Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC131; (1960)62BOMLR159; [1960]1SCR902
Das, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed, on a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay, on January 14, 1958, under Act. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, challenging the correctness of that part of the judgment of the High Court, pronounced on November 14, 1957, which set aside the order of the Election Tribunal declaring the appellant to have been duly elected a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bombay. 2. For the election to the Bombay Legislative Assembly from the Electoral Constituency No. 129 of Mazagaon in Greater Bombay held on March 11, 1957, there were originally four candidates for the unreserved seat. Out of them two had withdrawn before the polling, leaving the appellant and the respondent as the two contesting candidates. The result of the election was declared on March 12, 1957. The respondent having received 22,914 votes as against 14,885 votes secured by the appellant, the respondent was declared duly elected. On April 10, 1957, the appellant filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC122; [1960]1SCR909
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises the question of true construction of the provisions of s. 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The material facts may be briefly stated : Sardar Gurmej Singh, the appellant, Sardar Partap Singh Kairon, the present Chief Minister of the State of Punjab and respondent herein, and others were the contesting candidates in the general election held in February 1957, from the Sarhali constituency. The respondent secured the highest number of votes and was duly declared elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly. On April 11, 1957, the appellant filed an election petition (Election Petition No. 22 of 1957) for the declaration that the election of the respondent was void under s. 100 of the Act. It was, inter alia, alleged by him that the respondent and his election agent had appointed a number of persons as the respondent's counting and polling agents at different centers and that the said pers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC260; (1960)62BOMLR152; (1960)ILLJ29SC; [1960]1SCR875
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This group of consolidated appeals has come before this Court with a certificate granted by the High Court at Bombay, under Art. 133 of the Constitution; the certificate shows that according to the High Court the amount of the value of the subject-matter in dispute involved in these consolidated appeals exceeds Rs. 20,000 and they raise a substantial question of law. 2. The 385 appellants concerned in these 20 appeals are employees in the Watch & Ward Department of various textile mills in Ahmedabad. They had filed 20 applications between July 22, 1953, to October 6, 1953, before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter called the authority) and had claimed overtime wages for the period between January, 1951, to December, 1951, and June-July, 1953. These applications were accompanied by another set of 20 applications in which they prayed for condonation of delay made in putting forward the claim for overtime wages under the second proviso to s. 15(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC213; [1960]1SCR861
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This appeal with a certificate granted by the High Court of Patna has been filed against its judgment and decree dated March 6, 1952. By that judgment, the High Court reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Motihari dated March 29, 1946. 2. The suit was filed by the present appellants for a declaration of their title to 136 odd bighas of Ryotikasht lands and for possession thereof either exclusively or jointly with the defendants. A claim for mesne profits and interest was also made. The suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, Motihari, on the ground that the defendants were in possession of the suit lands as benamidars. The trial Judge found that the consideration for the acquisition of these lands had proceeded from the predecessor of the plaintiffs, who had acquired them in the farzi names of Prahlad Rai, Gulraj Rai and Nawrang Rai. He also held that the benamidars were related to Radhumal by marriage, and that Radhumal found it convenient to use their...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC137; (1960)62BOMLR146; [1960]1SCR890
Das Gupta, J. 1. On August 22, 1949, the respondent made an application in the Revenue Court of the Mamlatdar of Sirsi, District Kanara, praying for delivery of possession of property which the appellant was on that date possessing as the tenant under him, on the basis of a 'Mulegeni' deed executed by the respondent's predecessor-in-interest in favour of the appellant's predecessor-in-interest. One of the terms of the lease was that if rent for three consecutive years fell in arrears the Mulegeni right will be void and the lessee should hand over possession of the property to the lessor. In the application made in the Mamlatdar's Court the respondent based his claim for possession on this express condition in the lease as also on an alleged termination by him of the tenancy. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act No. LXVII of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Tenancy Act, which it is not disputed applied to this tenancy contained provision for termin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC160; [1961(2)FLR212]; (1959)IILLJ666SC; [1960]1SCR806
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These three appeals arise out of an industrial dispute between the Punjab National Bank, Ltd. (hereinafter called the Bank) and two sets of its employees represented by the All-India Punjab National Bank Employees' Federation (hereinafter called the Federation) and the U. P. Bank Employees' Union hereinafter called the Union) respectively. On July 2, 1951, this dispute was refereed by the Central Government for adjudication to the industrial tribunal of which Mr. A. N. Sen, a retired Judge of the Calcutta High Court, was the sole member. It raised two issues. The first was whether the 150 workmen mentioned in Sch. II attached to the reference had been wrongfully dismissed by the Bank, and the second had reference to the claim for reinstatement and payment of wages and allowance from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. The reference thus made has gone through a long and protracted career and the final decision of the dispute would be reached after we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC391
K. Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by special leave filed by the State of Bombay is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay setting aside the convictions of the respondents and the sentences passed on them by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay, and acquitting them of the offences with which they were charged.2. A private limited company called the Industrial Commercial Trust Limited was formed on April 1, 1943. The principal shareholders in that company were the first accused and one Sir Chinubhai Madhavlal. During the course of that year i.e., 1943, a firm called the Asian Air Associates (hereinafter called 'the Company') was established as a subsidiary concern of the Industrial Commercial Trust Limited. Accused No. 1 and Sir Chinubhai Madhavlal were partners of the Company, and accused No. 2 was its General Secretary. The factory and the head office of the Company were at different places. The main work of the Company was the manufacture and repair of R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC100; [1960]1SCR773
Hidayatullah, J.1. This appeal with a certificate of the High Court of Judicature, Bombay, has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Court dated April 22, 1949, in First Appeal No. 403 of 1945, confirming the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, in Special Suit No. 5 of 1943, decided on August 14, 1945. The High Court made a slight modification in the matter of costs, to which we shall refer later. 2. The plaintiff, who is the appellant here, is the descendant of one Ganpati Maharaj, who was a devotee of 'Shri Venkatesh Balaji'. Ganpati Maharaj died in 1701 at the ripe age of 98. When Ganpati Maharaj was 72 years old, it was vouchsafed to him in a dream that an image of Venkatesh Balaji would be found by him in river Tambraparni in Tirunelveli District. He found the image, brought it to his house in Junnar (Poona District) and installed it. The worship of Shri Venkatesh Balaji was carried on by him, and when he died, he left behind him three sons ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC82; (1960)62BOMLR143; 26(1960)CLT181(SC); 1960CriLJ158; [1960]1SCR749
Imam, J.1. A complaint was filed by the appellant on the 4th of December, 1953, against the respondent Agbotwala and one Phirozbai Mazarkhan under ss. 385, 389 and 500/34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code in the Presidency Magistrate's 15th Court, Mazagoan, Bombay. The accused were summoned. As the accused Phirozbai Mazarkhan could not be produced the trial produced against the respondent Agbotwala (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) only. The Presidency Magistrate was not satisfied, on the evidence, that the respondent and Phirozbai Mazarkhan had conspired either to defame the appellant or to extort money from him. He also held that there was no evidence to show that the respondent knew that Phirozbai Mazarkhan was committing on offence. Accordingly, he declined to frame a charge under ss. 385 and 389/34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Presidency Magistrate, however, framed a charge under s. 500, I.P.C., against the respondent who pleaded not guilty. He was of the opin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC89; 26(1960)CLT533(SC); 1960CriLJ160; [1960]1SCR755
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the HighCourt of Punjab (Circuit Bench), Delhi confirming the conviction of theappellant and the sentence passed on him by the Magistrate, First Class, Delhi,under s. 6(1-A) of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (XVII of 1933)(hereinafter called 'the Act'). 2. Jethanand, the appellant herein, was prosecuted, along with another, inthe Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Delhi, under s. 6(1-A) of the Act forpossessing a wireless transmitter in contravention of the provisions of s. 3 ofthe Act, and was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, thelearned First Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, upheld the conviction butreduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone plus afine of Rs. 500. On revision, the High Court confirmed both the conviction andthe sentence. On an application filed for special leave, this Court gave thesame, but limited it to the question of senten...
Tag this Judgment!