Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC806; (1964)66BOMLR122; [1963(6)FLR74]; (1962)IILLJ736SC; [1963]Supp(1)SCR524
Shah, J. 1. M/s. Bhikusa Yamasa Kahatriya and M/s. Bastiram Narayandas (owners of bidi factories at Sangamner in the District of Ahmednagar) hereinafter referred to collectively as 'the appellants', moved the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ or direction declaring s. 3(3)(iv) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (XI of 1948) and a Notification dated April 19, 1955, issued by the Government of Bombay in exercise of the authority vested under the Act 'ultra vires, void and illegal' because the said enactment and the Notification infringed the guarantee of equal protection of the laws, and affected the rights of the appellants to carry on their lawful business, and for an order declaring that the appellants were not bound by the said Notification and were not liable to pay wages to the Bidi workers at the rates prescribed by the Notification, and for consequential relief. The High Court dismissed the petition, for in their view, s. 3(3)(i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1503; (1963)65PLR576; [1963]Supp(1)SCR539
Sarkar, J.1. This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution asks for a writ quashing an order purported to have been made under s. 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. it is said that the order was entirely without jurisdiction and if allowed to stand, it would deprive the petitioner of certain lands and so wrongly affect his fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.2. The question raised by this petition depends on a construction of certain provisions of the Act which we shall later quote. A general idea of some of the purposes and provisions of the Act will however be useful for deciding that question and may be given now.3. Shortly put, one of the objects of the Act appears to be to pool together the entire lands held by different persons in a village and redistribute the same among them on a more utilitarian basis in accordance with a scheme framed for the purpose. The final result that the Act achieves is that inst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1023; [1963]33CompCas255(SC); [1963]Supp(1)SCR514
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal from the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and arises in the following circumstances : Appellant No. 1 went to Europe and the United States of America in connection with business, and his wife, appellant No. 2, accompanied him. The first appellant is the Chairman of Sahu Jain Limited. They left India on June 30, 1958 and visited several countries in Europe including West Germany. Eventually they reached the United States of America on August 5, 1958. They left the United States on September 22, and arrived at Delhi on October 1, 1958. The first appellant had been allowed foreign exchange amounting to pound 337 (equal to Rs. 4500/-) and 1410 U.S. Dollars (equal to Rs. 6,750/-). Further, Messrs. Sahu Jain Limited had been informed that the exchange was sanctioned on condition that the visit was limited to a period of two months. The second appellant was not allowed any foreign exchange, but her visit was sanctioned on the representa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]3SCR884
Gajendragadkar, J.1. What is the effect of the retrospective operation of s. 31 introduced by the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, 1960 (X of 1960) in the parent Act of Pre-emption (No. 1 of 1913). That is the short question which arises for our decision in these three appeals which have been ordered to be consolidated for the purpose of hearing by this Court. These appeals arise from three pre-emption suits instituted by the respondents against the respective appellants. The respondents' case was that the properties in suit had been sold by Aftab Rai on May 31, 1956, for Rs. 10,000/- to the appellants and it is these sales which they wanted to pre-empt. They alleged that they are the owners of agricultural land in Patti Aulakh and Patti Rode, in Mauza Marahar Kalan, and as such, they had the statutory right to claim pre-emption, under s. 15(c)(ii) and (iii). The appellants resisted this claim on the ground that the respective vendees from Aftab Rai had transferred by exchanged abou...
Tag this Judgment!