Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC871; (1958)IMLJ62; [1958]1SCR418
S.K. Das, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred to this Court on the strength of a certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad on February 3, 1956, to the effect that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. The question that falls for decision is the true scope, meaning and effect of clause (g) of s. 13-D of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. II of 1916), hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The relevant facts, which are not now in dispute, are these. There was a general election to the Municipal Board of Bareilly in October, 1953. The appellant, Mangoo Singh, and respondent No. 3, Imdad Husain, along with several others, were candidates at the said election from Ward No. 15. The date fixed for filing nominations was October 5, 1953, and the date for scrutiny of the nominations filed was October 7, 1953. The appellant and respondent No. 3 both filed their nominations on the due date, and at the time of scrutiny Imdad ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC904; 1958(6)BLJR74; 1957CriLJ1459; (1958)36MysLJ(SC)145; [1958]1SCR409
Kapur, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court reversing an order of acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The appellant Bakshish Singh and his brother Gurbakshi Singh were tried for an offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code but were acquitted. Against this judgment the State took an appeal to the High Court. As Gurbaksh Singh was said to be absconding the appeal against the appellant alone was heard and decided by the High Court. 2. On August 1, 1954, sometime between 7 and 8 p.m. Bachhinder Singh son of Bhagwan Singh of village Kairon was shot in the lane in front of their house and as a result of bullet injuries he did the next day in the hospital at Amritsar. He was at the time of shooting accompanied by his younger brother Narvel Singh, a boy of 13, and after getting injured Bachhinder Singh and his brother returned to the house. Bhagwan Singh states that he was informed of the identity of the assailants by Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC927; 1958(6)BLJR398; 1957CriLJ1463; (1958)IMLJ56(SC); [1958]1SCR396
Sinha, J. 1. The only question that arises for determination in this appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, is the constitutionality of the provisions of Sections 207 and 207A, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), which, read together, were introduced into the Code by Act XXVI of 1955. The 26 appellants have been committed to the Court of Session, Guntur Division, to take their trial for offences publishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 302, read with Sections 34 and 149, Indian Penal Code. They impleaded the State of Andhra Pradesh as the sole respondent. The Union of India has been allowed to intervene on an application made in that behalf in view of the fact that the provisions of the Central Act have been impugned as unconstitutional. 2. For the purposes of this appeal, it is only necessary to state the following relevant facts. The local police took cognizance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC163; 1958CriLJ283; [1958]1SCR460
S.K. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave, and the appellant is Puran Lal Lakhanpal. On July 21, 1956, the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs passed an order of preventive detention against the appellant in which it was stated, inter alia, that with a view to preventing the appellant from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of India and the relations of India with foreign powers, it was necessary to make an order against the appellant. The order then concluded - 'Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in the Central Government by clause (a)(i) of sub-s. (1) of s. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act No. IV of 1950), as amended, the Central Government hereby orders that the said Shri Puran Lal Lakhanpal, son of Shri Diwan Chand Sharma, be detained.' 2. The appellant was arrested and taken in custody on the same date. On July 24, 1956, the grounds of detention were communicated to the appellant under s. 7 of the Preventive Detention ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC66; 1958CriLJ238; (1958)IMLJ130(SC); (1958)36MysLJ(SC)376; [1958]1SCR428
Govinda Menon, J. 1. Before the Additional Judge of the court of Sessions of Coimbatore Division there were four accused, of whom the first accused Subramania Goundan has now appealed to this court against the confirmation by the High Court of Madras of the conviction and sentence by the trial court, by which, on charges Nos. 1 & 2, he was sentenced to death, and also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years on charge No. 3. Special leave to appeal was granted by order of this court, dated the 6th of May, 1957. Along with the appellant were tried three others, of whom the second accused (Marappa Goundan) was his father. The third accused (Karuppa) was the grandson of the second accused's paternal uncle, while the fourth accused (Iyyavu) was an agnate in the fourth degree of the second accused. It is thus seen that all the accused were related to each other. 2. The learned Sessions Judge framed four charges of which the first was against the appellant, that he on June 6, 1956, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC52; (1958)IMLJ88(SC); [1958]1SCR387
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Election Tribunal dated January 31, 1957, setting aside the election of the appellant, Maulana Abdul Shakoor, who was elected to the Council of States by the Electoral College of Ajmer which consisted of 30 members constituting the State Legislature of Ajmer. He received 19 votes as against 7 polled in favour of the other candidate who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal. The total number of valid votes polled was 26 and there were 3 invalid votes. The result of the election was published in the Official Gazette on March 31, 1957, declaring the election of the appellant. The unsuccessful candidate, the present first respondent, filed his election petition on May 2, 1956. It is not necessary to set out all the allegations in the petition because the main controversy between the parties is whether the successful candidate, the present appellant, held an 'office of profit' under the Government. The impugned election was held on March 22, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC761
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an appeal by Special Leave against the order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Calcutta against the appellant under Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950.2. The respondents were the employees of the appellant. By their application, they complained that the appellant had illegally and unjustifiably dismissed them during the pendency of Appeal No. Cal. 167/53 before the Labour Appellate Tribunal at Calcutta without obtaining the express permission in writing of the Appellate Tribunal as required by Section 22 of the Act. The case of the respondents was that they had been victimised by the appellant for their trade union activities. On the other hand, the appellant alleged that the dismissal of the respondents was fully justified under Section 27 (5) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Colliery. Before the respondents were dismissed from service as from March 11, 1954, Mr. H. W. Briggs, Group Personnel ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC72; [1958]28CompCas1(SC); (1958)IMLJ81(SC); [1958]1SCR371
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The material facts leading to the present appeal are not in dispute and may be conveniently stated at the outset. On July 17, 1933, the respondent was enrolled as a registered accountant under the Auditors Certificate Rules, 1932. When the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, came into operation, the respondent's name was entered as a Member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India on July 1, 1949. On September 13, 1950, the respondent was appointed a Liquidator of three companies. The respondent obtained refund of the sums and securities deposited on behalf of the three companies with the Reserve Bank of India. He, however, made no report about the progress of liquidation of the said three companies. Repeated requests made to him by the Assistant Controller of Insurance found no response. As Liquidator the respondent gave a cheque to Shri S. K. Mandal, Solicitor to the Central Government at Calcutta, towards payment of the taxed costs in the winding-up proc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC907; [1958]1SCR360
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave in execution proceedings and the short point which the appellant has raised before us is that, under s. 5(1) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 (West Bengal II of 1949) as amended by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953 (West Bengal VI of 1953), execution proceedings taken out by the decree holder against him could be entertained only by the controller and not by the civil courts. This point arises in this way. The appellant is a thika tenant in respect of a portion of the premises No. 28, R.G. Kar Road in Calcutta. In Suit No. 46 of 1948 a decree for ejectment was passed against him and in favour of the respondent on March 16, 1949. This decree was challenged by the appellant by preferring an appeal before the District Court and a second appeal before the High Court at Calcutta; but both those appeals failed and the decree for ejectment passed by the trial court was confirmed. Then followed several proceedings b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC896; [1958]1SCR308
Das, C.J.1. In these two petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioners call in question the validity of the Punjab Special Powers (Press) Act, 1956 (being Act No. 38 of 1956), hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act', and pray for an appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to withdraw the Notifications issued by them on the two petitioners as the editors, printers and publishers of two newspapers, Pratap Vir Arjun. 2. The Daily Pratap was started about 38 years back in Lahore, the capital of the united Punjab. It is a daily newspaper printed in the Urdu language and script. Since the partition of the country the Daily Pratap is being published simultaneously from Jullundur and from New Delhi. Vir Arjun is a Hindi daily newspaper also published simultaneously from Jullundur and from New Delhi. Virendra, the petitioner, in Petition No. 95 of 1957 is the editor, printer and publisher of the two papers published from Julludur and K. Narendra is the e...
Tag this Judgment!