Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1958]1SCR595
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1956. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated the 10th March, 1952, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ No. 737 of 1951. G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the appellant. S. P. Sinha and S. D. Sekhri, for the respondent. 1957. September 30. The judgment of Das C. J., Venkatarama Aiyar, Jafer Imam and Sarkar JJ. was delivered by Das C. J. Bose J. delivered a separate judgement. DAS C. J.-This is an appeal filed under a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Arts. 132 (1) and 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution. It is directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the said High Court pronounced on March 10, 1952, in Civil Misc. Writ No. 7376 of 1951 quashing the depart- mental proceedings against the respondent and the orders passed therein, namely, the order for his dismissal passed by the District Superintendent of Police on -December 21, 1948, the order of the Deputy Inspe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC61; 1958CriLJ232; (1958)IILLJ653SC; (1958)IMLJ136(SC); (1958)36MysLJ(SC)163; [1958]1SCR580
Kapur, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Madras from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras reversing the judgment of the Special Judge of Coimbatore and thereby acquitting the respondent who had been convicted of an offence under s. 161 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment. 2. The respondent, Vaidyanatha Aiyar, was at all material times the Income-tax Officer of Coimbatore and it is not disputed that he was there in the beginning of June 1951. According to the prosecution the respondent in the end of September 1951 demanded from K.S. Narayana Ayyar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) who is a proprietor of a 'Coffee Hotel' called Nehru Cafe in Coimbatore with another similar hotel at Bhavanisagar a bribe of Rs. 1,000. 3. The complainant had been assessed to income-tax all along since 1942. During the course of assessment for the year 1950-51 it was discovered that he had failed to pay advance income-tax. A notice was therefore is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC892; [1958]1SCR571
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Saurashtra in a writ petition filed by the respondent, setting aside an order passed by the State of Saurashtra on October 30, 1952 retiring him from service. 2. The respondent was appointed in 1948 Memandari, that is, Superintendent of State Guest Houses, in what was the State of Junagadh when it was administered by the Government of India, and was, later on, confirmed in that appointment. In 1949, Junagadh became integrated into the State of Saurashtra, and, thereafter, the services of the respondent were continued by that State, and he was appointed from time to time to various posts. On June 15, 1950, he was appointed Sales Tax Officer, Madhya Saurashtra, Rajkot, and was confirmed in that post on April 16, 1952. On October 30, 1952, the Government of Saurashtra, purporting to act under Government Resolution No. 60 of 1948 as it then stood, passed an order compulsorily terminating his servi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC22; 1958CriLJ106; (1957)35MysLJ(SC)428; [1958]1SCR552
Sinha, J. 1. This appeal on a certificate of fitness under Art. 134(1)(c), granted by the High Court at Nagpur (as it then was), is directed against the concurrent judgment and orders of the courts below, so far as the appellant Khushal is concerned, convicting and sentencing him to death under s. 302, Indian Penal Code, for the pre-meditated murder of Baboolal on the night of February 12, 1956, in one of the quarters of the city of Nagpur. 2. It appears that there are two rival factions in what has been called the Mill area in Nagpur. The appellant and Tukaram who has been acquitted by the High Court, are the leaders of one of the factions, and Ramgopal, P.W. 4, Inayatullah, P.W. 1, and Tantu, P.W. 5, are said to be the leaders of the opposite faction. Before the time and date of the occurrence, there had been a number of incidents between the two rival factions in respect of some of which Inayatullah and Tantu aforesaid had been prosecuted. Even on the date of the occurrence, apart f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC875; (1958)IMLJ74(SC); [1958]1SCR548
Kapur, J. 1. This appeal by Special Leave is brought from the judgment and decree of the High Court of the Punjab, dated August 16, 1949, reversing the decree of the trial court which had decreed the plaintiffs' suit on a mortgage. 2. The plaintiffs who are the appellants in this appeal claim to be the legatees under a registered will of their mother's father Lala Guranditta Mal executed on September 6, 1944. One of the items bequeathed to them was the rights in a mortgage executed by the defendants in favour of the testator on October 24, 1932, for Rs. 6,000. On October 25, 1944, they brought a suit in the court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur for the recovery of Rs. 5,392-2-0 on the basis of the mortgage. They alleged that they were the 'representatives and heirs' of Lala Guranditta Mal under the will and their replication they just stated : 'We are heirs and representatives of Lala Guranditta Mal mortgagee deceased.' 3. Inter alia the defendants pleaded that they had no k...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC79; (1958)ILLJ247SC; [1958]1SCR514
Bhagwati, J. 1. This appeal with special leave against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, arises out of an application made by the appellant under s. 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for permission to discharge the respondent. 2. The respondent had been appointed as a pay-clerk in the appellant's cash department on April 30, 1945, and had been confirmed in service with effect from August 1, 1945. Since the beginning of 1949, the respondent was found to have become negligent and careless in his work and he was also disobedient and slow in the performance of the duties that were allotted to him. Repeated verbal and written warnings were given to him but they had no effect whatever. Consequently the Chief Cashier by his letter dated October 24, 1949, addressed to the Manager of the appellant, complained that he was very negligent and careless in his work, and habitually showed sulkiness, tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC912; (1958)IILLJ273SC; [1958]1SCR533
Sinha, J.1. These two cross-appeals on certificates granted by the High Court under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution, arise out of a common judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in two writ petitions Nos. 121 and 817 of 1953, dated January 8, 1954, allowing in part and dismissing in part, the two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, by which the petitioner questioned the validity of the orders passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, reducing him in rank, and ordering his compulsory retirement from service. Civil Appeal No. 27 has been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh and Civil Appeal No. 28 by the petitioner in the Court below. For the sake of brevity, we shall refer to the State of Uttar Pradesh as the appellant and the petitioner in the High Court - Sri Manbodhan Lal Srivastava - as the respondent, in the course of this judgment which covers both the appeals. 2. It is necessary to state the following facts : In 1920, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC886; (1958)IMLJ71(SC); [1958]1SCR509
Imam, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appellant's application under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. From the affidavits filed in the High Court by the Personal Assistant to the Director of Agriculture of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the appellant, it would appear that the appellant was appointed from time to time in a temporary capacity to the Subordinate Agricultural Service of the Uttar Pradesh Government by the Director of Agricultural. He served in that service during the periods detailed below :- (a) In Group II of the Subordinate Agricultural Service : (i) From November 16, 1936 to March 18, 1937. (ii) From April 1, 1937 to June 29, 1937. (iii) From August 9, 1937 to December 31, 1937. (iv) From January 6, 1938 to February 22, 1943. (b) In Group I of the Subordinate Agricultural Service : From February 23, 1943 to April 24, 1944. While he was still in the Subordinate Agricultural Service he was appo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC882; (1958)IILLJ259SC; (1958)IMLJ67(SC); (1958)0PLR126; [1958]1SCR499
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab in an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution setting aside in order dated September 16, 1954, dismissing the respondent herein, from Government service on the ground that it was in contravention of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. 2. The respondents was, at the material dates, an Assistant Controller in the Commerce Department of the Union Government. Sometime in the middle of March, 1953, one Shri Bhan, a representative of a Calcutta firm styled Messrs. Gattulal Chhaganlal Joshi, came to Delhi with a view to get the name of the firm removed from black list in which it had been placed, and for that purpose, he was contacting the officers in the Department. Information was given to Sri Tawakley an assistant in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Complaints Branch), that Sri Bhan was offering to give bribe for getting an order in his favour. He immediately repo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC12; (1957)IILLJ696SC; [1958]1SCR442
Bhagwati, J. 1. This appeal with special leave is directed against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow, confirming, on appeal, the award made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in a dispute between the appellant and the respondent. 2. The appellant took up service with the respondent then known as the Bharat Bank Ltd., with effect from July 1, 1944, as an Inspector at Bombay in the grade of Rs. 170-10-200-20-400 and was given three increments when the first increment fell due as from October 1, 1945. He was also given promotions on October 1, 1946, and on October 1, 1947, and was drawing Rs. 240 per month plus a special allowance for a servant of Rs. 30 per month at the time when he was discharged by the respondent on August 5, 1949, on the plea that he had become surplus to the requirement of the respondent. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour had by Notification No. LR. 2(273), dated February 21, 1950, referred for adjudicatio...
Tag this Judgment!