Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1531; 1965(0)BLJR589; [1965]2SCR830
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. Bilas Rai Bohra, son of Bansidhar Bohra and Sree Ram Bohra, son of Ganpat Ram Bohra, sued the union of india (UOI) for the recovery of Rs. 13,448 from the defendant for compensation on account of loss and damage suffered by the plaintiffs owing to non-delivery of 11 bales of cloth which had been consigned on October 20, 1948 by M/s Ram Kishun Das Sagarmal of Bombay to the plaints under the description of M/s Bansidhar Ganpat Rai. It was alleged in para 1 of the plaint that the plaintiffs carried on business in cloth and other articles in the name and style of M/s Bansidhar Ganpat Rai which was their joint family trading firm governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law of which joint family the plaintiffs were the kartas and representatives and that they sued as such. This statement in para 1 of the plaint was not admitted in the written statement. The trial Court decreed the suit on August 29, 1951. The decree, inter alia, said : 'It is ordered that the suit be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1451; 1965CriLJ434; [1965]2SCR823
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Sahib Singh Mehra, appellant in this appeal by special leave, published an article in his paper 'Kaliyug' of Aligarh, dated September 12, 1960, under the heading 'Ulta Chor Kotwal Ko Dante' which means that a thief reprimanded the Kotwal, a police officer, though the right thing would be the other way. The article contained the following expressions, as translated : 'How the justice stands at a distance as a helpless spectator of the show as to the manner in which the illicit bribe money from plaintiffs and defendants enters into the pockets of public prosecutors and assistant public prosecutors and the extent to which it reaches and to which use it is put.' 2. The Public Prosecutor and the eleven Assistant Public Prosecutors at Aligarh requested the Superintendent of Police for obtaining the sanction of the Government for filing a complaint by the District Government Counsel in the Court of the Sessions Judge under section 500 I.P.C. The Government was duly approa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1611; 1965MhLJ617(SC); [1965]2SCR811
Bachawat. J. 1. One Jhaverchand Dahyabhai Shah died in 1916, leaving a will, dated August 6, 1915. He was a resident of Vejalpore in the suburbs of Broach and a Ladva Shrimali Bania by caste. He professed the Jain religion, and believed in the tenets of the Swetembar Murti Pujak sect of Jains. By Clause (7) of the will, he directed his executors to spend out of the earnings of his shop every year during the life-time of his niece, Bai Jakore, the amounts mentioned below on the following religious objects : (1) Rs. 100 for feeding cattle with grass, fodder, oil cakes etc., in the Broach Pinjrapole. (2) Rs. 100 for Jiva-daya Khata (fund for kindness to animals). (3) Rs. 25 for offering flowers for the worship of Lord Rikabdev in the Jain temple at Vejalpore, Broach. (4) Rs. 200 for providing food to Shravak pilgrims at the Shatroonjaya Hill at Palitana. (5) Rs. 50 for providing food to pilgrims at Mount Girnar. (6) Rs. 50 for providing food to pilgrims at Mount Abu. (7) Rs. 250 for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1454; [1965]2SCR805; [1965]16STC318(SC)
Sikri, J.1. These two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court allowing Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 111 and 172 of 1961, and quashing orders of the Sales Tax authorities imposing penalties on the respondent, Ghasilal, for delay in payment of tax due. The High Court came to the conclusion that the penalties had been imposed in violation of Art. 20(1) of the Constitution, but it is not necessary to deal with this question because we are inclined to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Garg, that the penalties have been imposed in violation of the relevant statutory provisions. 2. The relevant facts are these. On March 28, 1955, Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were published in the Rajasthan Gazette. The Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force on April 1, 1955. The respondent filed Civil Writ Petition, No. 11 of 1958, in the High Court ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1449; [1965]2SCR800
Shah, J.1. On May 5, 1964 the respondents - hereinafter called 'the plaintiffs' - instituted in the High Court of Mysore an action in the nature of a passing off action against the appellants - hereinafter called 'the defendants' - for a declaration that they 'are exclusive owners of the trade mark consisting of the letters R.S.F. and No. 806', for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off their washing soap as the goods of the plaintiffs and for incidental reliefs. 2. By section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 43 of 1958 a passing off action whether the trade mark is registered or unregistered may be instituted in any court not inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try be suit. It appears that on May 5, 1964 the District Court of Mysore, within the territorial limits of which the cause of action was alleged to have arisen, was closed for the summer vacation, and it is common ground that on that day there was no Judge functioning in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1467; 1965CriLJ539; [1965]2SCR771
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated May 24, 1963 by which the conviction of and sentences passed on the four appellants under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were confirmed. Of the appellant, Baby Singh and Aram Singh have been sentenced to death and Gajram Singh and Ram Singh to imprisonment for life. The charge against them was that they had murdered one Babu Singh Pradhan at village Behjoi on October 11, 1961. The Pradhan was attacked by the appellants with spears, gandasa and lathi. The spears were with Aram Singh and Ram Singh, the gandasa with Babu Singh and the lathi with Gajram Singh. The motive for the attack was said to be some former quarrels between Babu Singh Pradhan and father of Babu Singh, the appellant and the action of the Pradhan after his election in supporting on behalf of the Gaon Samaj proceedings for encroachment started against the fathers of the appellants sente...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1655; [1965]2SCR782; [1965]16STC364(SC)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 179 to, 181 of 1964. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 21, 1962, of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 28 of 1961. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and R. Gopalakrishhnan, for the appellants (in all the appeals). M.C. Setalvad, R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. N. Sachthey for the respondent (in all the appeals). The Judgment of P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. SIKRI and R. S. BACHAWAT JJ. was delivered by SIKRI J. SHAH J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. Sikri J. These three appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court in three references made by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal under S. 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, in respect of assessments for three quarters ending June 30, 1957, September 30, 1957 and December 31, 1957. All these appeals raise a common question of law and it would be sufficient if facts relating to the assessment for the quarter ending Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1442; [1965]2SCR756
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by certificate raises the question whether an appeal lies under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent for the High Court of Lahore, to a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court against a judgment passed by a single Judge of the said High Court in a second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958), hereinafter called the Act. 2. The facts relevant to the question raised may be briefly stated. The respondents are the owners of plot No. 5, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. Messrs. Allen Berry & Co. Private Ltd. took a lease of the same under a lease deed dated March 1, 1956. Messrs. Allen Berry & Co. assigned their interest under the said lease deed to South Asia Industries (Private) Ltd., the appellant herein. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application before the Controller, Delhi, under section 14 of the Act for the eviction of the appellant from the said premises on the ground that Messrs. Allen Berry & Co. unauthorizedly as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1440; [1965]2SCR751
Shah, J.1. The petitioner applies for special leave to appeal under Art. 136 of Constitution, against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan dated December 16, 1963 in Civil First Appeal No. 54 of 1956 on two grounds : (1) that the judgment of the High Court involves a claim or question respecting property of not less than Rs. 20,000 in value, and the High Court erred in refusing a certificate under Art. 133(1)(b) of the Constitution; and (2) that the case is otherwise fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. 2. The material facts bearing on the plea raised are these. The petitioner commenced on July 2, 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ajmer an action against the respondents claiming a decree for Rs. 10,665 and for rendition of accounts in respect of the balance of sale proceeds of 104 bales of cotton purchased by him through the agency of the respondents. The petitioner claimed that 104 bales of cotton purchased by him were sold by the respondents as his agen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1535; [1965]35CompCas351(SC); (1965)1CompLJ193(SC); [1965]2SCR720
Wanchoo, J.1. These fourteen appeals on certificates granted by the High Court of Orissa raise common questions of law and fact and will be dealt with together. They are a consequence of a fight between two groups of business magnates for the control of Messrs. Kalinga Tubes Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company). They arise out of an application under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act') made by the appellant in the High Court. Most of the facts are not seriously in dispute and it is necessary to set them out in detail in order to decide the main point raised on behalf of the appellant, namely, that the affairs of the company were being conducted in a manner oppressive to him and his group of members.2. The company was floated as a private limited company on December 1, 1950, with an authorised capital of Rs. 25 lakhs. Originally, the shares were held by two groups of shareholders equally, except a few ...
Tag this Judgment!