Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC360; 26(1960)CLT278(SC); 1960CriLJ524; [1960]2SCR355
Wanchoo, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three certificates granted by the Punjab High Court in a criminal matter. They will be dealt with together as the point raised in them is common. The brief facts necessary for the purpose are these : There is a Government Printing Press at Rashtrapati Bhavan known as Rashtrapati Bhavan Printing Press which is located in the President's estate in New Delhi. Jacobs was the General Foreman of this Press. Every year the budget proposals are printed at this Press under the supervision of Jacobs. As usual, Jacobs supervised the printing of budget proposals in his official capacity in February 1955 also. It appears that Jacobs entered into a conspiracy to divulge the budget proposals on receiving valuable consideration for the same. Consequently the proposals were divulged to D. P. Chadda and were passed on to certain businessmen of Bombay, including Nandlal More and Hiralal G. Kothari through one A. L. Mehra. All this was done against the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC356; [1960]2SCR346
Subba Rao, J. 1. This appeal by special leave raises the question of the scope of Art. 132(2) of the Constitution. 2. The first respondent is one of the shareholders of the second respondent, M/s. Jammu Kashmir Mechanics And Transport Workers Co-operative Society Limited Jammu (hereinafter called the Society). The Society was registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Co-operative Society Act No. 6 of 1993 (Vikrimi). They put in a number of applications before the third appellant for the grant of stage carriage and public carrier permits to them for various routes in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, but no permits were granted to them on the ground that under r. 4-47 of the Jammu and Kashmir Motor Vehicle Rules (hereinafter called the Rules), service licence could only be issued to a person or a company registered under the Partnership Act and that, as the Society was neither a person nor a partnership, it was not entitled to a licence under the Rules. The respondents filed a petition in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC378; [1960]2SCR331; [1960]11STC17(SC)
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This is a group of three appeals which have been filed in this Court by the State of Bihar (hereinafter called the appellant) against three separate registered dealers with a certificate issued by the Patna High Court under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution that they involve a substantial quest ion of law as to the interpretation of Art. 20(1) of the Constitution. The facts in each one of the three appeals are similar, though not exactly the same, but they raise a common question of law under the proviso to s. 14A of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act XIX of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). Orders of forfeiture have been passed against the three registered dealers in the three appeals respectively, and they raise a common question of law in regard to the validity of the said orders. By consent Civil Appeal No. 678 of 1957, has been argued before us as the principal appeal and it has been conceded that our decision in that appeal will govern the two other appeals....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC363; (1960)ILLJ244SC; [1960]2SCR319
Sarkar, J.1. There are five appellants before us. Four of them were employees of a company called the Indian Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. and the fifth an outsider. 2. The appellants were convicted by a Magistrate of Asansol in West Bengal, of an offence under s. 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for having instigated and incited others to take part in an illegal strike. Each appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. On appeal by the appellants, the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Asansol, confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate. A petition to the High Court at Calcutta against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge by way of revision also failed. The appellants have now appealed to this Court with special leave. The respondent to this appeal is the State of West Bengal and the Company has been allowed to intervene. 3. The Company owns a factory at Burnpur near Asansol in which there is a Sheet Mill. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC689; (1960)ILLJ577SC
ORDER:Ordered that a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the District Magistrate Gaya for service on Mr. Gopi Kishore Prasad. By order of the Governor of Bihar,(Sd.) B.N. SINHA,24-7-53,Deputy Secretary to Government.'3. The respondent moved the High Court of Judicature at Patna under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Government quoted above. The matter was heard by V. Ramaswami, J. (as he then was) and K. Sahai, J. The High Court by its judgment dated January 19, 1955, allowed the application and quashed the order aforesaid of the Government dated July 23, 1953. Ramaswami, J., dealt with all the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent--petitioner in the High Court--and after examining the relevant rules of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and Article 311(2) of the Constitution, came to the conclusion that the respondent was not entitled to a full enquiry as contemplated by the first paragraph of Rule 55 of the Civil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1329; 1960CriLJ1674
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been filed with a certificate granted by the Bombay High Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, and it challenges the validity and correctness of the order passed by the said High Court convicting the appellant Narumal Holaram Sindhi under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946 (Act XXV of 1946) (hereinafter called the Act) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The prosecution case against the appellant was that on September 9, 1953, he had contracted a second marriage at Khandwa in Madhya Pradesh with one Vishna Devi though he had his first wife living whom he had not divorced and thus rendered himself liable to be punished under Section 5 of the Act. Along with him his second wife Vishna Devi was also charged with having committed an offence under Section 6 of the Act. The case against both of them was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First-Class, Second Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC384; [1960]2SCR311
Das Gupta, J.1. The petitioners who describe themselves as Road-side Station Masters challenge in this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution the Constitutionality of the channel of promotion for Guards to higher grade Station Masters' posts as notified in the issue of the Central Railway Weekly Gazette No. 3 dated November 23, 1951. Under this Notification Guards have two lines of promotion open to them. One is that by promotion, C grade Guards may become B grade Guards on Rs. 100-185 and thereafter by further promotion A grade Guards on Rs. 150-225. The second line of promotion open to them is that by an examination described curiously enough as Slip 45 examination C grade Guards are eligible for petition to posts of Station Masters on Rs. 150-225 scale and thereafter to all the further promotions that are open to the Station Masters, viz., higher scales of Rs. 200 to Rs. 300, Rs. 260 to Rs. 350, to Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 and finally Rs. 360 to Rs. 500; B grade Guards and A grade Gua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC368; [1960]2SCR289
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court judicature at Allahabad, setting aside that of the Election Tribunal, Kanpur, dismissing the petition filed by the respondent for setting aside the election of the appellant as a member of the Parliament from the Kanpur constituency. 2. In February-March 1957, elections were held to fill up a parliamentary seat from the single-member constituency No. 331, Kanpur. Sri. S. M. Banerji, Sri. Suraj Prasad and four others were candidates for the said election. The said persons filed their nomination papers between 19th and 29th January, 1957. The appellant was employed as Supervisor 'A' Grade at the Government Ammunition Factory, Kirkee, and was dismissed from service on January 24, 1956, for a reason other than corruption or disloyalty to the state; and he was duly qualified to stand for the election. He also filed his nomination paper within the prescribed time and ex facie it complied with all ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC335; [1960]2SCR253
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the decree and judgment of the High Court at Nagpur, reversing those of the First Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Civil suit No. 12-A of 1940. It would be convenient at the outset to give the following geneology which would help to understood the contentions of the parties. Ramasahai(d. 1897)-----------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | | |Ganesh- Ajodhyaprasad Janki- Govind Ratanlal Mangal- Sarjooprasad Ramchand Daughterprasad (d. 1912) prasad prasad (d.1926) prasad (d.1903) (d.5-10-1950) Tarabai(d. 1928) | (d.1923) (d.1034) | (d. 1914) | | =| Adopted son | | | | adopted son | LalaDaughter Chandanlal | Son Kisanlal | Ghasiram Tulsiram | ChhotelalMst. (d.31-1-1940) | (defendant 8) | (d.1917) (defendant 3) |Rukhmabai = | | |= Widow Mst. | | |Lala Annapurnabai | | |Sheoshankar (defendant 2) | | |(defendant I) | | |---------------------------------------- | || | | | |Ramprasad daughte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC284; [1960]2SCR239
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The Okara Electric Supply Co. Ltd., which is a Joint Stock Company and Shrimati V. V. Oberoi, one of the principal shareholders of the said company (hereinafter called petitioners 1 and 2 respectively) have filed the present petition against the State of Punjab and the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter called respondents 1 and 2 respectively) in which they have claimed a writ, order or direction in respect of a notice issued by respondent 1 on January 3, 1958. The petition was presented on January 3, 1959 and it claimed an order or writ restraining the respondents from giving effect to the said notice. It appears that on January 4, 1959, in pursuance of the said impugned notice the respondents took possession of the petitioners' property in question, and so, by an order passed by the learned Chamber Judge the petitioners were allowed to make an additional claim for a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hand o...
Tag this Judgment!