Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1499; [1966]3SCR15
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by special by leave against an order passed by theAllahabad High Court in Civil Revision No. 1077 of 1957 dated October 9, 1961in a suit in which a decree for redemption on an application under s. 12 of theU.P. Agriculturist Relief Act has been passed. The appellants are thesuccessors-in-interest of one Suleman who was the original mortgagee. Theoriginal respondent in this appeal Sat Narain was the successor-in-interest ofone Jantari who was the original mortgagor. Subsequently, Sat Narain sold hisinterest to others who have been ordered by us to be joined as respondentsunder O. 22 r. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on their application in thisbehalf (C.M.P. No. 2081 of 1965). The land in dispute measures 5 bighas and 3biswas (Khata No. 2 situate in Bhagwatipura, pargana Kewai, district Allahabad)and consists of 5 plots Nos. 26, 27, 29, 30 and 32. Jantari had mortgaged thesaid land with Suleman on October 4, 1929 and the mortgage, now it is admitt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1366; [1966]3SCR7
Wanchoo, J. 1. These appeals by special leave raise common questions and will be dealt with together. We shall set out the facts in C.A. 363 to understand the questions raised in these appeals. The Regional Transport Authority South Arcot granted a stage carriage permit on the route Kumbakonam to Neiveli to the first respondent out of a large number of applicants. This led to seven appeals against the grant of the permit before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Those seven appeals were heard together by the Appellate Tribunal and it set aside the order of the Transport Authority granting the permit to the first respondent and instead granted the permit to the appellant. This was on August 7, 1962. Thereupon the first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court as Madras challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal. This writ petition came up for hearing on March 5, 1964 before a learned Single Judge. On the same date, this Court decided in B. Rajagopala Naidu v. State T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC948; [1966]3SCR24
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought by special leave on behalf of the judgment-debtoragainst the judgment of the Orissa High Court, dated January 3, 1961 in LettersPatent Appeal No. 3 of 1959. 2. The deceased plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 500 of 1941 against theappellant-defendant in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Aska claiming Rs.970 on the basis of a promissory note. The suit was dismissed on August 17,1942. The plaintiff preferred an appeal No. 178 of 1942 before the DistrictJudge who allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the Munsif and decreedthe suit ex parte of March 9, 1943. Against this decree of the appellate Court,the appellant filed Second Appeal No. 100 of 1943 in the Orissa High Courtwhich set aside the decree of District Judge on November 11, 1946 and remandedthe suit to the lower appellate court for disposal. The lower appellate courtin its turn remanded the suit to the trial court by its judgment, dated April11, 1947. In the meantime the original pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(13)ELT1501(SC)
Ramaswami, J.1. These appeals are brought by a certificate from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) dated February 25, 1964 in Special Civil Applications nos. 437, 448, 459 and 490 of 1963 wherein the respective appellants challenged the search and seizures carried out by the respondents at the residential-cum-business premises of the appellants in exercise of the power derived from Rule 126L(2) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules 1963 - Rule 126L(2)(hereinafter called the 'Gold Control Rules') and Sections 105 and 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the 'Customs Act'). 2. Civil Appeal No. 678 of 1965 : This appeal arises out of Special Civil Application no. 490 of 1963 which relates to the search and seizure of the premises of Sri Durga Prasad on August 19, 1963 and August 20, 1963. The authorisation was granted by the 1st respondent - Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Nagpur - to the second Respondent - Superintend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1081; [1966]2SCR982
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. The short question of law which arises in this appeal relates to the construction of section 5(2) of the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (No. 11 of 1952) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The respondent, Hari Krishan Sharma, who claims to be owner of a certain site in the town of Jhajjar, desired to construct a cinema hall at the said place for the purpose of exhibiting cinematographs. On December 16, 1956, he submitted an application to appellant No. 2, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhajjar, for grant of the licence to construct and run a permanent cinema hall on his site. On February 22, 1957, appellant No. 2 forwarded the said application to the Tehsildar for inspection of the site. It appears that on April 24, 1957, the Government of appellant No. 1, the State of Punjab, had issued instructions in regard to the grant of licences under the relevant provisions of the Act. These instructions required that all requests for the grant of permission for opening al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1164; [1966]2SCR970
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate under Art. 133(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 123 of 1960, dated November 21, 1961. By the judgment under appeal the Divisional Bench reversing the decision of a learned single Judge of that Court accepted a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by the present respondent in the following circumstances. 2. The respondent Raja Sri Niwas Prasad Singh owned extensive zamindari interests in tahsils Mirzapur and Chunar of Mirzapur District in Uttar Pradesh. The present dispute concerns the assessment of compensation to which the Raja became entitled under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act I of 1951) from July 1, 1952. Under that Act, the proprietary interest of the Raja in the Zamindari properties situated in the two tahsils vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Sub-Divisional Officers of Mirzapur and Chunar ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC940; [1966]3SCR1
Mudholkar, J.1. In this appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay the short point for consideration is whether it is obligatory upon the court which convicts a person of an offence under s. 3(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 to pass a sentence of imprisonment where the conviction is, in respect of a first offence, for a term not less than one year and not merely to a sentence of fine. The Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, held the respondent guilty of an offence under s. 3(1) of the Act for keeping a brothel or allowing the premises in his occupation to be used as a brothel and passed a sentence of fine of Rs. 1,500/- but did not pass a sentence of imprisonment. The respondent was also found guilty of an offence under s. 4(1) of the Act for living on the earning of prostitution and sentenced by him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The respondent challenged his conviction in respect of each of the two offences as well as the sentenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1966]60ITR428(SC)
Shah, J. 1. A Hindu undivided family consisting of five brothers - Jagan Prasad, Har Prasad, Mathura Prasad, Sheo Prasad, Basdeo Prasad and their nephew, Dilsukh Rai (son of Badri Prasad, deceased), owned considerable property and carried on different businesses in the names of Messrs. Agarwal Iron Works, Agra, Messrs. Jagan Prasad Sheo Prasad, Messers. Jagan Prasad Har Prasad and Messrs. Nek Ram Jagan Prasad. On October 11, 1948, a partition of the properties and the businesses of the family was made among the six branches and as a result of that partition a sixth share was allotted in the assets partitioned to the smaller Hindu undivided family of which Mathura Prasad was the manager. 2. After partition of the joint family estate, the managers of the six branches entered into an agreement of partnership to carry on in the name of Badri Prasad Jagan Prasad the businesses which were formerly conducted on behalf of the larger Hindu undivided family. By clause 8 of the partnership agreem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1966]2SCR959
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 753 of 1963. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 10, 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 105 of 1957. G. S. Pathak, B. Datta and Naunit Lal, for the appellant. M. C. Setalvad, D. K. Agarwal, M. L. Gupta and R. Gana- pathy lyer. for the respondent. The Judgment of GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., WANCHOO, RAMASWAMI and RAJU, JJ. was delivered by WANCHOO, J., HIDYATULLAH, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. Wanchoo, J. The only question raised in this appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court is the interpretation of r. 8 (a) of the Rules in force from May 1, 1949, in the municipal area of Saharanpur with respect to tolls payable on entry of goods within the limits of the Saharanpur municipality. We may add that the rules in question were changed from September 7, 1955; but we are not concerned with those rules as the present dispute refers to a period before September 7, 1955. The facts which are re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1053; [1966]60ITR52(SC); [1966]2SCR944
Sikri, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras answering the following question of law in favour of the respondent : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of rupees 84,633 expended by the assessee in obtaining the loan or any part thereof is an allowable expenditure ?' 2. The facts and circumstances of the case as stated by the Tribunal in the statement of the case are as follows : The appellant, India Cements Limited, Madras, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, is a public limited company. The question arises in respect of the assessment year 1950-51, accounting period April 1, 1949, to March 31, 1950. During the accounting year it obtained a loan of 40 lakhs of rupees from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India. This loan was secured by a charge on the fixed assets of the company. Since Mr. S. T., Desai, the learned counsel for th...
Tag this Judgment!