, they were in the first instance temporarily allotted agricultural land in Sultanwind. Having regard to their original position in the village, they were allotted in the year 1949 a total area of 38 standard acres and 13 units of agricultural land therein. This allotment had to be disturbed under the following circumstances. The Director-General of Relief and Rehabilitation (Additional Custodian) directed by an order dated January 7, 1950, that out of the 1,263 standard acres and 1 3/4 units of suburban land of Amritsar, 142 standard acres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC577; (1957)35MysLJ(SC)200; [1957]1SCR775
Bhagwati, J.1. These appeals with certificates of fitness under Art. 133 of the Constitution raise an interesting question as to the equities arising out of a partition between the erstwhile members of a joint family. 2. A suit for partition of the properties belonging to a well known Odayar family in the West Tanjore District was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam (being Original Suit No. 22 of 1924). Amongst the parties to that suit were defendants Nos. 3 and 6, Balaguruswami Odayar and Swaminatha Odayar respectively, the former of whom is the natural father of the latter, who went by adoption into another branch of the family. Defendant No. 6 was entitled to a 4/15th share and defendant No. 3 was entitled to a 2/15th share in the properties belonging to the joint family. A preliminary decree for partition was passed on October 25, 1924. The defendant No. 3 became insolvent during the pendency of an appeal which was taken against that preliminary decree. The Of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC587; 1957(0)BLJR569; 1957CriLJ888; [1957]1SCR770
Imam, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the decision of the Allahabad High Court on a certificate granted by that Court that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court. 2. The undisputed fats are that one Mohammad Yasin was prosecuted under s. 379, Indian Penal Code. He was released on bail. The respondent along with one Ram Narain stood surety for him, having executed surety bounds under s. 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, undertaking to produce the accused Yasin before the Court to answer the charge and to forfeit Rs. 500 each to King Emperor Qaisar-e-Hind as a penalty if they failed to do so. Yasin absconded. All attempts to secure his presence before the Court were of no avail. Consequently notices were issued under s. 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the sureties to show cause why their bonds should not be forfeited. The magistrate, after giving the matter his consideration, ordered their bonds to be forfeited to the extent of Rs. 300 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC532; (1957)IILLJ1SC; [1957]1SCR754
Kapur, J. 1. The ground on which the appellant company seeks to have the order of the Industrial Tribunal set aside is that no industrial dispute existed within the meaning of the expression as used in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XXVIII of 1947) (hereinafter called the U.P. Act) and consequently the U.P. Government had no power to make the reference in question. 'Industrial Dispute' is defined in s. 2 of the U.P. Act as having the same meaning assigned to it as in s. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter termed the Central Act). There this expression has been defined in s. 2(k) to mean : 'any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person.' 2. The controversy between the parties arose in the following circumstances : Tajammul Hussain, respondent No. 3 was em...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC517; 1957CriLJ884; [1957]1SCR745
Kapur, J.1. Two important questions arise for decision in this case of a small magnitude and the State has filed this appeal not for the purpose of obtaining a conviction but because of the importance of the questions raised and implications of the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner. The respondent was convicted of an offence under s. 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act (Act IV of 1887 hereinafter termed the Bombay Act) as applied to Kutch and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 or in default simple imprisonment from 15 days and forfeiture of the amounts recovered from the respondent at the time of the commission of the offence. He took a revision to the Judicial Commissioner of Kutch, who held that the Act under which the respondent had been convicted had not been validly extended to and was not in force in the State of Kutch. It is the correctness of this decision which was been canvassed before us. 2. There was sufficient evidence against the respondent which was accepte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC529; 1957(0)BLJR566; (1957)35MysLJ(SC)195; [1957]1SCR738
Imam, J.1. The respondent Jagan Nath filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Punjab High Court which was allowed. The High Court ordered the respondent The Union of India and the appellant Sohan Lal to forthwith restore possession of house No. 35 situated in West Patel Nagar, Delhi to Jagan Nath. Against this order of the High Court the appellant applied for and obtained special leave to appeal to this Court. 2. Jagan Nath is a displaced person and a refugee from Pakistan. The Government of India had devised various schemes for the rehabilitation of refugees. One of these was a scheme for sale of certain houses constructed by the Government of India for refugees in West Patel Nagar. It was not intended under the scheme to entertain applications from displaced persons who had already been allotted agricultural land in East Punjab. A limited number of houses known as 'box-type tenements' were constructed. According to the procedure prescribed in order to give effect to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC521; (1957)59BOMLR934; [1957]1SCR721
Sinha, J. 1. By this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution and Petition No. 140 of 1955 for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated March 29, 1955, in Appeal No. 63 of 1954 confirming that of a single Judge of that Court dated April 21, 1954, the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Bombay Land Requisition Act (Act XXXIII), 1948,, hereinafter referred to as 'The Act', and the enforceability of the order dated January 27, 1954, made by the Governor of Bombay in pursuance of s. 6(4)(a) of the Act. 2. The petitioner is the widow of one Dharamdas Chellaram, who was a tenant of the premises in question. The said Dharamdas Chellaram died in November 1953, leaving him surviving his widow and a daughter. The petitioner alleged that she had been occupying the premises in question as a member of her husband's family since 1938 and that the tenant aforesaid had at no material date ceased to occupy the premises. She also alleged that one Narottam...
Tag this Judgment!