Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1279; 1964CriLJ354; [1964]5SCR25
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court. The respondent, the Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., is running tram-cars in the city of Calcutta. It gets electricity in bulk from the Calcutta Electric Supply Company and gets the same converted from alternate current to direct current at a high voltage for electric traction for running tram-cars of the Company. For this purpose it has an electric transformer house in 129/4-A and 130-D, Cornwallis Street. The appellant Corporation was a opinion that the premises were being used for a purpose which was dangerous to life, health or property and was likely to create a nuisance. It therefore ordered the respondent to take out a licence under s. 437(1)(b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, No. XXXIII of 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and fixed a fee therefor. The respondent however refused to take out a licence and consequently it was prosecuted under s. 537 of the Act. The respondent raised a number o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1366; 1964MHLJ233(SC); [1964]5SCR12
Shah, J. 1. Eight candidates (including the appellant Mohan Singh and the first respondent Bhanwarlal) filed nomination papers for election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Sitamau constituency. The nomination of one Hussain Khan was rejected by the Returning Officer at the initial scrutiny and another candidate Himmat Singh withdrew his candidature before the date of polling, which took place on February 24, 1962. On the counting of the votes Mohan Singh was found to have secured the largest number of votes at the election, and he was declared elected. 2. Bhanwarlal applied under s. 80 read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951), to the Election Commission of India for an order declaring the election of Mohan Singh void, and Mohan Singh disqualified because of committing corrupt practices detailed in the petition and for an order declaring the applicant Bhanwarlal elected. Among the many grounds of corrupt practices alleged in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC444; (1964)ILLJ33SC; [1964]5SCR1
Shah, J. 1. By order of the President of India, H.H. the Maharana Sahib Bhagwat Singh Bahadur - hereinafter called 'the appellant' - was recognised as the Ruler of Udaipur with effect from July 4, 1955 in succession to his father the late Maharana Bhupal Singh. 2. A dispute arose between the appellant and his employees in the 'Motor Garage Department' about the conditions of employment and representations were made by the latter to the Government of Rajasthan through the Motor Workers Mazdoor Union, Udaipur. The Government of the State of Rajasthan, on December 18, 1957 referred under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan : 'Whether the Maharana Sahib Bahadur of Udaipur is liable to pay to the staff working with him in the Palace Power House and Motor Garage, consequent to their retrenchment, the arrears of claims or the due salary, leave wages, overtime wages and weekly holidays as per schedule appended hereto an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC416; [1964]4SCR1002
Subba Rao, J.1. These six appeals filed by certificates granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad raise the question of the vires of s. 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), hereinafter called the Act. 2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated. The respondents are alleged to be prostitutes carrying on their trade in the City of Kanpur. On receiving information from the Sub-Inspector of Police, who is not a Special Police Officer, the City Magistrate, Kanpur, issued notices to the respondents under s. 20(1) of the Act to show cause why they should not be required to remove themselves from the places where they were residing and be prohibited from re-entering them. The respondents received the notices and filed objections claiming that the proceedings were not legally maintainable. The learned City Magistrate repelled the said objections. Against the orders of the Magistrate the respondents went up in revision to the Additional ...
Tag this Judgment!