Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1396; [1964]34CompCas275(SC); [1964]5SCR1047
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 382 of 1961. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated May 24, 1960, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 144 of 1958. B.K. Bhattachargee, D.K. De and S.N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. N.C. Chatterjee and D.N. Mukherjee, for the respondent. December 16, 1963. The Judgment of A.K. Sarkar and J.C. Shah JJ. was delivered by Sarkar, J. Raghubar Dayal J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. SARKAR J.-The appellant filed a suit in the Original Side of the High Court at Calcutta on a duly completed policy of fire insurance dated March 15, 1951 and bearing No. 26625, and an unstamped letter of cover dated November 5, 1951 in respect of the same kind of insurance issued by the respon- dent, to recover from it the loss suffered as a result of the destruction of the insured goods by fire. The respondent admitted liability on policy No. 26625 but with regard to the letter of cover it contended that the letter was not admissible i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1223; [1964]5SCR1098
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, raises mainly the question whether the Insolvency Court can, at the hearing of a petition by a creditor for declaring a debtor insolvent, determine the liability of the alleged debtor for the payment of the debt for the recovery of which the creditor had obtained an order under the Patiala Recovery of State Dues Act, 2002 BK (Act IV of 2002 BK), hereinafter called the Act. To appreciate how the question arises on the facts of the case, reference to the provisions of the Act is necessary, and we set them out first. 2. The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the recovery of State dues. According to clause (1) of s. 3 'State dues' included debts due to the Patiala State Bank. The expression 'department' includes the Patiala State Bank, and the expression 'defaulter' means a person from whom State dues are due and includes a person who is responsible as surety for the payment of any such dues. 'Head of department'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC111; [1964(8)FLR247]; (1964)ILLJ47SC; [1964]5SCR1030
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. These two appeals raise a short question about the validity of the writ of certiorari which has been ordered to be issued by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in allowing a Letters Patent Appeal preferred before it by the respondent M/s. Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Madras. The appellant T. Prem Sagar was appointed by the respondent as its Road Engineer at Madras on the 5th February, 1951. In January, 1952, he was promoted as Operations Assistant on a salary of Rs. 450 p.m., and as such, he was placed on probation for a period of six months. At the end of six months, the respondent declared that he had completed his probation satisfactorily. In October, 1957, as a result of some misunderstandings between him and the respondent, he was again placed on probation from 1st October, 1957 for a period of six months in the same post of Operations Assistant. At the end of this period, the appellant received a letter from the Operations Manager of the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC949; (1964)66BOMLR714; 1964CriLJ44; [1964]5SCR1064
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 30, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in (Nagpur Bench) in Criminal Application No. 197 of 1963. A.S. Bobde, O.C. Mathur, J.B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants. M.C. Setalvad, H.R. khanna and R.H. Dhebar, for the respondent. December 16, 1963. The Judgment of B.P. Sinha, C.J., K. Subba Rao, and J.C. Shah JJ. was delivered by Shah J. The dissenting Opinion of M. Hidayatullah and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ. was delivered by Ayyangar J. SHAH J.-A police report was lodged in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Akola, against the appellants and fifty-five others on charges for offences punishable under ss. 406, 408, 409, 120-B and 477-A Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer furnished the accused persons with copies of documents which are required by s. 173(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be furnished. At the commencement of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1095; [1964]51ITR823(SC)
Shah, J.1. Balmokand Radheshyam (hereinafter called 'the firm'), having its head office at Calcutta, carried on business in commission agency and cotton piece-goods. The firm which consisted of four partners, one of whom was Shivram Poddar, appellant in this appeal, was dissolved in February, 1950, and it appears that thereupon its business was discontinued. For the assessment year 1949-50, one of the partners of the firm submitted a return of its income and it was assessed on October 28, 1952, in the status of an unregistered firm. 2. On March 28, 1955, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 34 read with section 22 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, addressed to the appellant as a partner of the firm at the time of its dissolution calling upon him to submit a return of the income of the firm for the year ending March 31, 1950. The appellant moved the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta for a writ of mandamus under article 226 of the Constitution commanding the Inco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC925; [1964]5SCR975
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The present writ petition by which the two petitioners Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd., and Mr. Sudhir Chandra Guha, Manager of the said Company, seek to challenge the validity of the Assam Taxation (On Goods Carried by Road or on Inland Waterways) Act, 1961 (No. 10 of 1961) (hereinafter called 'the Act'), is a sequel to the decision of this Court in the case of Atiabari Tea Co., Ltd. v. The State of Assam : [1961]1SCR809 . To this petition have been impleaded three respondents, the State of Assam, the Commissioner of Taxes, the taxing authority appointed under s. 6 of the Act, and the Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri Division. We will refer to the State of Assam as the respondent hereafter. The respondent had passed a similar Act No. 13 of 1954 which had received the assent of the Governor on the 9th April, 1954. The validity of the said Act was challenged by the petitioners and certain other producers of tea by filing writ petitions before the Assam High Court. The Assam H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC993; [1964]5SCR946
Ayyangar, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave filed by a defendant whose application under O. IX, r. 13, Civil Procedure Code to set aside an ex parte decree passed against him has been dismissed as barred by res judicata. 2. To appreciate the points arising in the appeal it would be necessary to narrate the proceedings in three litigations between the parties. The ex parte decree that was passed against the defendant - who will hereafter be referred to as the appellant - and which he sought to be set aside in the proceedings which are the subject of the present appeal, was in Suit 134 of 1956 on the file of the Court of Second Civil Judge, Kanpur. But long before this suit was filed, the two other proceedings were already pending. The first of them was a Small Cause suit by one Phula Kuer who sought to recover from the appellant Rs. 750 on the basis that she and the appellant were partners and by an arrangement between them he agreed to pay her Rs. 150 per month for her share of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC247; 1965CriLJ236; [1964]5SCR931
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Ram Sarup, Petitioner, was a sepoy in 131 Platoon DSC, attached to the Ordnance Depot, Shakurbasti. As a sepoy, he is subject to the Army Act, 1950 (XLVI of 1950), hereinafter called the Act. 2. On June 13, 1962 he shot dead two sepoys, Sheotaj Singh and Ad Ram and one Havildar Pala Ram. He was charged on three counts under s. 69 of the Act read with s. 302 I.P.C. and was tried by the General Court Martial. On January 12, 1963 the General Court Martial found him guilty of the three charges and sentenced him to death. 3. The Central Government confirmed the findings and sentence awarded by the General Court Martial to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of certiorari setting aside the order dated January 12, 1963 of the General Court Martial and the order of the Central Government confirming the said findings and sentence and for his release from t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC986; [1964]5SCR916
Das Gupta, J.1. On June 7, 1960 a tragic occurrence took place at a village called Mohangarh over the delivery of possession of certain lands in execution of decrees for ejectment obtained by landlords. Twelve persons lost their lives and several others received serious injuries. Among the injured were some members of the police force who had gone there to assist in the delivery of possession. Thirty-nine persons were sent up to the Sessions Court for trial for offences under s. 148, s. 302/149 and s. 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case was that though the warrants for delivery of possession in execution of several decrees in favour of the several decree-holders had been issued as early as April 5, 1960, repeated attempts by Revenue Officers to execute the decrees were unsuccessful. It was when further attempt was being made on June 7, 1960 to execute those warrants that the villagers including the tenants who were to be dispossessed of their lands and their frien...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1652; [1964]5SCR905
Mudholkar, J.1.This judgment will also govern C.A. 48 of 1961. Both the appeals are by special leave from the judgment of the Bombay High Court in second appeal disposing of two appeals which arise out of two separate suits instituted by the appellant, the Borough Municipality of Bhusawal, against the Bhusawal Electricity Co. Ltd., respondent No. 1 before us, to which suits the State of Bombay was later added as a defendant. 2. In each of the two suits the appellant had claimed refund of two sums of money paid by them to the respondent No. 1 under protest as electricity charges to which the respondent No. 1 claimed to be entitled by virtue of an order made by the Government of Bombay under the Bombay Electricity Supply (Licensed Undertakings War Costs) Order, 1944 (herein referred as Surcharge Order). The appellant succeeded in both the suits in the trial court as well as the District Court. In second appeal, however, the High Court set aside the decrees passed by the trial court and d...
Tag this Judgment!