Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1077; (1961)63BOMLR659; [1961]3SCR792
Shah, J. 1. These six appeals are filed with certificates under Art. 133 of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The appeals arise out of the judgments and decrees in suits Nos. 47 of 1948 and 36 of 1949 in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar. The following geneology set out in the plaint in Suit No. 47 of 1948 explains the relationship between the parties : Dongarsa|----------------------------------------------| |Yamosa Ramakrishnasa| |---------------------------- Hanmantsa| | | |Kashinathsa Bhaskarsa Murarsa Bhimasa(D1) | (D2) (D3)|----------------------------------------------| | | |Narsingsa Pandurangsa Benakosa Hanmantsa(P1) (P2) (P3) (P4)2. The principal contesting party in the suits was Kashinathsa, eldest son of Yamosa, and he was the first defendant in both the suits. For facility of reference, we propose to refer to the parties as they were arrayed in Suit No. 47 of 1948. Bhimasa - the plaintiff in Suit No. 36 of 1949 will, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC838; [1961(3)FLR241]; (1961)IILLJ146SC; [1962]1SCR9
Das Gupta, J.1. On February 5, 1955, there was a tragic accident in the Amlabad Colliery, in Manbhum District, in the State of Bihar, as a result of which 52 persons lost their lives and one escaped with injuries. The court of enquiry which was appointed to hold an inquiry into the causes of the accident and the circumstances attending the accident submitted its report on September 26, 1955, holding that the accident was due to negligence and non-observance of some of the regulations of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926. This report was duly published under s. 27 of the Mines Act, 1952. Thereafter, on March 3, 1956, the Government of India informed the manager and the agent of the colliery that a court of enquiry was being constituted under clause (a) of the Regulation 48 to hold an inquiry into their conduct. Criminal proceedings were also instituted against 14 persons including the manager and the agent of the colliery, all the directors of the company which was the owner of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC790; [1961]3SCR769
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises from a partition suit filed by Baij Nath against his other coparceners. Baij Nath is the son of Behari Lal and he had four brothers Kidar Nath, Raghunath Sahai, Jagan Nath and Badri Nath. Kidar Nath was dead at the time of the suit, and his branch was represented by his five sons Ghansham Lal, Shri Ram, Hari Ram, Tirath Ram and Murari Lal, who were impleaded as defendants 1 to 5 respectively. On the death of Ghansham Lal pending the suit his two minor sons Jai Pal and Chandar Mohan were brought on the record as his legal representatives and their mother Mst. Kaushalya was appointed guardian ad litem. The two minors are the appellants before us. Chuni Lal, the son of Raghunath Sahai was defendant 6, Bal Kishan and Hari Kishan the two sons of Jagan Nath were defendants 7 and 8, and Badri Nath was defendant 9. Baij Nath's case was that the family was undivided and he wanted a partition of his share in the family properties, and so i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1268; [1961]3SCR779
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal has been brought to this Court with a certificate granted by the Madras High Court and it arises from a suit filed by the appellants Mallesappa and Chenna Basappa against their uncle Mallappa, respondent 1 and granduncle Honnappa, respondent 2, for partition. According to the plaint, the family of the appellants and respondent 1 was an undivided Hindu family until the date of the suit, and respondent 1 was its manager. The ancestor of the family was Desai Mallappa. He had three sons, Kari Ramappa who died in 1933, Virupakshappa who died long ago and Honnappa, respondent 2. Kari Ramappa had four sons Gurushantappa (died 1913), Bandappa (died 1931), Mallappa (respondent 1) and Veerabhadrappa (died 1927). Gurushantappa married Parvathamma; the two appellants are the sons of Bandappa, their mother being Neelamma. They were born in 1926 and 1929 respectively. Their case was that respondent 1 who has been the manager of the family for many years has been tryi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
J.R. Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal special leave from the decision of the Punjab High Court dismissing an appeal under the Letters Patent against the judgment of Gosain J. in a writ petition.2. The facts leading up to the appeal are briefly as follows :Certain agricultural lands in the village of Bhaini Bangar in the district of Gurdaspur were allotted to a number of displaced persons, including the appellants, in the beginning of the year 1950 on a quasi- permanent basis. This allotment was made under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and rules made thereunder. In the month of July of that year the Director of Rehabilitation(Rural), Jullunder, declared the village to be a 'fauji' village and stated that the land therein will have to be reallotted. This is what appears from his order dated July 10, 1950 (Ex. C), though, according to the statement of facts in the High Court, the Director of Rehabilitation had actually passed an order canceling the allotment already ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC882; [1961]3SCR763
Hidayatullah, J.1. The appellant who was plaintiff in a title suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge II, Gaya, has appealed against the dismissal of his suit by the High Court at Patna, with a certificate from that Court. In the suit he had asked for a declaration that he was nominated Mahant of Moghal Juan Sangat by his Guru, Mahanth Gulab Das, by a registered deed dated October 21, 1944, and that he had thus the right to manage the Sangat and other off-shoots thereof. His suit was dismissed by the trial Judge on May 31, 1947. He then appealed to the High Court at Patna, and on November 26, 1951, the appeal was decided in his favour on condition that he paid court fee on the amended relief of possession of properties involved in the suit, for which purpose the case was sent to the Court of First Instance for determining the value of the properties and for fixing the amount of court fee to be paid. After the report from the Subordinate Judge was received, the case was placed for fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1095; [1961]3SCR759
Hidayatullah, J.1. This appeal is as much without substance, as it was unnecessary. Hazrat Syed Mastershid Ali Al Quadari (the appellant) is the eldest son of one Hazrat Sahib Syed Shah Mastershid Ali Al Quadari (shortly, Hazrat Sahib), the first Mutawalli of a wakf created on August 9, 1931, for the maintenance of the shrine of a Muslim Pir in the town of Midnapur. After the death of Hazrat Sahib, the appellant, claiming to succeed to his father as Sajjadanashin, being his eldest son, made an application to the Commissioner under the Bengal Wakf Act. His younger brother, Syed Shah Rushaid Ali Al Quadari, opposed his claim, the ground being that he was nominated as the successor by Hazrat Sahib. While this controversy was afoot, the Commissioner, acting under s. 40 of the Bengal Wakf Act, appointed Syed Shah Rasheed Ali Al Quadari (the third son of Hazrat Sahib) as a temporary Mutawalli. The appellant then moved a petition in the Calcutta High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC794; [1961]3SCR754
Shah, J.1. These three appeals were filed by the appellants M/s. Jethanand & Sons with certificate of fitness granted under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 2. The appellants entered into three separate contracts with the Government of the United Provinces (now called the State of Uttar Pradesh) on March 20, 1947, May 27, 1947, and June 28, 1947, for the supply of stone ballast at Shankar Garh, District Allahabad. The contracts which were in identical terms contained the following arbitration clause : 'All disputes between the parties hereto arising out of this contract whether during its continuance or after its rescission or in respect of the construction or meaning of any clause thereof or of the tender, specifications and conditions or any of them or any part thereof respectively or anything arising out of or incident thereto for the decision of which no express provision has hereinbefore been made, shall be referred to the Superinten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1263; [1961]3SCR698
Kapur, J.1. These are two appeals brought against two judgments and orders of the High Court of Mysore which arise out of two petitions filed by the appellants under Art. 226 challenging the legality of the imposition of octroi on wool and cotton under s. 98 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act (Act LXIX of 1949), which for the sake of convenience, will be termed the 'Act'. 2. On March 31, 1954, a resolution was passed purporting to be under s. 98(1) of the Act by which it was resolved to levy an octroi on cotton and wool as follows :- Name of the Articles Rate of duty1. Raw cotton and wool(this includes both Rs. 1/9- per cent.loose and compressed, ad valoremmade in India or foreign)2. ... ...3. This was notified in the Mysore Gazette on April 3, 1954, and was also published as required by s. 98(1) of the Act. Objections were invited and it is admitted that both the appellants filed their objections. Final resolution under s. 98(2) was passed on December 21, 1954, and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC921; [1961]42ITR427(SC); [1961]3SCR731
Wanchoo, J.1. In this matter by our order made on April 24, 1958, we had referred the case back to the Tribunal to submit a further statement of case on certain questions. That statement of case has now been drawn up by the Tribunal and sent to this Court. The matter is now ready for decision. 2. This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, against the judgment of the High Court at Bombay given on a reference under s. 60(2) of the Income-tax Act answering the question referred, in the negative. That question was, 'Whether, in any event, on the facts found by the Tribunal, there was any remittance by the petitioner to Bombay within the meaning of and assessable under s. 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act.' The assessment year concerned was 1948-49, the accounting year being 2003 Sambat. 3. The facts found may now be stated. At the relevant time, Bhavnagar was a ruling State and therefore outside British India. There was a mill there which we shall, for brevity, call the ...
Tag this Judgment!