Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC264; [1964]4SCR991
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises a short question about validity of bye law No. 3 and other relevant bye-laws framed by respondent No. 2, the Municipal Board of Tanda, on the 21st January, 1958. The appellant Chaudhari Afzal Ullah is a resident of Tanda and owns a piece of land and super-structures standing on it along with the compound, in the town of Tanda. On his own land, within the compound he has established a market in which food-grains are sold. The Chairman of respondent No. 2 served a notice on the appellant calling upon him to obtain a licence for running the said market, and on the failure of the appellant to comply with said notice, respondent No. 2 initiated criminal proceedings against the appellant. The appellant was tried by the Tehsildar of Tanda (Cr. Case No. 141/1960). The case against the appellant was that he was running a market in which vegetables, fruits, fish and grains were sold. It was alleged that under the relevant bye-laws the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC260; [1964]4SCR982
Sinha, C.J.1. In this appeal, on a certificate of fitness granted by the Punjab High Court, the only question for determination is whether the provisions of s. 5 of the Limitation Act (9 of 1908) apply to an application for special leave to appeal, from an order of acquittal, under sub-s. (3) of s. 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (to be hereinafter referred to as the Code). The certificate was granted by the High Court 'because there is a considerable conflict of opinion in the various High Courts'. 2. In this case we are not concerned with the factual aspect of the controversy between the parties. It is not, therefore, necessary to set out in any detail the facts of that controversy. It is enough to state that the respondent was committed to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial under s. 493, or in the alternative under s. 495, of the Indian Penal Code, on the charge that he had, by deceit, cause the appellant who was not lawfully married to him to believe that she was so mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC449; (1964)ILLJ418SC
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the order passed by the Director of Postal Services on October 28, 1949, terminating the services of the appellant amounts to his dismissal under Section 240(1) so as to attract the, provisions of Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935.2. The appellant was appointed as a temporary Second Division Clerk in the General Post Office, Lahore for a period of six months, on October 9, 1946. At the end of the initial period of six months, his appointment was continued from time to time until he was posted in the office of the Post Master General at) Ambala, on August 12, 1947. Whilst he was working in that post, the impugned order was passed by which his services were terminated. That led to the present suit filed by the appellant on November 11, 1952 in which he claimed a declaration that the termination of his services was illegal on the ground that Rule 126 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual Vol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC521; (1966)ILLJ749SC; [1964]4SCR964
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 290 to 293 of 1962. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 23, 1959, of the Punjab High Court in L. P. As. Nos. 358 to 361 of 1959. S.M. Sikri Advocate-General for the State of Punjab, Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants. S.P. Sinha, Sukhdev Singh Sodhi, S. K. Mehta, Shahzadi Mohiuddin, and K. L. Metha, for the respondents. September 19, 1963. The judgment of P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and J. R. Mudholkar, JJ. was delivered by Mudholkar J. K. Subba Rao, J. delivered a dissenting opinion. MUDHOLKAR, J.-These four appeals arise out of four writ petitions preferred by four persons under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging a notification made by the Government of Punjab on October 31, 1957 "de-confirming" the petitioners from permanent posts of Tahsildars and according to them the rank of officiating Tehsildars. The petitions were heard together and were dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC725; 1964CriLJ555; [1964]4SCR957
Shah, J.1. Jairam and three others - hereafter collectively called 'the plaintiffs' - sued Babu Lal - appellant in this appeal - in the Court of the Munsiff, Koli, District Aligarh, for a decree for possession of a strip of land, for removal of a wall and a slab of stone and for an injunction restraining the making of certain constructions in the northern wall of the plaintiff's house. The plaintiffs claimed that Mohini wife of Jairam the first plaintiff had purchased the house occupied by them by sale deed dated August 1, 1932 from the vendor who was also named Mohini, who in turn had purchased the house by sale deed dated July 25, 1917 from the original owner Kishan Lal. 2. Babu Lal who is the son of Kishan Lal pleaded that the vendor Mohini had acquired only a life interest in the house by the deed under which the property was conveyed to her by Kishan Lal and the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest had acquired no title under the sale deed dated August 1, 1932. In support of this p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC529
K.N. Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court. The appellants are the sons of Ramtaran Banerjee deceased (hereinafter referred to as the testator). They had been appointed executors under a will purported to have been executed by the testator on August 29, 1943. The testator was about 97 years old when he died on April 1, 1947. The appellants applied for probate of the will in the court of the District Judge in June 1947. Their case was that the will in dispute was the last will and testament of the testator and had been duly executed. The petition was opposed by Subodh Kumar Banerjee and Sukumar Banerjee who are also sons of the testator as well as by the decendants of Sushil Kumar Banerjee and Sanat Kumar Banerjee, two other sons of the testator who had predeceased him. The main ground of opposition was that the will had not been properly executed and attested, though it was also contended that it was not genuine, and the testator did not ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC11; [1964]4SCR945
Shah, J.1. Two questions fall to be determined in this appeal :(1) Whether the suit instituted by the respondent G. V. Suryanarayana Garu against the State of Madras was liable to be dismissed because of the absence of identity between the persons who served the notice under s. 80 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the person who sued; and (2) whether the lands in dispute covered by title deed No. 279 Mallinadhapuram constitute an 'estate' within the meaning of s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. 2. By order dated January 11, 1950 the Government of Madras applied the provisions of the Madras Estates Rent Reduction Act 30 of 1947 to the lands in the village Mallinadhapuram on the footing that the grant was of the whole village, and hence an estate within the meaning of s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estate Land Act, 1908, and thereby sought to prevent the Inamdars from collecting contractual or customary rent from the tenants who held the lands under the Inamdars.3. G. V. Suryana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC349
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.1. For the reasons which we have indicated in dealing with petition No. 145 of 1963, : 1964CriLJ257 this, petition must also be allowed, because the petitioner Sunil Kumar Das, like the petitioner Rameshwar Shaw in petition No. 145 of 1963, : 1964CriLJ257 was locked up in custody on November 4, 1962 and continued in such custody until December 28, 1962. Whilst he was in such custody, the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, on November 29, 1962, was served on him on December 4, 1962. It is common ground that the petitioner was arrested in connection with Burdwan Police Station Case No. 2 dated the 3rd November, 1962 under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code by Sub-Inspector Dinesh Chandra Samanta, and he continued to be in custody on the date when the order of detention was served on him. That being so, we direct that the order of against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, on November, 29, 1962 and served on him on Dece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC334; 1964CriLJ257; [1964]4SCR921
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short question which this petition for Habeas Corpus raises for our decision is whether the order of detention passed against, and served on the petitioner Rameshwar Shaw while he was in jail, custody is justified by section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (No. 4 of 1950) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The answer to this question would naturally depend upon a fair and reasonable construction of the relevant clause of the said section.2. The District Magistrate, Burdwan, passed an Order on the 9th February, 1963, whereby he directed that the petitioner should be detained. The Order recites that the District Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. This order was served on the petitioner on the 15th of February, 1963, in Burdwan Jail where he had been kept as a result of a remand order passed by a court of competent jur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC414; (1964)0GLR55a; (1964)GLR111(SC); [1964]4SCR892
ORDER BY COURT 46. The appeal is dismissed with costs. On the Appellant's undertaking to vacate and deliver possession of the property within one months from today, execution of the decree obtained by the Respondent in Suit No. 707 of 1956 against Maneklal Mafatlal, is stayed for one month. September 5, 1963. ...
Tag this Judgment!