Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1195; [1964]6SCR301
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The petitioners in these three petitions have moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution and claimed a declaration that the operative provisions of the Orissa Private Lands of Rulers (Assessment of Rent) Act. 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder are unconstitutional and ultra vires. The private lands in the possession and enjoyment of the three respective petitioners have been assessed by the Revenue Officers in conformity with the Rules framed under the Act. The petitioners claim a writ or direction, or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the said orders of assessment. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 140/1962 is the Patrani Saheba of Keonjhar and is in possession and enjoyment of eight villages, viz., Mangalpur; Barigan; Nua Rampas; Nilung; Ghutru; Mohadijore; Patang and Anara in the district of Keonjhar. These villages were granted to her for maintenance a long time ago and as such, they have been recorded in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC304; [1964]6SCR294
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of AndhraPradesh by which it reduced the amount of compensation awarded to theappellants by the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in respect of certain landsbelonging to them which were acquired by the State. 2. The lands in question are survey Nos. 281/2, 339/1 to 8 and 338/1 to 3which are situate at a short distance from the town of Vijayawada and liealongside the Vijayawada-Eluru Road. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed Rs.3,500 per acre for the first two of these survey Nos. and Rs. 4,000 per acrefor the third survey number. The learned Subordinate Judge granted a uniformrata of Rs. 10,000 per acre for the lands comprised in all the survey numbers.There were some disputes with regard to the entitlement to the compensation forsurvey No. 339/1 to 3 and the Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, made areference to the Court for the apportionment of the compensation amount amongthe various claimants. Six of the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC588; 1965CriLJ499; [1964]6SCR275
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Courtquashing the issue of process against the respondent. 2. The respondent is an Assistant Commissioner of Police in the City ofCalcutta and the appellant had made a complaint against him alleging that hehad committed an offence under s. 348, I.P.C. that is, wrongful confinement inorder to extort a confession or compel restoration of property. 3. The fact as alleged by the appellant are as follows : One Manoharlal Seth had lodged a complaint on July 28,1960 against him and two other persons Fatehlal and Jaichand for offences unders. 120B/420, I.P.C. and s. 420 I.P.C. Manoharlal Seth had alleged in hiscomplaint that these persons had induced him to purchase a bar of brass for Rs.6,000 on the representation that it was of gold and thus duped him. Upon thiscomplaint, investigation was taken up by the police. He came to know ManoharlalSeth in the course of his business. They were on quite friendly terms in thebeg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC175; [1965(10)FLR65]; (1970)ILLJ649SC; [1964]6SCR279
Wanchoo, J. 1. These appeals and writ petitions raise common questions and will be dealt with together. The appeals arise out of six writ petitions filed in the Mysore High Court and six of the writ petitions filed in this Court are by the same petitioners who applied in the Mysore High Court. Two writ petitions (Nos. 173 and 174) have been filed by two others. They also filed writ petitions in the High Court, though they have not filed appeals from the decision of the High Court. They will all be referred to as petitioners hereafter. 2. The case before the High Court was briefly this. All the petitioners were appointed sub-inspectors in the former Hyderabad State, under s. 6 of the Hyderabad District Police Act (No. X of 1329 Fasli). Under r. 399 of the Hyderabad District Police Manual, issued by the Government of Hyderabad under s. 10 of the Hyderabad District Police Act, post of circle inspectors were to be filled by promotion from the rank of sub-inspectors. The subsequent rules pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1006; 1964MhLJ601(SC); [1964]6SCR261; [1964]15STC450(SC)
Das Gupta, J.1. These 31 appeals by the State of Madhya Pradesh are against the orders made by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in 31 applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution by dealers in tobacco. All these petitioners carried on business in Madhya Bharat which later became part of the state of Madhya Pradesh. They were assessed to sales tax on their sales of tobacco in accordance with the notification issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under s. 5 of the State Sales Tax Act and large amounts were collected by the Madhya Bharat Government and later by the Madhya Pradesh Government. The petitioners contended that the taxing provisions under which the tax was assessed and collected from them was unconstitutional as it infringed Art. 301 of the Constitution and did not come within the special provision of Art. 304(a). Accordingly, they prayed for appropriate writs or orders for refund of all the taxes that has been collected from them. In resisting these applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1454; [1964]6SCR251
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by certificate raises the question of the applicability of s.48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter called the Code, to the facts ofthe case. 2. The relevant facts are as follows : In the year 1928 one PentapatiVenkataramana filed Original Suit No. 3 of 1928 in the Court of the SubordinateJudge, Visakhapatnam, against 29 defendants for accounts of dissolvedpartnerships and for the recovery of amounts due to him. On March 30, 1932, thesuit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. On appeal, the High Courtof Madras set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and passed a joint andseveral decree in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 24 to 27 for a sum ofRs. 54,350 with interest thereon. On February 15, 1939, the decree-holdersfiled an application for execution of the decree, being E.P. No. 13 of 1939,and prayed for realization of the decretal amount by attachment and sale of 31items of properties described by them in the schedule (Ex. B-4)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1249; [1964]6SCR238
Shah, J. 1. At the general elections held in February 1962, five candidates contested the election to the House of the People from the Barabanki single-member constituency. The appellant Ram Sewak Yadav - who will be referred as Yadav - was at the counting of votes found to have to secured the highest number of votes and he was declared elected. Hussain Kamil Kidwai - hereinafter called Kidwai - who was one of the candidates at the election submitted a petition on April 6, 1962, to the Election Commission for an order declaring the election of Yadav void and for an order that he (Kidwai) be declared duly elected. The Election Tribunal, Lucknow, to which the petition was referred for trial dismissed the petition. In appeal to the High Court of Allahabad the order passed by the Election Tribunal was reversed and the proceedings were remanded for trial with a direction, among others, that the Tribunal do give reasonable opportunity to both the parties to inspect the ballot papers and othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC855; 1964CriLJ724; [1964]6SCR229
Ayyangar, J.1. The proper construction of Art. 145(1)(a) of the Constitution in thecontext of a prayer for a declaration that rule 16 of Order IV of the SupremeCourt Rules as invalid is the principal point raised in this petition which hasbeen filed by an Advocate who under the Advocates Act, 1961, is entitled topractise in this Court. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Madras High Court on November 15, 1955under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 and was admitted to the rolls of thisCourt on October 29, 1960 under Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules as the thenstood. She states that as an Advocate entitled to practise in this Court, sheis entitled as of right not merely to plead but also to act, and that the rulesof this Court which prescribe qualifications before she could be permitted toact are therefore invalid. The prayer which she makes by her petition istherefore for a declaration that rule 16(1) of Order IV of the Supreme CourtRules as amended in 1962 which contains this pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1027; [1964]6SCR213
Ayyangar, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment of the High Courtof Andhra Pradesh by which a Writ Petition filed by the 3rd Respondent - K.Brahmananda Reddy - was allowed and an Election Petition filed by the appellantwas directed to be dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to the proceedings with which the appeal isconcerned are briefly as follows : At the General Elections held in the monthof February 1962 for the Legislative Assembly - Constituency of Phirangipuramin Guntur District in Andhra Pradesh - the third respondent Brahmananda Reddy andone Chandramouli, the 2nd respondent before us, were the contesting candidates.The polling at the Election took place on the 26th February 1962 and theReturning Officer declared Brahmananda Reddy, elected as having obtained themajority of valid votes. Thereafter, the appellant who is a voter on the rollsof the said Constituency filed an Election Petition before the ElectionCommission on April 11, 1962 under s. 81 of the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC295; [1964]6SCR192
Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred, by virtue of a certificate of fitnessgranted by the Calcutta High Court, against its judgment, by which the decreepassed by the Subordinate Judge of Darjeeling was substantially affirmed. 2. The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. The suit out ofwhich the appeal arises was brought by the appellants claiming title to and therecovery of possession of a property known as the Azambad Tea Estate whichcomprised about 378 acres of land in Touzi No. 911 of the DarjeelingCollectorate. This property was set out in Schedule A to the plaint and besidesa claim was also made to certain other items of the movables and certain othertenures, but this appeal is not concerned with these others which were set outin Schs. B and C to plaint. 3. One Kazi Azam Ali was admittedly a full owner of this entire property andthe proceedings giving rise to the appeal are concerned with the rights of hisheirs to it. The plaintiffs claim their title on the basis ...
Tag this Judgment!