Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC639; [1965]1SCR195
Mudholkar, J.1. The question that falls for decision in this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is whether a debtor who has executed a promissory note after the coming into force of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 (Madras Act 4 of 1938) (hereafter referred to as the Act) in renewal of a debt incurred prior to the commencement of the Act is entitled to claim the benefit of s. 9 of the Act. The trial court upheld the debtor's contention but in appeal the Subordinate Judge rejected it and decreed the appellants suit in full. The High Court held that the interpretation placed on the relevant provisions of the Act by the Subordinate Judge was erroneous, allowed the appeal and restored the decree passed by the trial court. 2. Certain facts have to be stated in order to appreciate the contentions of the parties. The plaintiffs who are the appellants before us and the fourth defendant constituted a Hindu joint family if which the first plai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC661; 1965MhLJ675(SC); [1965]1SCR211
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. What is the scope and effect of the provisions contained in section 65 read with s. 83 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (No. 67 of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act), that is the short question which arises for our decision in this appeal. The four respondents are the owner of certain agricultural lands in Deokhope in Taluka Palghar in Maharashtra. On the 23rd June, 1951, a notice was served by the appellant, State of Bombay (now Maharashtra), inviting the attention of the respondents to the fact that the agricultural lands of which they were the owners had remained fallow since 1948-49, and intimating to them that the appellant State would resume management of the said lands under s. 65 of the Act unless the respondents took steps to bring them under cultivation in the following agricultural season. The respondents were told that in case they wanted to bring the said lands into cultivation, they should send intimation of their intention to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC703
J.C. Shah, J.1. This appeal relates to lands which originally belonged to one Beli Ram son of Ananda. Beli Ram died leaving him surviving his wife Sukhma Bai and his daughter Vitha Bai, and on his death his property devolved upon Rukhma Bai as a limited owner. By a deed dated July 26, 1916 Rukhma Bai sold the lands to one Mukund Deo for Rs. 600/- (O.S.) and delivered possession of the lands to the vendee. Rukhma Bai died in 1940. The respondents to this appeal who were the sons of Vitha Bai commenced on February 21, 1944 an action against the transferee Mukund Deo in the Court of the Munsiff, Mominabad Taluk, for a decree for possession of the lands sold by Rukhma Bai. They alleged in their plaint that they were governed by the Mayukha school of Hindu Law, that the sale of the lands by Rukhma Bai was not supported by legal necessity and that on the death of Rukhma Bai they became entitled to the lands as the nearest reversioners to the estate of Beli Ram. Mukund Deo contested the claim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC621; [1965]1SCR186
Ayyangar, J.1. The appellant was the President of the Anakapalli Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. - a Society constituted mainly for the purpose of enabling its members to obtain credit facilities and to arrange for the sale of agricultural products at reasonable prices. There were complaints regarding the working of the Society and accordingly an enquiry was instituted into its affairs by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madras at a time when Anakapalli, now in Andhra Pradesh, was in the State of Madras. As a result of the facts disclosed in the inquiry the Committee then in management of the Society was, after sue notice to show cause and a hearing, superseded by order of the Registrar dated February 15, 1952, such supersession being authorised by s. 43 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act (Act 6 of 1932) hereinafter called the Act. A special officer was appointed to take charge of the affairs of the Society and this officer filed a claim before the Registrar, inter al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC716
P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. This appeal by special leave raises a short question as to whether the lease executed by the respondent, Sardar Mal Lalwani In favour of the appellant, Uttamchand, can be said to be a lease of an accommodation within the meaning of Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (No. XXIII of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act). The appellant moved the Rent Controller to fix the rent payable by him under the lease in question in respect of the property demised to him under Section 9(1) of the Act. This application was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the lease in question did not fall within the protection of the Act as the property demised to the appellant was not accommodation within the meaning of Section 3, and the rent payable by the appellant to the respondent was, therefore, not payable for any accommodation to which the Act applied. The Rent Controlling Authority at Bhopal rejected the respondent's contention and, on the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC677; [1965]1SCR175
Subba Rao, J. 1. The appellant, Sheopat Singh, and two others, namely Ramchander Chowdhary and Surja Ram, contested the election for a seat in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Hanumangarh constituency. The appellant polled 31,501, Ramchander Chowdhary, 18,217 and Surja Ram, 1,285 votes. The appellant was declared elected. The respondent, one of the electors, filed an election petition under s. 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter called the Act, for setting aside the election of the appellant on various grounds. The Election Tribunal, by its order dated June 18, 1963, held that the respondent had failed to substantiate the allegations made against the appellant and, on that finding, dismissed the petition. Against the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal to the High court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. A Division Bench of that Court heard the appeal and came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of a corrupt practice under sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC658; [1965]1SCR168
Gajendragadkar, C.J. 1. The short question which this appeal raises for our decision is in relation to the construction of rule 9 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827. Purporting to act under the said Rule the learned Additional District Judge at Bijapur has order that the Dy. Commissioner of Bijapur District be appointed the administrator for the management of the estate of deceased Kashibai Sangappa Gadigappa Desai who died on the 1st January, 1958. According to this direction, the Administrator has to manage the estate of the said deceased Kashibai including the scheduled property, both movable and immovable, until the right of succession is determined by a competent court of law. The appellant Mallappa Basappa Desai challenged the propriety and the validity of this order by moving the Mysore High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court was, however, satisfied that there was no ground to interfere with the order passed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1965]35CompCas133(SC)
Shah, J. 1. The appellant, Vastulal Pareek--hereinafter referred to as ' Vastulal '--started in 1921 at Bikaner a banking business in the name and style of the Pareek Commercial Bank. In 1943 a public limited company was registered under the Bikaner Companies Act called the Pareek Commercial Bank Ltd.--hereinafter called ' the bank '--and all the assets and liabilities of the Pareek Commercial Bank were transferred to that public limited company. Under the articles of association of the bank general management of the business was, subject to the control and supervision of the directors, vested in Vastulal who was appointed chairman of the bank. In an application under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, submitted in February, 1952, before the High Court of Rajasthan (which at the material time had acquired, on account of political changes, jurisdiction over the territory of the former Indian State of Bikaner) by one of the depositors of the bank, the High Court passed an order for compulso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC666; 1965CriLJ605; [1965]1SCR103
Sarkar, J.1. The appellant was prosecuted for theft of electrical energy from the Punjab State Electricity Board and was convicted. In this appeal the appellant has not sought to challenge the finding that he had committed the theft. He has only raised a point of law that his conviction was illegal in view of certain statutory provisions to which, therefore, we immediately turn. 2. The statute concerned is the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Section 39 of the Act, so far as material, provides, 'Whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy shall be deemed to have committed theft within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code'. It is not in dispute that the appellant had committed the theft mentioned in this section. Section 50 of the Act provides, 'No prosecution shall be instituted against any person for any offence against the Act ... except at the instance of the Government or an Electrical Inspector, or of a person aggrieved by the same.' The appellant's contention is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC615; 1965MhLJ491(SC); [1965]1SCR109
ORDER1. This application purports to be one under O. XLV, Rules 2 and 5 of the Supreme Court Rules and contain the following prayers :- (i) to direct the respondents to furnish security for delivering possession of the lands in dispute and for payment of mesne profits and costs which the petitioners might get in appeal; (ii) to restrain the respondents from transferring the lands in dispute or creating any change on the said lands pending the decision of the appeal in this Hon'ble Court; (iii) to send for the record of the case and get the record printed under the supervision of this Hon'ble Court; (iv) to order an early hearing of the case. 2. Prayers nos. (i) and (ii) appear to have been made in view of r. 5 which provides that nothing in the rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.3. The respondents-decree holders have obtained p...
Tag this Judgment!