Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC577; [1959]Supp1SCR968
Imam, J.1. This appeal is before us on a certificate granted by the High Court as according to that Court a substantial question of law arose in the case which was stated by it to be 'Is the adoption of the second defendant invalid, as the approval or consent of the five trustees mentioned in paragraph 14 of the will of Kari Veerappa, Exbt. P-2(a) was not obtained; and is the authority to adopt at an end if any one of those five persons did not accept the trusteeship or died before the adoption or refused to give their approval'. In view of certain matters about to be stated, the question of law as propounded by the High Court does not require to be considered. 2. Kari Veerappa was the last male owner of the estate mentioned in his will, Exbt. P-2(a), which he executed on October 10, 1920. Under this will he authorised his wife Setra Veeravva, first defendant, to adopt a son for the purpose of continuation of his family as he had no issue. The authority to adopt was in the following te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC589; [1959]Supp1SCR952
Imam, J.1. The appellant and the respondent No. 1 were, amongst others, candidates for election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly from the Daspalla double-member constituency in which a seat was reserved for a scheduled caste candidate. We are not concerned with the election of the scheduled caste candidate. For the general seat the election was contested by the appellant, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3. The appellant obtained 17,700 votes, respondent No. 1 15,568 vote and respondent No. 3 3,589 votes. The election was held on February 27, 1957, and the appellant was declared elected on March 5, 1957. 2. Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition questioning, on various grounds, the election of the appellant. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition holding that no grounds had been established to invalidate the election. Respondent No. 1 appealed to the High Court of Orissa against the order of the Election Tribunal. 3. One of the grounds, amongst the many grounds, taken b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC572; 1959CriLJ777; [1959]Supp1SCR940
Kapur, J. 1. These are two appeals which arise out of the same judgment and order of the High Court at Allahabad and involve a common question of law. Appellants Tej Singh and Mizaji are father and son Subedar is a nephew of Tej Singh, Machal is Tej Singh's cousin and Maiku was a servant of Tej Singh. They were all convicted under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and except Mizaji who was sentenced to death, they were all sentenced to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted of the offence of rioting and because Tej Singh and Mizaji were armed with a spear and a pistol respectively, they were convicted under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and the rest who were armed with lathis were convicted under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were to run concurrently but Mizaji's term of imprisonment was to come to an end after 'he is h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC564; 1959Supp(1)SCC928; [1959]Supp1SCR928
Wanchoo, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, (U.P. V of 1954), as amended by U.P. Acts No. XXVI of 1954, No. XIII of 1955, No. XX of 1955, No. XXIV of 1956 and No. XVI of 1957, (hereinafter called the Act). The applicants are four brothers holding land in village Banat, tahsil Kairana, District Muzaffarnagar. A notification was issued under section 4 of the Act in respect of 223 villages in tahsil Kairana, declaring that the State Government had decided to make a scheme of consolidation in that area. This was followed up by necessary action under the various provisions of the Act resulting in a statement of proposals under section 19. Objections to these proposals were filed by the petitioners and others, which were decided in April 1956. The petitioners went in appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), which was decided in August 1957. It was thereafter that the present pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC544; 1959CriLJ660; 1959Supp(1)SCC904; [1959]Supp1SCR904
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This appeal was preferred by the State of Ajmer, but after the reorganisation of States, the State of Rajasthan stands substituted for the former State. It was filed against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer, who certified the case a fit for appeal to this Court under Article 132 of the Constitution. 2. The Ajmer Legislative Assembly enacted the Ajmer (Sound Amplifiers Control) Act, 1952 (Ajmer 3 of 1953), (hereinafter called the Act) which received the assent of the President on March 9, 1953. This Act was successfully impugned by the respondents before the learned Judicial Commissioner, who held that it was in excess of the powers conferred on the State Legislature under section 21 of the Government of Part C States Act, 1951 (49 of 1951) and, therefore, ultra vires the State Legislature. 3. The respondents (who were absent at the hearing) were prosecuted under section 3 of the Act for breach of the first two conditions of the permit granted to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC547; (1959)61BOMLR945; [1959]Supp1SCR911
Subba Rao, J.1. These are three appeals by Special Leave from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants for Writs in the nature of Prohibition restraining the respondents from realising from the appellants land revenue in respect of their estates at an enhanced rate for the year 1955-56. The petitioners in the two petitions also asked for similar relief against the respondents. The appeals as well as the Writ Petitions were heard together, as they raised a common question of law. 2. The material facts in Civil Appeal No. 254 of 1958 may be briefly stated : The appellant was a taluqdari owning several taluqdari villages situate in the Dholka Taluka of Ahmedabad District. In the year 1922-23 there was a revision settlement of land revenue of the lands situate in the said taluka including the said taluqdari villages. Under that settlement the aggregate of the land revenue payable in respect of the lands comprised in the said ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC488; [1959]Supp1SCR922
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal pursuant to special leave granted by this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta varying the order of the arbitrator in regard to compensation for compulsory requisitioning of the premises in dispute. 2. The appellant before us is the owner of the premises in dispute which at the relevant time consisted of four storeys, the ground floor and three upper floors and the respondent is the State of West Bengal which was the opposite party before the arbitrator. This building (No. 9 Chittaranjan Avenue) was constructed before July 28, 1940, and was taken on a registered lease for three years by the Bengal Central Public Works Division on a rental of Rs. 1,950 per mensem inclusive of taxes. On the termination of the lease the building was requisitioned by the West Bengal Government and taken possession of on July 30, 1943. The Land Acquisition Officer offered Rs. 2,200 per mensem inclusive of taxes in the from of rent as compensation. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC536; [1959]1SCR892; [1959]Supp1SCR892
S.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave and the only question for decision is if the order of the President dated October 1, 1954, removing the appellant from service with effect from that date is invalid, as claimed by the appellant, by reason of a contravention of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 2. The short facts are these. The appellant stated that he joined permanent Government service on April 4, 1924. In 1947, before partition, he was employed as Assistant Secretary, Frontier Corps of Militia and Scouts in the then North-Western Frontier Province, under the administrative control of the External Affairs Department of the Government of India. The appellant stated that the post which he held then was a post in the Central Service, Class II. After partition, the appellant opted for service in India and was posted to an office under the Ministry of Commerce in the Government of India in October, 1947. In December, 1949, he was transferred to the offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC395; [1959]Supp1SCR806
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 122 of 1958. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental rights. 1958, Oct. 16, 17, 28, 29, 30. Basdeva Prasad and Naunit Lal, for the petitioner :-The main question to be considered in the case is as to whose privilege has been involved and violated-those of the press or the House of the Legislature. Notice served on the petitioner by the Privileges Committee of the Bihar Assembly is illegal and invalid and the Constitution of the Privileges Committee is illegal as the Chief Minister of the State Dr. S. K. Sinha himself has been the Chairman of the Committee. On May 30, 1957, there was a debate in the Bihar Legislative Assembly when M. P. N. Singh, one of the oldest members of the Assembly, made a speech the gist of which was a criticism of the administration of Bihar as run by Dr. S. K. Sinha, the Chief Minister, and cited certain instances of favouritism. At this stage the Speaker held that a portion o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC556; [1959]Supp1SCR779
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The petitioner has been doing business as an exporter of coir products to foreign countries for the last twenty years. On July 4, 1958, he applied to respondent 2, the Chairman, Coir Board, Ernakulam, requesting that he should be registered as an established exporter. This application was accompanied by an income-tax clearance certificate and attested copies of bills of lading. Respondent 2 declined to register the petitioner on the ground that his application was defective inasmuch as the requisite certificate regarding his financial status had not been produced and no evidence had been given to show that he had exported the minimum quantity required (500 Cwts). The Petitioner was told that unless he complied with the requirements asked for within seven days his application would be rejected without further notice. The petitioner found that he could not comply with the directions issued by respondent 2 and so it became impossible for the petitioner to get registra...
Tag this Judgment!