Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1912; 29(1963)CLT169(SC); [1963]2SCR552
Sinha, C.J. 1. This appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Orissa raises the question of the interpretation of certain provisions of The Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act 1 of 1952) - which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act. The appellants who were petitioners in the High Court were the proprietors of an Estate known as Paikpara, Estate, in the district of Puri, bearing Touzi Nos. 268, 269 and 270. The respondents are the State of Orissa and its officials. 2. The facts on which the High Court based its judgment under appeal are as follows. Within the said Paikpara Estate, there were several tenures and sub-proprietary interests. The Paikpara Estate vested in the State of Orissa by virtue of a notification issued under s. 3 of the Act, on August 23, 1953. It is common ground that the interests of tenure-holders and sub-proprietors within the said estate have not yet been taken over under the provisions of the Act. Under the tenure-holders aforesaid, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC739; (1963)65BOMLR331; 1963MhLJ941(SC); [1963]2SCR574
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate of the High Court under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay. The appellant was the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder is the respondent. 2. The decree was passed in August 26, 1931 in Summary Suit No. 3437 of 1930 by the High Court of Bombay against three defendents who were residents of Parbhani district in the former State of Hyderabad. Before the decree was passed the appellant had applied for leave to defend and leave was conditionally granted on his depositing Rs. 5,000/- within four weeks. This, he did not do and on his failure to do as an ex-parte decree was granted for Rs. 52,032-7-0 including costs and future interest at 6% per annum. The appellant did not file any written statement. The decree was transferred for execution to the District Judge. Bhir, in Hyderabad States. The respondent took out execution on June 18, 1954 in the Court of the District Judge, Bhir, to whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1737; 1963MhLJ921(SC); [1963]2SCR577
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad holding that the execution of the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Gwalior, dated November 18, 1948, in favour of the appellant against the respondents was not executable at Allahabad. The appellant in this court is the decree holder and the respondents are the Judgment debtors. 2. For the decision of this appeal it is necessary to deal with the various Statutes, Orders and agreements as a result of which the erstwhile Indian State of Gwalior became a part of the territories of the Union of India governed by one Civil Procedural law. It will also be necessary to refer to the various changes in the law of civil procedure applicable at the various stages of the litigation leading to this appeal. 3. We shall first deal with the integration of the Indian State of Gwalior with the Indian Union. Upto August 15, 1947, i.e. before the independence of India under the Indian Independence Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1180; [1963]2SCR619
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Bharat at Gwalior on a certificate of that Court under Art. 133(1)(c) and like Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1961, raised the question of the applicability of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure and the question whether the decree sought to be executed was a decree of a foreign Court or not. It is a reverse case in the sense that the decree sought to be executed was passed by a Court in West Bengal - a province of what was British India. In the appeal the appellant is the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder is the respondent. 2. On December 3, 1949, a decree was passed in favour of the respondent by the Subordinate Judge, Bankura, in the West Bengal and a certificate of transfer was applied for on July 27, 1950, granted on August 8, 1950, and was transferred for execution on August 28, 1950. On September 25, 1950 the decree-holder took out execution in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Morena, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1124; [1963]2SCR563
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court. The brief facts necessary for present purpose are these. The respondent had imported 2,000 drums of mineral oil. Out of this quantity, the appellant, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, confiscated 50 drums by order dated September 20, 1950. He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 61,000/- on the respondent under the Sea Customs Act, No. 8 of 1878, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent appealed to the Central Board of Revenue under s. 188 of the Act, and this appeal was dismissed in April 1952. Thereupon the respondent filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court. We are in the present appeal not concerned with the merits of the case put forward by the respondent, for the matter has not yet been heard on the merits. When the petition came up before a learned Single Judge a question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the petition in view...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]2SCR517
Mudholkar, J.1. The appellant, China Gowda, was tried along with six other persons for committing the murder of an entire family consisting of eight persons on the night intervening the 12th and 13th February, 1958, in Handigodu hamlet of the village Viavalli. The learned Sessions Judge convicted every one of them under s. 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to death. In appeal, the accused No. 2, Shivappa Naika and accused No. 7, Gunde Gowda were acquitted. The appeals of the remaining accused persons were dismissed. The High Court, however, confirmed the conviction and sentences only of the appellant Chinna Gowda and of Rame Gowda, appellant in Criminal Appeals Nos. 172 and 173 of 1961 and while affirming the conviction of the other three accused commuted the death sentences passed against them to imprisonment for life. The appellants in the two appeals were granted special leave by this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution and that is how the appeals are now befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC449; [1963]2SCR484
S.K. DAS, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave granted by this Court on December 8, 1958. On July 19, 1950, Satya Deo Gupta, respondent before us, made an application under s. 14 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 (Act V of 1940) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for registration of the trade name of a biochemical medicinal preparation, commonly known as 'Lakshmandhara', in Class 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade Marks Rule, 1942. The application was made by the respondent as the sole proprietor of Rup Bilas Company situate at Dhankutti in Kanpur. The averments made in the application were that the said medicinal preparation had been in use by the name of 'Lakshmandhara' since 1923 and was sold throughout the length and breadth of India as also in some foreign markets; the mark or name 'Lakshmandhara' was said to be distinctive to the article, and it was stated that the approximate annual turnover was Rs. 40,000/-. Notice of the application was given by the Registrar of Trade Marks...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC181; [1963]2SCR534
Wanchoo, J. 1. The short question raised in this appeal by special leave is whether it is possible to add up the value of more than one rural building, each of which is less than Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/- in order to reach the total Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose of taking the case for compensation for rural buildings out of the ambit of r. 65 of the Rules framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The brief facts necessary for this purpose are these. The respondent is a displaced person who migrated from what is now part of West Pakistan to India. It appears that he had agricultural land as well as houses in the rural area in the place from where he migrated. He was allowed 2-1/2 acres of land in the Punjab in lieu of the agricultural left by him in what is now Pakistan. In addition he also left behind a house and a shop. He claimed Rs. 12,000/- for the house and Rs. 8,000/- for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]2SCR545
Das Gupta, J.1. The Appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Patiala of an offence under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Gurdev Singh and sentenced to death. The Punjab High Court dismissed his appeal and confined the sentence of death. The present appears is on the strength of special granted by this Court. 2. The prosecution case is that at about 2.30 p.m. on November 18, 1960 when Gurdev Singh was passing the tea-stall of Charan Singh, not far from the courts at Barnala on a motor cycle, the appellant Sewa Singh, who was at that time in that shop with a double barrel gun stood up and fired a shot at him. Gurdev Singh was hit on the right side of his chest and died instantaneously. The appellant and one Gogar Singh, who was with him, ran away. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty. It was not disputed that Gurdev Singh had died of a gun shot injury at the time and place as alleged. It was strenuously contended, however, that he was not the culprit. 4. According to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1886; [1963]2SCR499
Sarkar, J.1. In 1929, one Bapiah filed a suit against the appellant, then a minor, his father and another person on a promissory note executed by the two last mentioned persons. The appellant was represented in that suit by his maternal grandfather as his guardian ad litem. A decree was passed in that suit. The decreeholder put the decree in execution and obtained an order for the sale of certain properties which the appellant was interested. The properties were sold in due course in favour, it is said, of a clerk of the decreeholder. Thereafter, the appellant's guardian ad litem made an application under O. 21 r. 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale. Later, however, the guardian ad litem came to a settlement with the decreeholder and the auction purchaser that the guardian ad litem would give up the contention regarding the invalidity of the sale and withdraw the petition to set it aside and also give up possession of the properties sold to the auction purchase...
Tag this Judgment!