Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1939; (1962)64BOMLR256; [1962]3SCR928
Das Gupta, J.1. When a lessee takes lease of open land for the purpose of constructing on it buildings intended to be used for residence or for business is this 'letting for residence', or 'letting for business' That is the short question which arises for decision in these four appeals. The appellant brought these four suits in the City Civil Courts, Bombay, for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the premises mentioned in the plaint of these several suits. It is clear under the law that the City Civil Court, Bombay, would have no jurisdiction to try these suits if the provisions of Part II of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bom. 57 of 1947), which later in this judgment we shall refer to as the 'Rent Act', applied to the premises in suits. For this reason the plaintiff stated in the plaint itself that this Rent Act did not apply to the demised premises. The defendant in each case pleaded on the contrary that the Rent Act applied and so the City...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC386; [1962]3SCR936
S.K. Das, J.1. This writ petition by one Mannalal Jain was originally filed on October 17, 1960, and the order complained of was dated September 13, 1960. This was an order made by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Gauhati, rejecting an application made by the petitioner for the grant of a license for the year 1960 for dealing in rice and paddy under the relevant provisions of the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1960. This writ petition was put up for hearing in this Court on February 2, 1961. The hearing was, however, adjourned sine die, because it was stated before us that the period of licence for 1960 had already expired and a fresh application would have to be made for a license for 1961. A fresh application was accordingly made by the petitioner on February 4, 1961. But before that date a fresh Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961 was made by the Governor of Assam and the application made by the petitioner had to be dealt with under the new Order. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC174; [1962]3SCR910
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the Madras High Court. The appellants were defendants in a suit brought by the respondents for possession of certain properties which originally belonged to one Subbarayudu. The case of the respondents was that Subbarayudu executed a will dated September 15, 1885. Under that will the property passed on his death to his wife with life interest and after her death absolutely to his daughter Krishnavenamma who was in enjoyment thereof till her death in 1933. The daughter executed a will on March 24, 1933, in favour of her step son Nagaraju who came into possession of the property on her death soon after. Nagaraju in his turn executed a will on August 16, 1933, by which he gave life interest to his wife who was the first plaintiff (now the first respondent before us) and thereafter the property was bequeathed absolutely to his daughters. The second respondent is the tenant of the first respondent. Nagaraju di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC318; [1961(3)FLR466]; (1961)IILLJ436SC; [1962]3SCR893
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal with special leave against an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, By its award the Tribunal rejected the reference holding that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute submitted to it by the Government of Bombay. 2. Salivateeswaran (the third appellant) who claimed to be a full time employee of the first respondent - 'The Hindu', Bombay - addressed a letter on February 15, 1956, to the Managing Editor for 'The Hindu' - a daily newspaper published at Madras - intimating that he was proceeding to Europe on March 1, 1956. On February 16, 1956, the Assistant Editor of 'The Hindu' informed Salivateeswaran that even though the letter was not a full time employee of 'The Hindu', they could 'not allow frequent breaks in the performance of' of his duties and that they would have to relieve him of his duties as correspondent from March 1, 1956, if he proceeded to Europe as arranged by him. Salivateeswaran having persisted in carrying out his proje...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1252; 1961CriLJ315; [1962]3SCR869
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Madras, with special leave granted by this Court. The appellant was convicted under section 302, I. P. C., and sentenced to death for the murder of one Elumalai on January 24, 1960, at Kannankurichi. The facts of the case are simple : 2. Two days before this occurrence the appellant Muniappan and Elumalai had a quarrel at a tea stall. Though the quarrel really was between the appellant and some others, Elumalai had intervened in that quarrel, and made some remark about the appellant, and had advised the party opposite to him to make a complaint. Two reports of that incident were made, one by the appellant and the other by his rivals. On January 24, 1960, at about 12.30 P. M., P. W. 1 Muthuswami Udayar was having a bath when he heard Elumalai calling out to him 'Mama'. Muthuswami Udayar ran to the place from which this cry had come and found Elumalai with several stab wounds on his body. Muthuswami Udayar qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC413; [1962]3SCR876
Sinha, C.J. 1. This appeal by special leave granted by this Court on April 20, 1961, is directed against the concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment on the ground that the defendant is a tenant at will and negativing the appellants' claim to a permanent tenancy. The controversy between the parties depends upon the true construction of the lease dated October 26, 1914, executed between the predecessors-in-interest of the parties to the present litigation. 2. The facts leading up to this appeal are as follows :- One N. J. Gamodia of Bombay took on lease a piece of agricultural land measuring about 4 1/2 acres belonging to one Gurupadappa of Devangere City for the purpose of erecting a Ginning and Pressing Cotton Factory. The terms of the registered lease deed dated October 26, 1914, in so far as they are material for the determination of this appeal are better stated in the relevant portions of the deed itself :- '1. For the 1st period of 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962]Supp1SCR288
Sinha, C.J.1. The Advocate proceeded against for professional misconduct was enrolled as an advocate of the Allahabad High Court in December 1958. In January 1961, he was enrolled as an advocate of this Court. The proceedings against him were taken in accordance with the procedure laid down in O. IV-A of the Supreme Court Rules. 2. In March this year the Registrar of this Court received a letter, marked 'Secret', from Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, in the Department of law & Judiciary, to the effect that the 'Advocate on Record' of the Supreme Court had addressed a post-card, dated January 1, 1961, to the Minister of Law of the State of Maharashtra, which 'constitutes a gross case of advertisement and solicitation for work.' The original post-card was enclosed with the letter, with the request that the matter may be placed before the Chief Justice and the other Judges of the Supreme Court for such action as to their Lordships may seem fit and proper. The post-card, which w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC316; 1983LC2198D(SC); [1961]3SCR786
Ayyangar, J.1. The Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act 8 of 1878) (referred to hereinafter as the Act), was amended by section 14 of Act 21 of 1955 by the introduction of section 178A reading : '178A. (1) Where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be on the person from whose possession the goods were seized. (2) This section shall apply to gold, gold manufactures, diamonds and other precious stones, cigarettes and cosmetics and any other goods which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. (3) Every notification issued under Sub-section (2) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is issued'. 2. It is the constitutional validity of this section that is the common point which arises in these several cases which have been heard together. We have heard on the merits only ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC305; [1962]3SCR842
Mudholkar, J.1. A matter of far-reaching importance affecting the freedom of the press is raised in these three petitions wherein the constitutionality of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, and the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) order, 1960, is questioned. 2. The first petition is by a private limited company carrying on business inter alia of publishing daily and weekly newspapers in Marathi named 'Sakal' from Poona and by two persons who are the only shareholders in that company. The second and third petitions are preferred by two readers of 'Sakal' who also challenge the constitutionality of the Act. Certain parties were allowed to intervene. They supported the Union of India, the respondent, in all these petitions and sought to uphold the validity of the Act and the Order. In view of the common argument adduced before us it would be convenient to deal with the first petition only in full. 3. The newspaper 'Sakal' was started in the year 1932 and it is claimed that it has a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC378; 1962(0)BLJR426; [1962]3SCR769
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The principal point which this appeal by special leave raises for our decision relates to the construction of sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) (hereafter called the Act). That question arises in this way. The respondent, Union of India, filed a petition in the Court of the First Class Sub-Judge at Delhi against the appellant M/s. J. Burman & Co., through its proprietor Jawahar Lal Burman under sections 33 and 28 of the Act. The respondent alleged that a concluded contract had been entered into between the parties on August 31, 1949 for supply of 170-1/2 Cwt. of cocoanut oil by the appellant to the respondent. The respondent had advertised in the Indian Trade Journal for he said supply and the appellant had submitted its tender No. SM-I/104524. This tender was accepted by the respondent which concluded a contract between the parties. The respondent's case was that the said contract was governed by general conditions of contract Form W. S....
Tag this Judgment!