Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1261; (1960)ILLJ250SC
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises from an industrial dispute between Lalit Hari Ayurvedic College Pharmacy, Pilibhit (hereinafter called the appellant) and L. H. Ayurvedic College Pharmacy Workers' Union, Pilibhit (hereinafter called the respondent). It appears that the appellant had terminated the services of Mr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, a clerk in its employment and the case of this clerk was taken up by the respondent on the ground that the termination of his services was unjustified and illegal. The dispute thus raised by the respondent was referred for, adjudication by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. The tribunal held that the dispute between the parties was an industrial dispute and overruled the objection raised by the appellant that the activity carried on by it was not an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The tribunal also found that the dismissal of Mr. Sharma was illegal. In the result the case set up by the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC610; (1960)62BOMLR553; (1960)ILLJ251SC; [1960]2SCR866
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay (hereinafter called the appellant) and two others and it arises from a writ petition filed against it by the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, a trade union registered under the Industrial Trade Unions Act XIV of 1926 and two of its members Mrs. Vatsala Narayan and Mrs. Ruth Isaac (hereinafter called respondents 1 to 3). Respondents 2 and 3 were employed as Ward servants in the J. J. group of Hospitals. The superintendent of this said group of Hospitals informed the said respondents by notices issued respectively against them that their services would be terminated with effect from the dates mentioned in the said notices and in accordance with the said notices their services were in fact terminated; subsequently in their place two State servants who were discharged from the Civil Supplies Department were appointed. The writ petition filed by the respondents alleged that the retrenchment of respondents 2 and 3 was void as it did not co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC595; [1960]2SCR852; [1960]11STC186(SC)
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the first respondent dated February 9, 1959, setting aside the order of the second respondent allowing a deduction of an amount of Rs. 1,86,42,730-15-0 from the petitioner's sales tax turn-over on the ground that the said amount was not liable to tax by virtue of s. 46 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (Act III of 1953), (hereinafter called the Act). 2. The material facts are not in dispute and they may be briefly stated : The petitioner is a private company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, and has its registered office at Kasturi Buildings, Bombay-1. On March 24, 1954 and April 15, 1954, the petitioner entered into two contracts with the Government of India for selling to the latter two consignments of sugar - one of 9500 Long Tons of sugar of Peruvian origin and the other of 25000 Metric Tons of sugar of continental origin. To fulfil the terms of the contracts, the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC571; (1960)ILLJ541SC; [1960]2SCR841
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises the question as to what extent the reserves can be deducted from the amount required for rehabilitation of plant and machinery and also as to the manner by which the deductible reserves can be ascertained. It would be enough if we narrated only the facts relevant to the question raised. The appellant, Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, is a textile mill and its factory is situate at Jalgaon. The respondent, Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh, represents the employees of the appellant-Company. The respondent on behalf of the employees issued a notice to the appellant under s. 42(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, demanding payment of reasonable bonus for the period from January 1, 1955 to December 31, 1955. Negotiations in this regard having failed, the respondent made a reference to the Industrial Court under s. 73A of the said Act for arbitration of the dispute arising out of the said notice. 2. The arbitrator, i.e. the Indu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC633; 1960CriLJ1002; [1960]2SCR821
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises the question of interpretation of the words 'in the interest of public order' in Art. 19(2) of the Constitution. 2. The facts are not in dispute and they lie in a small compass. The respondent, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, is the General Secretary of the Socialist Party of India. The U.P. Government enhanced the irrigation rates for water supplied from canals to cultivators. The party to which the respondent belongs resolved to start an agitation against the said enhancement for the alleged reason that it placed an unbearable burden upon the cultivators. Pursuant to the policy of his party, the respondent visited Farrukhabad and addressed two public meetings wherein he made speeches instigating the audience not to pay enhanced irrigation rates to the Government. On July 4, 1954, at 10 p.m. he was arrested and produced before the City Magistrate, Farrukhabad, who remanded him for two days. After investigation, the Station officer, Kaimganj, filed a charge-sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC629; [1960]2SCR810
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Nagpur High Court and arises out of proceedings under the Indian Arbitration Act. 2. The appellant in this case is Champalal and the respondent is Samarath Bai, the widow of Lal Chand. The parties who are Jains belong to Balapur in the district of Akola in the previous State of Madhya Pradesh. The relationship of the parties is shown by the following pedigree table : Phool Chand|-----------------------------------------------| | |Nanak Chand Khushal Chand Sundarlal| | |Bulakhidas = Lalchand = DeolalJivanbai Samarathbai || |--------------------------- || | |Babibai = Ratanbai = |Rasiklal Vijay Kumar ||----------------------------------| | |Ishwardas Baglal Digamber Das| |Champalal ||-------------------------| | |Sakarchand Vinaychand VimalchandOn September 14, 1944, Lal Chand made a will by which he authorized his wife Samarath Bai to adopt Champalal and made certain disposition of his property. Lal Chand died on Septem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC625; 1960CriLJ764; [1960]2SCR784
Imam, J. 1. This petition was heard on January 4, 1960, and we intimated that it was being dismissed and reasons for the same will follow later. We proceed to give our reasons now. 2. The petitioner was detained by an order dated May 4, 1959, of the Central Government under the provisions of s. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The grounds of detention dated May 7, 1959, were served on the petitioner. His case was considered by the Advisory Board constituted by the Central Government under s. 8 of the Act. On the report of the Advisory Board the Central Government by its order dated June 23, 1959, directed that the petitioner be detained until May 4, 1960. It is against this order of detention that the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner. 3. The grounds of detention contained 5 grounds upon which the Central Government was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner as he was likely...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC588; 1960(2)MhLj46; [1960]2SCR793
Shah, J.1. On May 3, 1937, M/s. Alopi Parshad and Sons Ltd., who will hereinafter be referred to as the Agents, were, under an agreement in writing, appointed by the Governor-General for India in Council, as from October 1, 1937, agents for purchasing ghee required for the use of the Army personnel. The Government of India, by clause 12 of the agreement, undertook to pay to the Agents the actual expenses incurred for purchasing ghee, cost of empty tins, expenses incurred on clearance of Government tins from the railway, export land-customs duty levied on ghee purchased and exported from markets situated in Indian States, octroi duty, terminal tax or other local rates on ghee, and certain other charges incurred by the Agents. The Government also agreed to pay to the Agents at rates specified in the agreement : (1) the financing and overhead (mandi) charges incurred in the buying markets. (2) the cost of establishments and contingencies provided by the Agents on the Government's account...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC606; (1960)62PLR641; [1960]2SCR775
Wanchoo, J.1. This appeal upon a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court raises the question whether an order of the Central Government under r. 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, (hereinafter called the Rules) framed under s. 6 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, No. 53 of 1941, (hereinafter called the Act) is quasi-judicial or administrative. The brief facts necessary for this purpose are these. The appellant was granted a mining lease by the then Ruler of Gangpur State on December 30, 1947, shortly before the merger of that State with the State of Orissa on January 1, 1948. This lease was annulled on June 29, 1949. Thereafter the appellant was granted certificates of approval in respect of prospecting licences and mining leases. Eventually, the appellant applied on December 19, 1949, for mining leases for manganese in respect of five areas in the district of Sundergarh (Orissa). He was asked on July 4, 1950, to submit a separate application for ea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC992; [1960(1)FLR52]; (1960)IILLJ61SC
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.1. The appellant was employed as Assistant Station Master at Rawtara on the Katihar-Jogbani branch of the North-eastern Railway. On January 9, 1957, he was served with an order reducing him to the rank of Signaller. The validity of this order was challenged by him by a writ petition filed in the High Court of Judicature at Patna on July 3, 1957. The High Court, however, summarily rejected the said petition on July 4, 1957. The appellant's application for a certificate under Articles 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution was likewise rejected by the High Court. Thereupon the appellant applied for and obtained special leave from this Court. The appellant's grievance is that the impugned order has been passed against him without giving him an opportunity to meet the charge as required by Article 311 of the Constitution. This contention appears to be well-founded; and so the appeal will have to be allowed. It appears that the material facts under which the impugne...
Tag this Judgment!