Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC51; (1960)62BOMLR58; [1960]1SCR605
S.K. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution, and the question involved in the appeal is the true scope and effect of Art. 3 of the Constitution, particularly of the proviso thereto as it stands after the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955. 2. On December 22, 1953, the Prime Minister of India made a statement in Parliament to the effect that a Commission would be appointed to examine 'objectively and dispassionately' the question of the re-organisation of the States of the Indian Union 'so that the welfare of the people of each constituent units as well as the nation as a whole is promoted'. This was followed by the appointment of a Commission under a resolution of the Union Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs, dated December 29, 1953. The Commission submitted its report in due course and on April 18, 1956; a Bill was introduced in the House of the People (Lok Sabha) entitled The States Reorgan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC70; [1960]1SCR616
Sarkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree for money and the only question is whether the application was made within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act. 2. The decree was passed in favour of one Venkatachalam Chettiar on May 9, 1935, against the appellants and certain other persons. On February 3, 1936, Venkatachalam Chettiar transferred the decree to his mother, Meenakshi Achi, by an assignment in writing never having tried to execute it himself. Soon thereafter, namely, on March 26, 1936 a creditor of Venkatachalam Chettiar presented a petition under the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for adjudicating him an insolvent on the ground that the transfer of the decree to Meenakshi Achi was a fraudulent preference and as such an act of insolvency. This petition remained pending for a considerable time and ultimately on January 7, 1939, an order was made on it adjudicating Venkatachalam Chettiar an insolvent. By th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC93; (1960)62BOMLR54; 1960CriLJ164; [1960]1SCR597
Sarkar, J.1. The appellant is an unmarried Sunni Moslem women. She has an infant female illegitimate child called Anjum. The appellant made an application to the High Court at Bombay under s. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the recovery of the custody of the child from the respondents. That the application was refused. Hence this appeal. 2. The appellant's case is as follows : She is the daughter of one Panna Bai. The respondent Kaniz Begum is Panna Bai's sister. Kaniz Begum, whom it will be convenient to refer as the respondent, took the appellant over from Panna Bai and brought her up. Prior to 1951 the respondent had put her in the keeping of two persons and had thereby made pecuniary gain for herself. In 1951 the appellant met one Trivedi and since then she was been living continuously in his exclusive keeping. The appellant stayed with Trivedi at Jabalpur up to 1954. On September 4, 1952, the child Anjum was born to her by the said Trivedi. In November 1953 she bore anot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1309
Das, C.J.1. The only controversy arising in this appeal by special leave relates to the validity of a notice of suit given under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff, which is the first respondent before us, to the first defendant, which is the appellant herein. The very language of Section 80 makes it clear,--and it has been so held by the Judicial Committee in Bhagchand Dagdusa v. Secy. of State, which decision has been adopted by the same tribunal in many later cases--that Section 80 is express, explicit and mandatory and admits of no implications or exceptions. Section 80 peremptorily requires that no suit shall be filed against the Government or a public officer in respect of anything done in his official capacity until after the expiry of two months from the service of a notice in the manner therein prescribed stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the reliefs which he claims. There is no dispute that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC1376; [1960]1SCR580
Subba Rao, J.1. These appeals on certificates are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants under Art. 226 of the Constitution for issuing writs of certiorari to quash the orders of the Government of Andhra Pradesh confirming a scheme of nationalization on transport and the subsequent orders of the Regional Transport Authority cancelling the appellants' stage carriage permits. 2. These appeals are the off-shoot of the judgment of this Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation [1959] S.C.R. 319, delivered on November 5, 1958. The facts were fully stated therein. It would be only necessary to recapitulate briefly the facts relevant to the present enquiry : The appellants were carrying on motor transport business for several years in Krishna District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Shri Guru Pershad, styled as the General Manager of the State Trans...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC1357; [1960]1SCR569
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The appellant is a company, incorporated in India, with its registered office in Calcutta dealing in jute. It entered into a contract on June 18, 1945, with the respondent-company, which is incorporated in England and has its registered office in London. The contract was for the supply of five hundred bales of jute of crop 1945-46 to be shipped from Calcutta or Chittagong to Rio de Janeiro, when freight became available. The contract provides that in the even of default of tender or delivery, the seller shall pay to the buyer as and for liquidated damages 10s. per ton plus the excess (if any) of the market value over the contract price, the market value being that of jute contracted for on the day following the date of default. This date was to be the date in London on declaration of default by telegram or without such declaration if default was eventually made by lapse of time on the 21st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC1349; [1960]1SCR563
Sarkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of suit filed in the High Court of Jammu andKashmir for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered. The only pointinvolved in it is whether the suit was governed by art. 115 of the Jammu andKashmir Limitation Act. The courts below held, and this has not been disputedin this appeal, that if that article did not apply, the suit would fail on theground of limitation. 2. Sometime in November 1946, the parties entered into an agreement inwriting for the supply by the sellers, the respondents, to the buyer, theappellant, of 5,000 maunds of maize 500 maunds of wheat and 100 maunds of Dalat the rates and times specified. The agreement stated that on the date it hadbeen made the buyer had paid to the sellers Rs. 3,000 and had agreed to paya further sum of Rs. 10,000 within ten or twelve days as advance and thebalance due for the price of goods delivered, after the expiry of every month.It is admitted that the said sum of Rs. 10,000 was latter paid by the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC32; [1960]1SCR552
Das, C.J. 1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment and order pronounced by a Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on November 20, 1957, whereby three writ petitions, namely, No. 1 of 1956, No. 19 of 1957 and No. 470 of 1957, which had been filed by the appellant and were heard together, were dismissed with costs. These appeals have been filed with certificates granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 2. The circumstances under which the three writ petitions came to be filed by the appellant may now be narrated. It is alleged that on January 10, 1942, an agreement was entered into between the Rajah of Venkatagiri and one Sri Balumuri Nageswara Rao whereby the Rajah agreed to give annual leases in respect of certain slate quarries within his estate for five years in succession commencing from February 1942 if the Rajah was satisfied with the work carried on by the lessee during the preceding years. It was further stipulated that if the leases were given continuously...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1340
Wanchoo, J.1. The four appellants and one other were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Anantapur Division, under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 and were sentenced to death. They were also convicted under other sections and awarded varying punishments. All five preferred separate appeals to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. One appeal was allowed while the appeals of the four appellants were dismissed. By special leave, these four appellants filed the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court.2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case is as follows : In Chippagiri village, Anantapur District, there were bitter quarrels occurring between members of two factions, for convenience described as Reddy group and Kamma group. The former was led by one Virupaksha Reddy and the latter by accused A-1 to A-3. There were several criminal cases between the members of the two groups and despite the sincere attempt of Acharya Vinoba Bhave to settle their disputes, though t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC1383; [1960]1SCR537
Hidayatullah, J.1. This appeal with a certificate from the former High Court of Saurashtra under Art. 133 of the Constitution read with Ss. 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been brought against the judgment of that Court dated February 19, 1953, in Civil First Appeal No. 16 of 1952. 2. The appellant is the State of Saurashtra, which stood substituted for the State of Junagadh, against which the suit was originally filed. The respondent, Memon Haji Ismail Haji Valimahomed of Junagadh, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), brought this suit originally against two defendants, the State of Junagadh and one Jamadar Abu Umar Bin Abdulla Abu Panch (hereafter referred to as Abu Panch), for a declaration that the Secretariat Order No. 2/3289 dated October 1, 1948, was 'illegal, unjust and against all canons of natural justice.' He also asked for an alternative relief that the second defendant do return to him a sum of Rs. 30,000 plus Rs. 541-2-0, being the consideration an...
Tag this Judgment!