Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC1032; 1958CriLJ1565; [1959]1SCR1211
Sinha, J. 1. The only question for determination in this appeal by special leave, is whether the petition of complaint, disclosed a prima facie offence under section 295 of the Indian penal Code. The courts below have taken the view that it did not, and on that ground, it stood summarily dismissed, before evidence pro and con had been recorded. 2. It appears that the appellant filed a petition of complaint in the court of the Additional First-Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, against the respondents, three in number. The petition of complaint alleged inter alia that the first accused is the leader of Dravida Kazakam (a community of persons who profess to be religious reformers, one of whose creeds is to carry on propaganda against idol worship), and as such, he was out to vilify a certain section of the Hindu community and do propaganda by holding meetings and writing articles. It is further alleged in the petition of complaint that 'recently, the first accused announced his intention ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1217
T.L. Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the first respondent, Harish Chandra, under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereafter referred to as the Act, for setting aside the election of the appellant to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Rajasthan from the Hanumangarh Constituency, in the General Election which was held in February and March 1957. Two candidates contested the seat, the appellant and one Ramchandra Chowdhury. The appellant polled 18,530 votes and Ramchandra Chowdhury 17,136 votes. The appellant was accordingly declared elected on March 18, 1957. On April 29, 1957 the first respondent who is a voter in the Constituency filed the petition, out of which the present appeal arises, alleging therein that the appellant had committed a number of corrupt practices in the conduct of the election, and praying that his election might accordingly be declared void. The appellant denied the allegations in the petition.2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC947; [1959]1SCR1177
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Nagpur passed in an appeal under section 19(1)(f) of the Defence of India Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. In exercise of the power conferred by section 75(A) of the Rules framed under the Act, the Central Government requisitioned on February 19, 1941, certain properties belonging to Hanskumar Kishanchand, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 224 of 1954. As there was no agreement on the amount of compensation payable to him, the Central Government referred the determination thereof to Mr. Jafry, Additional District Judge, Khandwa, under section 19(1)(b) of the Act. On March 31, 1943, Mr. Jafry, pronounced his award, by which he awarded a sum of Rs. 13,000 as annual rent for the occupation of the premises. Against this awarded, there was an appeal to the High Court of Nagpur under section 19(1)(f) of the Act, and that was heard by a Bench consisting of Grille C.J. and Padhye ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC1018; (1958)IILLJ634SC; [1959]1SCR1191
Gajendragadkar, J.1. Where an industrial dispute has been referred to a tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate Government under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (XIV of 1947), can the said Government supersede the said reference pending adjudication before the tribunal constituted for that purpose That is the short question which fails to be considered in these two appeals by special leave. The question arises in this way : On October 8, 1954, by Notification No. III/DI-1602/54-L-15225, the Government of Bihar referred an industrial dispute between the management of the Bata Shoe Company, Ltd., Dighaghat (Patna), and their 31 workmen, mentioned in annexure 'A', in exercise of the powers conferred on the said Government by section 7 read with section 10(1) of the Act. The dispute was whether the dismissal of the workmen in question was justified; if not, whether they were entitled to reinstatement or any other relief. For the adjudication of this dispute, an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC937; (1958)36MysLJ(SC)733; [1959]1SCR1167
Sarkar, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether certain person were holders of offices of profit under the Government and were therefore disqualified under Art. 191 of the Constitution, for being chosen as members of a legislative assembly. It arises out of a petition presented under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for a declaration that the election of the appellant was void. 2. The election with which the case is concerned, was held on March 8, 1957, for choosing members for the Mysore State Legislative Assembly. One of the constituencies for the purposes of election to that Assembly was known as Harihar. The nomination papers filed by three persons, namely, Hanumanthappa, Siddappa and Guru Rao for election from that constituency were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the first two of them were Patels and the third a Shanbhog of certain villages in Mysore and as such they were all holders of offices of profit under the Mysore Government...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC935; 1958CriLJ1432; [1959]1SCR1162
Imam, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is limited to the question 'whether transport includes possession, and so the double punishment for possession and transport is not warranted by law' as stated in ground (xi) of the petition for special leave. 2. On the facts found there can be no question that the appellant went in a rickshaw from the Sambalpur Road Railway Station to the State Transport Bus Stand with a trunk and a bedding in order to proceed to a place called Bargarh. He bought a ticket for Bargarh and took his seat in the bus after loading his trunk and bedding on top of it. On information received by the Officer-in-charge of Sadar Police Station of Sambalpur, the bus was detained near the police station, while on its way, and all the trunks and beddings on it were unloaded, and the passengers of the bus were asked to take their respective trunks and beddings. The passengers took their trunks and beddings. One trunk and a bedding, however, remained on the ground. The appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC29
K. Subba Rao, J.1. These four appeals, the first two by Certificate issued by the High Court of Mysore under Article 132(1) of the Constitution of India and the other two by Special Leave granted by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, arise out of a sensational and gruesome murder of a lawyer of Bangalore and some of the members of his family at Bangalore in Mysore State.2. The case of the prosecution lies in a small compass and may be stated thus: Belur Srinivasa Iyengar, at the time of his death, was 74 years of age and had amassed substantial properties. His first wife died in 1936 leaving behind her a son, who is said to be insane, and two daughters. After the death of the first wife, he married Vengadamma in February 1937 and had three daughters and three sons by her. Prior to 5th June 1956, Belur Srinivasa Iyengar had fractured his leg and was confined to bed. On the night of 5th June, 1956, the inmates of the house retired to bed as usual. Belur Srinivasa ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC1036; [1959]1SCR1148
Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal with special a leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution raises an interesting question of limitation. 2. The appellant was appointed an Overseer by the Municipal Board, Kanpur, on March 5, 1937, with the approval of the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Department, Lucknow. He was confirmed by the Board's special resolution dated July 2, 1938, and continued in employ up to March 19, 1951, when a copy of the resolution No. 1723 passed by the Board in March 5, 1951, purporting to dismiss him from employ was handed over to him. Against the said resolution dated March 5, 1951, the appellant filed an appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Government on April 7, 1951, but was informed by a G.O. dated April 7, 1952, that his appeal had been rejected. This information was received by him on April 8, 1952. Thereafter on December 8, 1952, the appellant filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises, being Suit No. 257 of 1953 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC953; 1958CriLJ1434; (1958)36MysLJ(SC)764; [1959]1SCR1141
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the concurrent judgments and orders of the courts below, convicting the two appellants under section 120B read with section 165A, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. A separate conviction under section 165A has been recorded in respect of the first appellant, Badri. Under this head, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence under the common charge. 2. The facts as found by the courts below, which could not be successfully challenged before us, are as follows : The second appellant, Ramji Sonar, is a goldsmith by profession and runs a shop on the main road in the village Naogachia. In that village there is a police station and the shop in question is situated in between the police station building and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC1012; (1958)IILLJ492SC
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, M/s. D. Macropollo and Co. (Private) Ltd., and Respondent No. 1, its workmen as represented by D. Macropollo and Co. (Private)Ltd., Employees' Union. On 31-5-1957, this dispute was referred to the First Labour Court by the Government of West Bengal under Sub-section 7 and 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (No. XIV of 1947). The two questions which were referred to the Labour Court were:(1) Is the termination of services of the fourteen workmen (whose names were given in the reference) justified? and(2) what relief were the discharged employees entitled to?Before the Labour Court, the Employees' Union urged that the discharge of the fourteen employees amounted to an act of victimisation and unfair labour practice. On the other hand, the appellant urged that the discharged employees were not workmen within the meaning of the Act and so the reference made by the Government of ...
Tag this Judgment!