Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC628; [1965]1SCR116
Shah, J. 1. At the last general elections held in February 1962 the appellant Kumaranand contested a seat in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Beawar constituency and was declared elected. Brij Mohan Lal who was a candidate at the election then presented a petition challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had in the course of the election committed corrupt practices within the meaning of s. 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by publishing a poem containing false statements of fact relating to the personal character and conduct of the applicant Brij Mohan Lal and which were highly prejudicial to his election prospects. The Election Tribunal declared the appellant's election void under s. 100(1)(b) of the Act. Against the order of the Tribunal, the appellant appealed to the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. At the hearing of the appeal it was contended by the respondent Brij Mohan Lal, inter alia, that the appellant had fai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC722; [1965]35CompCas557(SC); [1965]1SCR123
Subba Rao, J.1. I regret my inability to agree. This appeal raises the question of the scope of the ban imposed by the Central Government and Central Board of Revenue in exercise of the powers conferred on them under s. 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, (7 of 1947), hereinafter called the Act, against persons transporting prohibited articles through India. 2. In exercise of the powers conferred under s. 8 of the Act the Government of India issued on August 25, 1984 a notification that gold and gold articles, among others, should not be brought into India or sent to India except with the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India. On the same date the Reserve Bank of India issued a notification giving a general permission for bringing or sending any such gold provided it was on through transit to a place outside India. On November 24, 1962, the Reserve Bank of India published a notification dated November 8, 1962 in supersession of its earlier notification placin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC906; [1965]1SCR96
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. The short point of law which arises in this appeal is whether under rule 5 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945, the appellant, the Idol of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj, is liable to pay the Matmi amount in question. It appears that respondent No. 1, the Board of Revenue, had passed an order on November 6, 1956, directing that the Matalaba Matmi amounting to Rs. 15,404/14/6 be recovered from the Shebait of the appellant temple. The appellant disputed the validity of this order and filed a Writ Petition (No. 10 of 1957) in the High Court of Rajasthan contending that the said amount was not recoverable from the appellant. The High Court has dismissed this writ petition and the appellant has come to this court with a certificate granted by the High Court. 2. In its petition, the case for the appellant was that several lands had been granted to the appellant from time to time and that these grants were made in the name of the Idol, and that the Seva Pooja of the Ido...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC632; (1965)0PLR563; [1965]1SCR82
Hidayatullah, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal No. 743 of 1963 and Civil Appeals No. 553 and 554 of 1962. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 743 of 1963 are owners of lands in village Virk Kalan, Tehsil and District Bhatinda. The appellants in the other appeals are owners of lands in villages Sewana and Mehnd of Tehsil Hansi in District Hissar. Proceedings for the consolidation of holdings are going on in these villages under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 (Act 50 of 1948). This Act was amended on many occasions but we are concerned with it as amended by the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) (2nd Amendment & Validation) Act (27 of 1960). In the present consolidation proceedings portions of lands from those commonly owned by the appellants as proprietors, have been reserved for the village Panchayat and given over to it for diverse purposes, and other portions have been reserved either f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC843; 1965(0)BLJR316; 1965CriLJ766
J.R. Mudholkar, J.1. While granting special leave in this appeal from a judgment of the Patna High Court this Court restricted it only to one question and that is whether the act of the appellant amounts to an offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code.2. It has been found by the courts below that on February 23, 1961 Madan Mohan Sinha (P. W. 1) and Shankar Prasad Shrivastava (P. W. 3) were attacked while they were passing through the Dharman Chowk at 1-30 P.M. by Sushil Chand Jain with a chhura as a result of which Madan Mohan and Shankar Prasad sustained grievous hurts and that these injuries were inflicted upon them by Sushil Chand with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if they had resulted in death the offence would fall under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. The courts below have also found that the appellant Sarju Prasad who also participated in the incident inflicted similar injuries on Shankar Prasad with similar intention. Both Sushil Chand and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC881; 1965(67)BLJR506; 1965CriLJ8; [1965]1SCR65
Hidayatullah J. 1. The appellant is one of four partners of a firm which owns a book-stall in Bombay. He was prosecuted along with the other partners under s. 292, Indian Penal Code. All the facts necessary for out purpose appear from the simple charge with two counts which was framed against them. It reads : 'That you caused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 on or about the 12th day of December, 1959 at Bombay being the partners of a book-stall named Happy Book Stall were found in possession for the purpose of sale copies of an obscene book called Lady Chatterley's Lover (unexpurgated edition) which inter alia contained, obscene matter as detailed separately and attached herewith and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 292 of the I.P. Code; AND That you Gokuldas Shamji on or about the 12th day of December 1959 at Bombay did sell to Bogus Customer Ali Raza Sayeed Hasan a copy of an obscene book called Lady Chatterley's Lover (unexpurgated edition) which inter alia contained obscene matter as d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC654; [1965]35CompCas174(SC); 1965(0)KLT469(SC)
Sarkar, J. 1. On December 19, 1956, the Popular Bank Ltd. was ordered by the High Court of Kerala to be wound up. A liquidator of the bank was also appointed. In the winding up proceedings that followed, on the application of the liquidator, an order was made by a learned singlejudge of the High Court under Section 478 of the Companies Act, 1956, and Section 450 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, directing the public examination of nine officers of the bank. Six appeals were filed by the officers concerned against that order to an appellate bench of the High Court and these appeals were allowed. The liquidator has filed the present six appeals against the orders of the appellate bench. There were several other persons against whom orders were sought by the liquidator in that application but with them we are not concerned in these appeals. 2. The application by the liquidator to the learned single judge on the face of it stated that it had been made under Sections 478, 531, 538, 539 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC877; 1965CriLJ4; [1965]1SCR58
Raghubar Dayal J. 1. Balmukand alias Balu has presented this writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. He is detained under a detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Delhi, on February 25, 1963 under r. 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, hereinafter called the rules. The District Magistrate was empowered to issue such orders, by the Administrator. The petitioner was arrested on February 27, 1963. The order of the Magistrate was confirmed by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi on March 26, 1963. The Administrator reviewed the order on September 25, 1963 and on March 11, 1964, and each time decided that the detention order should be continued. The orders passed on review were communicated to the petitioner, each time. 2. The validity of the detention order is not questioned for the petitioner. The facts noted above are also not disputed. It is contended for the petitioner that the detention order had to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC821; 1965(0)BLJR621; [1966(12)FLR11]; [1965]1SCR49
Sikri, J.1. There are two matters before us for disposal. One is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Patna High Court, dismissing an application filed by Biswanath Prasad under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The other is a petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution. In the petition under Art. 32, some points have been raised which were not debated before the High Court and some documents which were not produced before the High Court have been filed in this Court. In the circumstances it seems convenient to proceed to dispose of the petition first, but we will, where appropriate, indicate the finding and reasoning of the High Court on a particular point. To decide the points raised by Mr. C. B. Agarwala, the learned counsel for the petitioner, it necessary to state the facts somewhat in detail, for, inter alia, he submits that the action of the Union Government in acquiring the petitioner's mines was mala fide. 2. The petitioner, by deed of sale dated November 29...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC815; (1965)0PLR593; [1965]1SCR38
Wanchoo, J. 1. These appeals on certificates granted by the Punjab High Court arise out of an election to the Council of States by the Punjab Legislative Assembly and will be dealt with together as they arise out of two separate election petitions by two persons, challenging the election of the same person. 2. There was an election to the Council of States by the Punjab Legislative Assembly in March 1962. There were a number of candidates for three seats which had to be filled. In the present appeals we are concerned with two candidates, namely, Dr. Anup Singh, appellant, and Shri Abdul Ghani respondent. Two of the seats were filled by Shri Chaman Lal and Shri Surjit Singh. Though originally their election was also challenged, that is not in dispute now. The position with respect to Dr. Anup Singh and Shri Abdul Ghani on first preference votes (the election being on proportional representation) was that Dr. Anup Singh got 36 votes and Abdul Ghani 35 votes. Thereafter preferences were t...
Tag this Judgment!