Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1; [1963]3SCR22
J.C. Shah, J.1. Ramalingam Mudaliar-a resident of Bangalore (in the former Indian State of Mysore)-started life as a building contractor. He prospered in the business and acquired an extensive estate which included many houses in the Civil and Military station at Bangalore, in Bangalore city and also in the towns of Madras, Hyderabad and Bellary. He dealt in timber, established cinematograph theatres, obtained a motor-car selling Agency and made investments in plantations and coffee estates. He set up a factory for manufacturing tiles, and later floated a sugar company. The Indian Sugars & Refineries Ltd., of which he became the Managing Agent and purchased a large block of shares. For some years before his death Ramalingam had taken to excessive drinking, and was subject to frequent coronary attacks. He became peevish and easily excitable and his relations with his wife and children were strained. Ramalingam felt great disappointment in his eldest son Vishwanatha who borrowed loans fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1322; 1966CriLJ960; [1963]3SCR281
Das Gupta, J.1. Three and a half year old Tonny, son of Ravindernath Goyal was last section alive on January 5, 1961. A month later on February 5, 1961, his dead body was discovered, buried in the compound of the house of Goyal's next door neighbour Jagdish Chander and Rajinder Kumar. These two, Jagdish Chander and Rajinder Kumar are father and son. Tonny's body was found in a gunny bag with a blood-stained piece of cloth stuffed in the mouth; a blood-stained towel was also found in the bag. When the cloth stuffing the mouth was removed the tongue was found pushed to the left side backward looking the throat. The Civil Surgeon, Bhatinda, who held the post-mortem examination has given his opinion that the death of the child was due to asphyxia resulting from suffocation caused by packing the month with the cloth. 2. Rajinder Kumar has been convicted under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Tonny and sentenced to death. The father Jagdish Chander has been convicted under s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC90; [1963]3SCR209
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. These are appeals by special leave against judgments of High Court of Calcutta setting aside awards which directed the respondents to pay compensation to the appellants for Breach of contracts, on the ground that they were in contravention of a notification of the Central Government dated October 29, 1953, and were in consequence illegal and void. These appeals were heard along with Civil Appeals Nos. 98 & 99 of 1960 as there were common questions of law to be decided in all. 2. In Civil Appeals Nos. 389 & 390 of 1960 the facts are that on September 7, 1955, the appellants who are a company owning a Jute Mill at Calcutta entered into an agreement with the respondents who are also a Company doing business as dealers in jute, for the purchase of 2,250 bales of the jute cuttings at Rs. 80 per bale of 400 lbs. to be delivered 750 bales every month in October, November and December, 1955. Clause 14 of the agreement provides that all disputes arising out of or concer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC118; [1963]3SCR331
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The appellant Mahabir Gope along with eleven other persons was charged before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, with having committed offences under Sections 147 and 302 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on or about the 12th day of June, 1959, the appellant and the other accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at Bhagalpur Special Central Jail and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, Rambilash Singh, the Chief Head Warder Mohammed Ilyas and Panchand Panjiare, the night Watchmen, were assaulted. That is how an offence under s. 147 was committed by the members of the said unlawful assembly. 2. The prosecution case further was that on or about the said date and at the same place, in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, the members of the assembly had committed an offence of rioting with deadly weapons while the Chief Head Warder and the two night Watchmen wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC70; [1963]3SCR229
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Hyderabad whereby it affirmed the judgment of the Court of the Additional District Judge of Adilabad dismissing the suit of the appellant. The facts are that there was a joint family consisting of one Chakkayya and his younger brother Rajanna. Chakkayya died in year 1923 leaving behind the appellant his son who it is said was at that time a minor a few months old. On December 21, 1923, Rama Rao second defendant, sold the lands which are the subject-matter of the suit to Rajanna. It appears that as there was some difficulty in Rajanna getting possession of the properties which were stated to have been usufructuarily mortgaged to the first defendant, the transaction of sale was cancelled and the same was endorsed on the sale deed. Thereafter the second defendant executed a fresh sale deed in favour of the first defendant and the latter has ever since continued in possession. The appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1916; [1963]3SCR13
Sinha, C.J.1. In these appeals the common question of law that arises for determination is whether the respective grants made by the outgoing proprietors in favour of the respondents convey any rights to them, which could be enforced against the appellant, the State of Madhya Pradesh, after the coming into effect of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (Madhya Pradesh Act 1 of 1951) - which will be referred to hereinafter as the Act. 2. It is not necessary to state the facts of each case in any detail because they are not disputed, and nothing turns on the difference in facts. In Civil Appeal No. 229 of 1961, the respondent obtained, by virtue of registered documents, the grant of 24 villages in Balaghat and Mandla Districts, for propagating lac, the lease to expire on July 31, 1955. In Civil Appeal No. 281 of 1961, by virtue of two unregistered agreements, the respondent obtained the right to collect tendu leaves in 37 village...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC74; [1963]3SCR239
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. Raghav Prapanna Tripathi, hereinafter called Raghav, Ramanuj Das, Jai Devi, Mohan and Udham Singh, appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court of Allahabad, dismissing their appeal against their conviction by the Sessions Judge, Etawah. Raghav was convicted and sentenced to death under s. 302 I.P.C. He and the other appellants were also convicted of the offence under s. 201 I.P.C. Ramanuj Das was convicted of the offence under s. 176 I.P.C. also. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Raghav shot dead his first wife Kamla, and their son Madhusudhan, aged about 4 years, at about sunset on April 5, 1961, at their house in village Hamirpur Roora, District Etawah. The motive for this conduct is said to be Raghav's not caring for Kamla and ill-treating her after his marrying one Bimla in 1954. Kamla had to go to her father's place and stay there for about two years on account of the alleged ill-treatment she got at her husband's hands. She was, howe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1893; 1983(13)ELT1342(SC); [1963]3SCR338
Sarkar, J. 1. The appellants had brought into India from the U.S.A. a large quantity ofelectrical instruments under a licence. The respondent, the Collector ofCustoms, Calcutta, started proceedings for confiscation of these goods under s.167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The appellants contend that theproceedings are entirely without jurisdiction as the Collector can confiscateonly when there is an import in contravention of an order prohibiting orrestricting it and in the present case the Collector was proceeding toconfiscate on the ground that a condition of the licence under which the goodshad been imported had been disobeyed. The appellants, therefore, ask for a writof prohibition directing the Collector to stop the proceedings. The questionis, has the Collector jurisdiction to adjudicate whether the goods are liableto be confiscated The decision of that question, however, depends on certainstatutory provisions and the fact of the case to which, therefore, I shallimmediately tur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC454; [1963]3SCR290
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This appeal, on a certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, arises in the following circumstances : The plaintiffs-respondents sued the appellants for the recovery of possession of the disputed lands and mesne profits as the family of the defendants did not have any raiyat interest in the disputed lands except rehan interest under the rehan deed dated July 3, 1906, and that subsequent to the redemption of that deed, they had no right to remain in possession and occupation of the disputed lands. 2. The plaintiffs alleged that Pranpat Bhagat and others held eight annas share of milkiat interest in village Sevathra, pargana Nonaur, tauzi No. 3879 and that the other eight annas share was held by Kunj Bihari Bhagat and others. These persons also held khudkasht lands in the village and that such lands were treated as kasht lands. In 1906 Ram Autar Bhagat, one of the members of the joint family of Pranpat Bhagat, executed the mortgage deed with respec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC120; (1963)GLR37(SC); [1963]3SCR312
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Gujarat. 2. The appellant was a tenant of certain residential premises situate at Anand, and belonging to the respondents-landlords. Under a contract between the parties, he held them at Rs. 75/- per mensem according to Indian Calendar. In 1951 the appellant applied for fixation of standard rent. On March 31, 1954, the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 25/- per mensem. The appellant did not pay the arrears of rent from July 27, 1949, to July 5, 1954. On October 16, 1954, the landlords gave him notice to quit the premises stating therein that rent for over six months was in arrears and that he was to quit on the last day of the month of tenancy which was Kartak Vad 30 of Samvat Year 2011. The appellant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. On December 16, 1954, the respondents filed the suit for ejectment basing their claim for ejectment on the provisions of s. 1...
Tag this Judgment!