Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1719; [1963(7)FLR106]; (1963)IILLJ392SC; [1964]2SCR165
Hidayatullah, J. 1. By this appeal filed with the special leave of this Court, by the Meenglas Tea Estate against its Workmen, the Company seeks to challenge an award dated April 3, 1961, pronounced by the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. The order of reference was made by the Government of West Bengal as far back as October 29, 1957, in respect of the dismissal of 44 workmen. The issue which was referred was as follows :- 'Whether the dismissal of the workmen mentioned in the attached list is justified What relief by way of reinstatement and/or compensation are they entitled to ?' 2. From November 5, 1957, to August 17, 1960, this reference remained pending before the First Labour Court. It was then transferred to the Seventh Industrial Tribunal and the letter made the impugned award on April 3, 1961. By the time the award was made two of the workmen (Nos. 12 and 37) had died and four had been re-employed (Nos. 31, 33, 34 and 35). One of the workmen (No. 22) was not found to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC859; 1963MhLJ730(SC); [1964]2SCR152
Subba Rao, J. 1. This appeal by special leave raises, inter alia, the question ofconstruction of the terms of a surety bond. 2. The material facts are as follows : On August 26, 1947, Seth Takhatmal,respondent 1, filed Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1947 in the Court of the FirstAdditional District Judge, Jabalpur, against Mulkraj Malhotra, the secondrespondent, for dissolution of their partnership and rendition of accounts. OnAugust 27, 1947, the first respondent applied for attachment before judgment ofall the bills payable to 'M. R. Malhotra and Company', as perdescription given in Schedule A attached thereto and for the issue of an orderto C. M. A. S. C., Poona, prohibiting them from issuing any cheque due to M. R.Malhotra and Company, and on the same day the Court issued notice of the saidapplication. On August 28, 1947, the Court issued a conditional order ofattachment before judgment in respect of the said bills. On September 9, 1947,the second respondent applied for vacating the order o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1631; (1963)65PLR884; [1964]2SCR145
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This appeal with the special leave of this Court arises out of executionof a decree for pre-emption passed in favour of the appellant Jang Singh. Bythe order under appeal the High Court has held that Jang Singh had notdeposited the full amount as directed by the decree within the time allowed tohim and his suit for pre-emption must therefore be ordered to be dismissed andalso the other proceedings arising therefrom as there was no decree of which hecould ask execution. 2. The facts of the case are simple. Jang Singh filed a suit for pre-emptionof the sale of certain lands against Brij Lal the first respondent (thevendor), and Bhola Singh the second respondent (the vendee) in the Court ofSub-Judge Ist Class, Sirsa. On October 25, 1957, a compromise decree was passedin favour of Jang Singh and he was directed to deposit Rs. 5951 less Rs. 1000already deposited by him by May 1, 1958. The decree also ordered that on hisfailing to make the deposit punctually his suit woul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1552; [1964]2SCR135
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court. Theappellant was selected for the post of Programme Assistant on May 3, 1949 andwas appointed on probation for one year, and the letter of appointment saidthat during the said period his services might be terminated without any noticeand without any cause being assigned. He was asked to accept the offer on thiscondition. The appellant accepted the offer and joined service on June 4, 1949.His period of probation expired on June 3, 1950, but it was extended from timeto time. On July 4, 1952, the appellant was informed that his probation periodcould not be extended and was called upon to show cause why his services shouldnot be terminated. The appellant showed cause. He was finally in formed thatthe explanation given by him was not satisfactory and that his services were tobe terminated after August 31, 1952. 2. The appellant then filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution inthe Punjab High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1459; (1963)65PLR727; [1964]2SCR114
Das Gupta, J.1. These two appeals raise the question whether certain buildings belongingto the respondent the British India Corporation Ltd., in one appeal and therespondent Shri Gopal Paper Mills Ltd., in the other appeal, are liable totaxation under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1940. The buildingsin both these cases are situated in the rating area shown in the Schedule tothe Act and would consequently be liable to taxation under s. 3 of the Actunless the exemption provided in s. 4 of the Act is available. The sectionprovides that the tax shall not be levied in respect of the propertiesmentioned in cls. (a) to (g) thereof. Clause (g) mentions 'such buildingsand lands used for the purpose of a factory as may be prescribed.'Prescribed' has been defined as 'prescribed by the rules made underthe Act.' Rule 18 of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Rules, that wereframed by the Punjab Government in 1941, prescribed buildings and lands for thepurpose of clause (g) of s. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1672; [1963(6)FLR257]; (1966)IILLJ602SC; [1964]2SCR125
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. Mr. R.K. Banerjee had been employed by the appellant, the Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., as a Salesman on April 3, 1956, as a probationer and he was confirmed on November 5, 1956. On December 5, 1959, his services were terminated and he was informed that the appellant had lost confidence in him, and so, it had decided to discharge him. Accordingly, in lieu of notice, he was paid a month's salary and was told that he ceased to be the employee of the appellant as from the date next after he received the order from the appellant. The discharge of Mr. Banerjee was resented by the Union to which he belonged and the Union took up his case. Since the dispute could not be settled amicably, the Union succeeded in persuading the Government of West Bengal to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Second Labour Court on the ground that the said discharge was not justified. That is how the discharge of Mr. Banerjee became an industrial dispute between the appellant and the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1756; (1963)ILLJ679SC; [1964]2SCR104
Wanchoo, J. 1. This appeal by special leave challenges the order of the Second Labour Court, West Bengal, relating to the dismissal of the appellant, who was in the service of the respondent-company. A charge-sheet was issued to the appellant on April 23, 1960 under the signature of the Station Manager of the respondent-company. The charge-sheet contained two charges of gross dereliction of duty inasmuch as the appellant had made mistakes in the preparation of a load-sheet on one day and a balance chart on another day, which mistakes might have led to a serious accident to the aircraft. The appellant gave his reply to the charge-sheet on April 26, 1960 in which he admitted the mistakes that had been made. He, however, contended that he was over-worked and further that it was the duty of others also to check the load-sheet and balance chart prepared by him. 9th May 1960 was fixed for inquiry by the Station Manager. The appellant objected to the inquiry being held by Station Manager on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1561; 1963(0)KLT432(SC); [1964]2SCR87
Mudholkar, J.1. The Municipal Council, Palai, the appellant before us, passed aresolution on September 12, 1958 providing for the use from October 1, 1958 ofa public bus stand constructed by it for stage carriage buses starting from andreturning to the municipal limits of Palai or passing through its limits. A feeRe. 1 per day was to be charged on every such bus and 50 nP. per day on buseswhich merely pass through the municipal limits. The resolution also prohibitedthe use after that date of any other public place or the sides of any publicstreet within Palai municipal limits as a bus stand or a halting place. At therequest of the bus operators the Municipal Council, by a resolution datedSeptember 24, 1958 reduced the rates from Re. 1 to 80 nP. per day and from 50nP. to 40 nP. per day. By a further resolution dated November 22, 1959 theMunicipal Council modified the resolution of September 12, 1958 and insteadimposed a prohibition on using as a bus stand or halting place a public place...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1511; 1963CriLJ408; [1964]2SCR61
Imam, J.1. Appellant Shyamlal was convicted by the Honorary Railway Bench MagistrateTundla Bench Agra, exercising first class powers, for an offence punishableunder s. 121 of the Indian Railways Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.60/-, and in case of default in the payment of fine, to two months' rigorousimprisonment. His appeal to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Agra wasdismissed and his conviction and sentence were confirmed. He then filedRevision No. 971 of 1961 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, but thesame was also rejected by Mr. Justice Brij Lal Gupta. Against the Judgment ofthe High Court he obtained special leave from this Court and has filed thisappeal. 2. The appellant Shyamlal was a pointsman at Achhnera Railway Station. Hebore grudge for some time against Hukam Chand Chaturvedi, P.W. 2, who was aGuard. The latter had taken in 1955 objection to a bed being carried on apassenger train by the appellant. Hukam Chand had also detected the appellanttaking Rai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC326; (1964)66BOMLR142; 1964MhLJ344; [1964]2SCR48
Shah J. 1. With special leave, the Collector of South Satara has appealed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay directing him to assess compensation payable to the respondent under s. 9(1) of the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950. 2. Laxman Mahadev Deshpande - hereinafter called 'the respondent' - was the holder of Paragana Watan land bearing Survey Nos. 503/2 and 504/1 in Mouza Aitwade, Taluka Valve, District South Satara. Performance of service in respect of the Watan had been commuted under an arrangement made in or about 1864 under a commutation settlement popularly known as 'Gordon Settlement' whereby the holder was, on agreeing to pay a fixed sum, relieved of the obligation to perform service as a Village Officer. 3. The Legislature of the State of Bombay enacted an Act called the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act LX of 1950, which abolished all Paragana and Kulkarni Watans. The respondent applied to the Collector of ...
Tag this Judgment!