Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1805; [1962]2SCR151
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the Punjab High Court dismissing the petition of the appellants under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing the orders of the Custodian General, dated June 17, 1952. 2. The appellants and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are residents of village Baland, Tehsil and District Rohtak, and are members of the body of proprietors of that village. The village Baland is divided between three estates. The plot in suit is in the estate known as 'Barsan'. One Fakira, a mendicant and a non-proprietor, had his house on the plot in suit. In January, 1950, the Custodian of Evacuee Property issued a notice under s. 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949, stating that the appellants were in unauthorised possession of the house of Fakira, a Muslim evacuee, and that they should either vacate the house or show cause to the contrary. The appellants filed their objections to the notice. The Deputy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1602; [1962]2SCR125
Ayyangar, J.1. These three petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of s. 19 and particularly sub-s. 3, of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 (Central Act 96 of 1956), on the ground that it offends the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed to them by Arts. 14 and 19(1)(f). 2. To appreciate the grounds on which this contention is sought to be sustained it is necessary to set out briefly a few facts. We might however mention that though the constitutional objection, adverted to is common to all the three petitions, it is sufficient to refer to the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 67 of 1959 which is typical of the cases before us. 3. The petitioner - Jyoti Pershad - is the owner of a house in Delhi in which respondents 3 to 11 were tenants. Each of these nine individuals occupied a single room in this house. As the petitioner considered the house to be old and req...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1731; [1962]2SCR169
Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras on a certificate under Arts. 132 and 133(1) of the Constitution, and raises for consideration the constitutionality of s. 13 of the Madras Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1949; and the legality of an order of the State Government passed thereunder. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are briefly as follows : The dispute relates to premises No. 1, Blackers Road, Mount Road, Madras - a property which was originally owned by one Sir Haji Ismail Sait. In or about the year 1914 one Venkayya obtained a lease of this property from Sir Haji Ismail Sait and constructed a cinema-theatre thereon which he ran under the name of 'the Gaiety Theatre'. Venkayya was adjudicated an insolvent and the Official Assignee of Madras in whom his estate, including the leasehold interest in the suit site vested, obtained a further lease of the property from the representatives of Sir Haji Ismail Sait who h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1596; [1962]2SCR159
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal, with the special leave of this Court, against an order of Naik, J., of the High Court of Bombay in Civil Revision Application No. 320 of 1959, by which he disallowed certain pleas raised by the appellants. The respondent is the landlord. 2. On September 11, 1942, the appellants had executed a rent note, under which they were in occupation of the premises in dispute. The period of the tenancy was 15 years, and it expired by the efflux of time on March 14, 1957. The landlord thereupon filed a suit on April 25, 1957, for possession of the premises, in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Erandol. Meanwhile, under s. 6 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (to be called the Act, in this judgment), a notification was issued, applying Part II of the Act to the area where the property is situated. The appellants claimed protection of s. 12 in Part II of the Act, which deprived the landlord of the ri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC148; 1978(2)ELT304(SC); [1962]2SCR118
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is a petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the excise tariff imposed by clause (6) in entry 4(I) in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (I of 1944). Petitioners Nos. 1 to 17 are tobacco cultivators and they carry on the trade and business of growing tobacco and selling it in Kaimganj Tahsil in the District of Farrukhabad in Uttar Pradesh. Petitioners 18 to 30 are partners or proprietors or agents of firms which are private bonded warehouse licencees and they carry on trade and business of purchasing tobacco from the cultivators and of selling the same to dealers or to other private warehouse licencees. By their petition the petitioners have asked for a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus to be issued to the respondent, the Union of India, restraining it from levying excise duty on hooka and chewing tobacco under the impugned item and any other writ, direction or order which may be f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1570; [1962]2SCR69
S.K. Das, J.1. This is a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution in respect of a dharmasala, an adjoining temple and some appurtenant shops, standing on a piece of land near the railway station at Barnala, district Sangrur, in the State of Punjab. The petitioners are sons, grand-sons and daughter of one Lala Ramji Das, and widow of one Tara Chand, a predeceased son of Lala Ramji Das. 2. The case of the petitioners in short is that Lala Ramji Das, who died in 1957, had built the dharmasala, temple and shops out of the funds of the joint family consisting of himself and the petitioners near about the year 1909 and during his life-time managed the dharmasala, temple and shops on behalf of the joint family. The dharmasala was built for the benefit of the travelling public and was used as a rest hose by travelers; there deities were installed in the temple and members of the public offered worship therein, though there was no formal dedication; and the shops were let out on rent for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC354; (1962)64BOMLR403; [1962]2SCR59
Sinha, C.J. 1. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the defendants-appellants are 'protected tenants' within the meaning of the Bombay Tenancy Act (Bombay Act XXIX of 1939) (which hereinafter will be referred to, for the sake of brevity, as the Act of 1939), whose rights as such were not affected by the repeal of that Act by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Bombay Act LXVII of 1948) which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act of 1948). The Courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession of the lands in dispute, holding that the defendants were not entitled to the protection claimed by them as 'protected tenants'. This appeal is by special leave granted by this Court on April 4, 1955. 2. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Shortly stated, they are as follows. By virtue of a lease dated October 30, 1939, the defendants obtained a lease of the disputed lands from the plaintiff for a period of 10 years, expiring on October 30...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1615; [1962]2SCR81; [1961]12STC449(SC)
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the same facts and involve the determination of the same question, and this judgment will govern both of them. 2. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 237 of 1960 is a company registered at Recklinghausen near Dusseldorf in West Germany, and carries on business in the manufacture and erection of plants and machinery. On December 19, 1953, it entered into a contract with a company called Sindri Fertilisers and Chemicals (Private) Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Owner, for assembling and installing machinery, plants and accessories for a coke oven battery and by-products plant at Sindri in the State of Bihar for an all-inclusive price of Rs. 2,31,50,000. The agreement provides that the appellants were to supply all the materials and labour required for the execution of the works, and that the performance was to be split up into two categories, the German section and the Indian section, that the German section was to consist of del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1601; 1961CriLJ736; [1962]2SCR116
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the application for quashing the commitment of the case against the appellant, to the Court of Session, for trial of offences of criminal conspiracy to cheat under s. 120B read with s. 420, Indian Penal Code, and for the offence of forgery committed in pursuance of that conspiracy. The criminal conspiracy is alleged to have been committed at Calcutta. The other offences in pursuance of the conspiracy are alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session at Madras. The quashing of the commitment was sought on the ground that the Courts at Madras had no jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy. The High Court did not accept the contention and dismissed the application. 2. The sole question for consideration in this appeal is whether the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been committed at Calcutta can be tried by the Court of Session at Madras....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1589; 1961CriLJ728; [1962]2SCR101
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is from the order of the Calcutta High Court dated May 16, 1958, summarily dismissing the appeal of the appellant from the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court convicting him on jury trial of offences under s. 120B read with s. 471, Indian Penal Code, and on two counts under s. 471 read with s. 466, Indian Penal Code, with respect to two documents. L. N. Kalyanam, who was also tried at the same trial and convicted of the offences under s. 120B read with s. 471, Indian Penal Code, two counts under s. 466, Indian Penal Code, and of the offence under s. 109, read with S. 471, Indian Penal Code, did not appeal against his conviction. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant Purushottamdas Dalmia was one of the partners of the firm known as Laxminarayan Gourishankar which had its head office at Gaya and branch at Calcutta. The Calcutta branch was located at 19, Sambhu Mallick Lane. On April 26, 1952,...
Tag this Judgment!