Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1519; [1962]1SCR688
Wanchoo, J.1. This petition challenges the constitutionality of a provision in the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 (hereinafter called the Order), made by the President under Art. 370(1) of the Constitution. The case of the petitioner is that he is registered as an elector in the Parliamentary Constituency of Delhi. As such he has a right to stand for election from any Parliamentary constituency in India. Six seats are allotted to the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the House of the People (Lok Sabha). Ordinarily, the election to these seats should have been by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the States as provided by Art. 81(1); but the President modified that Article in so far as it relates to the State of Jammu and Kashmir by Para. 5(c) of the Order in these words :- 'Article 81 shall apply subject to the modification that the representatives of the State in the House of the People shall be appointed by the President on the recommenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1471; [1962]1SCR694; [1961]12STC392(SC)
Wanchoo, J.1. These eleven petitions raise a common point and will be disposed to together. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. The petitioners are dealers in motor spirit in Hyderabad. In 1949 the Hyderabad Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Regulation, No. XXIV of 1358 Fasli (hereinafter called the Regulation) was passed and the petitioners were registered as retail dealers of petroleum products under the Regulation. In 1957 the petitioners and others filed writ petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh questioning the validity of the Regulation. There was also a prayer for stay of the levy and collection of the tax and the High Court ordered that all further proceedings in the matter of levy, demand and collection of tax including cancellation of registration certificate and threatened attachment of property and the launching of criminal proceedings in pursuance of the Regulation by stayed. The petitioners allege that on this stay being granted by the High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1500; [1962]1SCR676
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two writ petitions filed by the appellants Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh against the respondents the Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another in the Allahabad High Court and they were based on the same facts and asked for the same relief. Both of them raise a short common question of limitation the decision of which would depend upon the determination of the scope and effect of the provisions of the proviso to s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 (hereafter called the Act). Since the facts in both the appeals are substantially the same we would refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1958. The decision in this appeal would govern the decision of the other appeal, Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1958. 2. The appellant Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh was the proprietor of a village Beljuri in the District of Nainital. It appears that proceedings for compulsory acquisition of land including the said village for a public purpose were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1527; (1963)IMLJ1(SC); [1962]1SCR662
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan dated August 1, 1958, confirming the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, dated May 3, 1957, in so far as he convicted the appellant under Sections 347, 365 and 386, Indian Penal Code, and setting aside his order acquitting the appellant under s. 458, Indian Penal Code, and convicting the appellant under s. 452, Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant for the offences under Sections 347, 365 and 386, Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, 2 years and 3 1/2 years respectively. The High Court enhanced the sentences in respect of the offences under Sections 347 and 386, Indian Penal Code, to 3 years and 8 years respectively, and also imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000 on the appellant; the sentence in regard to the offence under s. 365, Indian Penal Code, was confirmed. The High Court further found th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1453; [1962]1SCR643
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short question of law which arises in this appeal is whether the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to extend the time for furnishing security for costs of the respondent under O. 45, r. 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Calcutta High Court has held that it had no jurisdiction to extend time as prayed for by the appellants, and so the certificate already granted by it to the appellants to appeal to this Court against its own decree has been cancelled. The order cancelling the said certificate has given rise to this appeal by special leave; and so the only question which we are called upon to consider is one of construing O. 45, r. 7, of the Code as well as O. XII, r. 3, of the Supreme Court Rules. 2. The relevant facts leading to the present controversy are not in dispute. The appellants had instituted a suit (No. 73 of 1944) in the First Additional Court of the Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganas against the six respondents. In this suit they claimed a dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC366; [1962]1SCR653
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Bharat. A suit was filed by firm Messrs. Harishchandra Dwarkadas (hereinafter called the respondent) against the appellant-firm Messrs. Murlidhar Chiranjilal and one Babulal. The case of the respondent was that a contract had been entered into between the appellant and the respondent through Babulal for sale of certain canvas at Re. 1 per yard. The delivery was to be made through railway receipt for Calcutta f.o.r. Kanpur. The cost of transport from Kanpur to Calcutta and the labour charges in that connection were to be borne by the respondent. It was also agreed that the railway receipt would be delivered on August 5, 1957. The appellant however failed to deliver the railway receipt and informed the respondent on August 8, 1947, that as booking from Kanpur to Calcutta was closed the contract had become impossible of performance; consequently the appellant cancelled the contract and returned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962]1SCR633
Hidayatullah, J.1. This appeal, by certificate under Arts. 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, has been filed against an order of the High court at Nagpur dated June 30, 1955. 2. Though the facts necessary to decide the appeal lie within a comparatively narrow compass, the case itself has had a long and somewhat unique history. In July, 1922, the Municipal Committee, Khandwa, resolved to impose a tax on the trade of ginning and pressing cotton by means of steam or mechanical process, and after sundry procedure, a notification was published on November 25, 1922 in the Central Provinces and Berar Gazette, imposing the tax. Certain traders including the appellant, affected by the tax, filed suits seeking injunction against the Municipal Committee on the ground that the tax was invalid and illegal. Meanwhile, the Municipal Committee had served notices on the present appellant, and demanded and recovered the tax for 1923-24. The appellant then filed a second suit for refund of the tax...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962]1SCR470
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab High Court and arises out of a suit for possession of land brought by Munshi Ram, respondent. The following pedigree table will be useful in understanding the claim put forward by the respondent :- Heman | ---------------------------------------- | | | | Karori Laghi Maghi Jai Dayal | | (issueless) | Gobind Ata Nanak Chand | | | Santu Munshi Ram ----------------------- (adopted son) | | plaintiff Hans Raj Salig Ram | (Defdt.) Munshi Ram (adopted by Ata)2. The claim of Munshi Ram was with respect to the property left by Nanak Chand who is his natural grandfather and also Santu. There is no dispute now about the property of Santu and we are concerned in this appeal only with the property of Nanak Chand. Nanak Chand died in 1939. Munshi Ram's natural father Hans Raj had pre-deceased Nanak Chand. Munshi Ram himself was adopted by Ata in 1918 before the death of his natural father Hans Raj which took place in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1541; [1962]1SCR601
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is by four persons against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing their appeal and confirming their conviction for several offences including one under s. 302 read with s. 149, I.P.C., by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. 2. These appellants, along with three other persons, were alleged to have forcibly taken two carts loaded with sugarcane from the field of Suraj Bhan through the field of Harphool, in transporting the sugarcane from the field, about a furlong and a half away, to the public passage running by the side of Harphool's field, and to have beaten Harphool and others on Harphool's protesting against the conduct of the appellants' party at the damage caused to his wheat and gram crop. Ram Chandar, one of the appellants, was armed with a hatchet (kulhari) and the others were armed with lathis. Harphool and others who came to his help struck the appellants' party also in self-defence. Harphool died as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC420; (1961)63BOMLR1022; [1962]1SCR596
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate by the High Court of Bombay against the judgment and order of that Court passed on a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the present appellants in regard to the legality of the notification levying an octroi duty on certain goods. 2. The appellants are some of the ratepayers of the Municipal Committee of Shegaon which is respondent No. 1 in this appeal. The other respondent is the State of Bombay. The appellants were carrying on trade and business which involved their bringing goods within the limits of the Municipal Committee. On July 25, 1954, the Municipal Committee passed a resolution for the purpose of levying an octroi duty instead for terminal tax. This resolution was published in the State Gazette on June 29, 1956, along with rules for assessment. On August 4, 1956, objections were invited to the proposed tax. The objections by the first appellant were filed on August 4, 1956, and by some others on August 5 and 6. At a m...
Tag this Judgment!