Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC1002; [1958]9STC188(SC)
ORDER ON REVIEW(D/- 17-4-1958).VIVIAN BOSE, J. :24. This petition reveals that there is an accidental slip in our judgment dated 11-2-1958, which will have to be set right. Mr. H. J. Umrigar, who appeared for the Appellant in the appeals, waived notice and appeared without notice to represent the State of Mysore. He also agrees that there is a slip which will need correction.25. Towards the end of our judgment we said that the respondents had an alternative case under Article 286(2). This was a mistake. Their alternative case was under Article 286(l)(a). The appellant, and not the respondents, had raised a contention about Article 286(2) but we expressed no opinion on it in our judgment and we express no opinion now.26. Two of the matters that the petitioners (respondents) raised in the High Court are set out in Question No. 6. The first part of the question asks:'In any event, whether the petitioner Company's sales do not fall under Article 286(l)(a) of the Constitution.'The High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC376; (1958)60BOMLR937; 1958CriLJ701; (1958)IIMLJ37(SC); (1958)36MysLJ(SC)224; [1958]1SCR1226
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The appellant, along with others, has been charged under s. 120B of theIndian Penal Code and s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act (8 of 1878). There isno doubt that the offences charged against the appellant are bailable offences.Under s. 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant was released onbail of Rs. 75,000 with one surety for like amount on December 9, 1957, by thelearned Chief Presidency Magistrate at Bombay. On January 4, 1958, anapplication was made by the complainant before the learned Magistrate forcancellation of the bail; the learned Magistrate however, dismissed theapplication on the ground that under s. 496 he had no jurisdiction to cancelthe bail. Against this order, the complainant preferred a revisionalapplication before the High Court of Bombay. Another application was preferredby the complainant before the same Court invoking its inherent power under s.561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Chagla C.J. and Datar J. who heardthese appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC398; (1958)36MysLJ(SC)389; [1958]1SCR1240
Sinha, J. 1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgments andorders of the Assam High Court, exercising its powers under Arts. 226 and 227of the Constitution, in respect of orders passed by the Revenue Authoritiesunder the provisions of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910 (E.B. andAssam Act 1 of 1910) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They raise certaincommon questions of constitutional law, and have, therefore, been heardtogether, and will be disposed of by this Judgment. Though there are certaincommon features in the pattern of the proceedings relating to the settlement ofcertain country spirit shops, when they passed through the hierarchy of theauthorities under the Act, the facts of each case are different, and have to bestated separately in so far it is necessary to state them. (I) Civil Appeal No. 668 of 1957. 2. The two appellants Nagendra Nath Bora and Ridananda Dutt are partners,the partnership having been formed in view of the Government not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC350; 1958CriLJ698; (1958)IIMLJ113(SC); (1958)36MysLJ(SC)249; [1958]1SCR1218
Imam, J. 1. The appellants, who were police constables at the time of the occurrence, were convicted by the Special Judge of Delhi under s. 120B and s. 224/109 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947). They were sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and to nine months' rigorous imprisonment under each of the Sections 120B and 224/109 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. Their appeals to the Punjab High Court were dismissed and the present appeals are by special leave. 3. The case of the prosecution, as stated in the charge, was that the appellants had conspired at Delhi with Ram Saran Das, the approver, M.P. Khare, Nand Prakash Kapur and Murari between the 6th and 16th of November, 1955, to bring about the escape from lawful custody of M.P. Khare, an undertrial prisoner, and that they had also agreed to accept Rs. 1,000 eac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC321; (1958)IMLJ159(SC); (1958)36MysLJ(SC)768; [1958]1SCR1211
Bose, J.1. The defendants, Santosh Kumar and the Northern General Agencies, were granted special leave to appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit out of which the appeal arisen on the basis of a cheque for Rs. 60,000 drawn by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff and which, on presentation to the Bank, was dishonoured. 2. The suit was filed in the Court of the Commercial Subordinate Judge, Delhi, under O. XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The defendants applied for leave to defend the suit under r. 3 of that Order. 4. The learned trial Judge held that 'the defence raised by the defendants raises a triable issue,' but he went on to hold that the defendants 'have not placed anything on the file to show that the defence was a bona fide one.' 5. Accordingly, he permitted the defendants 'to appear and defend the suit on the condition of their giving security to the extent of the suit amount and the costs of the suit.' 6. The defendants applied for a review but failed. They then app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC353; (1958)ILLJ500SC; [1958]1SCR1156
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 297 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 30, 1955, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta in Appeal No. Cal. 220 of 1954. C. B. Aggarwala and K. P. Gupta, for the appellants. Purshottam Tricumdas for N. C. Chatterjee, P. K. Goswami, S. N. Mukheree and B. N. Ghosh, for the respondent. 1958. February 4. The Judgment of Das, C. J., and S. K. Das J., was delivered by S. K. Das, J. Sarkar, J., delivered a separate Judgment. S. K. DAS J.-This appeal by special leave raises a question of some nicety and of considerable importance in the matter of industrial relations in this country. The question is the true scope and effect of the definition clause in s. 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question has arisen in the following circumstances. The appellants before us are the workmen of the Dimakuchi tea estate represented by the Assam Chah Karmachari...
Tag this Judgment!