Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1798; 1965MhLJ776(SC); [1965]3SCR201
Bachawat, J.1. The appellant is the Ruler of the former Indian State of Jaora. He had money dealings with the respondent. By an agreement dated February 23, 1957, the appellant and the respondent agreed to refer their disputes regarding those dealings to the arbitration of Lala Durgashankar. On the same date, the arbitrator made an award. By this award, the arbitrator found that a sum of Rs. 1,60,000 was due to the respondent from the appellant, and directed that this sum would be payable in eight quarterly instalments, the first four instalments to be of Rs. 21,000 each and the next four instalments to be of Rs. 19,000 each, the amount of interest would be payable in another quarterly instalment, the respondent would have a first charge on the sums receivable by the appellant from the Government of India as privy purse, and would be entitled to realise those sums under a letter of authority issued by the appellant, and if the Government would raise any objection to the payment, the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC292
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, on certificate issued by the Assam High Court, is by Tek Bahadur Bhujil, brother of Dhanbir Bhujil, respondent No. 2, and uterine brother of Debi Singh Bhujil, respondent No. 1. Their mother was Beli Bhujilini, respondent No. 3, since deceased.2. Respondent No. 1 instituted a suit on September 3, 1946, against the other three aforesaid persons, in the Court of the Assistant Political Officer, Khasi States, Shillong, for partition of his half-share in the property mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint, as well as his half-share of the business known as Gurkha Dairy at Mawprem, for separate possession of his such half-share by metes and bounds and for his half-share in the income of profits of the business since January, 1, 1943 to the date of the decree. He alleged in the plaint that he, Tek Bahadur and Dhanbir Bhujil were brothers and belonged to the same joint family centering round their common mother, defendant No. 3, who had come from Nepal about 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC89
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, raised the question whether the requisitioning authority under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Bom. Act XXXIII of 1948) can, on de-requisitioning a premises, ask the allottee in possession of the premises to vacate it.2. The premises in suit were requisitioned for the appellant in December 1953 when he was an Assistant Registrar of the Baroda University. He left the service at Baroda in December 1957 and was serving at Gorakhpur when the impugned order asking him to vacate the premises was made on February 23, 1962.3. To appreciate the contentions raised for the appellant, we may set out some further facts. There had been litigation between respondent No. 2 and the appellant in 1958 on the basis that the appellant was the tenant of respondent No. 2. The suit for ejecting the appellant from the premises was instituted on the ground that respondent No. 2 required the premises bona fide for personal occupation. It was ultimately d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1688; [1965]3SCR187
Bachawat, J.1. The short question in this appeal is whether the proposed acquisition ofthe electrical supply undertaking of the appellant by the State of Kerala inpursuance of the notice Ex. G, dated November 20, 1959 is authorised by s. 6 ofthe Indian Electricity Act, 1910. 2. The appellant is the holder of a license for the supply of electricalenergy in Ernakulam and other places in Cochin. The license was originallygranted to the managing agents of the appellant under the Cochin ElectricityRegulation III of 1902 then in force in Cochin and subsequently assigned to theappellant with the permission of the Cochin Government. On the merger ofTravancore-Cochin with the Union of India, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 wasmade applicable by the Part-B States Laws Act, 1951 (Act III of 1951) to theTravancore-Cochin area, and the Cochin Electricity Regulation stood repealed.The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (Act 54 of 1948) was also made applicable tothe Travancore-Cochin area by the Part-B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1; 1966CriLJ63; [1965]3SCR194
Mudholkar, J.1. The appellant has appealed from the judgment of the High Court at Allahabad affirming his conviction for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 324, Indian Penal Code and confirming the sentence of death passed upon him in respect of the offence under s. 302 and also affirming the sentences passed in respect of the other two offences. 2. The facts as found by the High Court are these : The appellant had quarrelled with Mangali, PW 1, as Mangali reprimanded him over the grazing of his cattle in Mangali's field and damaging his crops. The appellant threatened Mangali that he would exterminate the latter's family. On February 25, 1957 at about 3-00 p.m. Babu Ram son of Mangali, aged about 7 or 8 years, Ram Ratia, aged about 2 years, daughter of Mangali's brother and Punna, son of Baijnath, brother of Mangali and Dulli, daughter of one Ladda Kewat, aged about 10 or 11 years and some other children were playing in the village near the hut of Hiralal, P.W. 3. The appellant came...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1730
K. Subba Rao, J.1. V. T. S. Sevuga Pandia Thevar, hereinafter called the Zamindar, was the Zamindar of the erstwhile Estate of Seithur, an impartible Estate, in Ramanathapuram District in the State of Madras. Originally this Zamindari was an ancestral impartible Estate and it continued to be so in the hands of the Zamindar's father, Sundaradoss Thevar. In the year 1895, the said Sundaradoss Thevar executed, a will whereunder he gave this property to his son, the Zamindar. The Government of Madras, in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948, hereinafter called the Act, issued a notification dated March 8, 1954, abolishing the said Zamindari. Thereafter, under Section 54-A of the Act the State Government deposited a sum of Rs. 68,589 with the Madras Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, hereinafter called the Tribunal. On January 17, 1955, the Zamindar filed before the Tribunal a claim for the recovery of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC213; 1965(0)BLJR951
K. Subba Rao, J.1. One Kumar Pramatha Nath Roy advanced 5 loans to the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants and the opposite parties 1 to 5 before the Claims Officer on the mortgages of Khagra Estate which was jointly owned by them. Out of the said mortgages, the appellants' predecessors-in-interest executed 3 mortgages, Exs. 1-B, 1-C and 1-D, dated September 30, 1927, June 30, 1932, and June 23, 1935, respectively. The said Kumar Pramatha Nath Roy filed Title Mortgage Suit No. 3/13 of 1937 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dinajpur, to enforce the mortgages and obtained a decree therein. The mortgagee and some of the mortgagors filed appeals in the Dacca High Court against the said decree. On August 18, 1949, by a common judgment a mortgage decree was made by the High Court in favour of the mortgagee whereunder the appellants were made liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,27,594-9-6. Subsequently the said Estate was notified under Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1992; [1965]3SCR173
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, on certificate granted by the Rajasthan High Court, is against the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to the State of Rajasthan, respondent no. 1, for the cancelling setting aside of its order dated April 1, 1964 granting the contract for collecting royalty on building stones excavated from certain area to respondent no. 2, Dharti Dan Shramik Theka Sahkari Samiti Ltd., a cooperative society. The appeal arises in these circumstances.2. The appellant offered the highest bid at the auction for the grant of royalty collection contract on January 21, 1964. Respondent no. 2 was also one of the bidders, but stopped after offering a bid of Rs. 33,000. The final bid of the appellant was for Rs. 42,200. The State Government made the order in favour of respondent no. 2 on an application made by it on March 5, 1964, stating therein that the appellant had not deposited 25 per c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1747; [1965]3SCR177
Ramaswami, J.1. Respondents nos. 1 to 11 were the Jagirdars of Waghach State in formerSankeda Mewar in Reva Kantha Agency which now forms part of the State ofGujarat. They claimed that they were the full owners of all the land includingforest areas in the said State and exercised full revenue power during theirregime. There were 39 villages in Waghach State in all of which there wereforests. Except for the lands which were cultivated, all the lands in the saidvillages were forest lands. Respondents nos. 1 to 11 further claimed that theyhad full proprietary rights over the forest lands and enjoyed the produce asfull owners thereof. By the agreement of merger dated June 1, 1948 the State ofWaghach was merged with the State of Bombay with effect from June 10, 1948. OnAugust 19, 1953, respondents 1 to 11 entered into an agreement with respondentno. 12 whereby respondent no. 12 became entitled to cut and remove all speciesof trees from the forest lands in the 39 villages for a period of ten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC78; 1966CriLJ79; [1965]3SCR161
Sikri, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal of the State against the judgment of the Sessions Judge allowing the appeal of the respondent and acquitting him. 2. The respondent obtained permits under the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 - hereinafter referred to as the Control Order - for about 28 tons of iron, including 6 tons of rods, 15 1/2 tons of joints and 2 tons of G.C. Sheets. He is alleged to have purchased these articles on the basis of the above permits between July 1957 and March 1958. The permits were obtained on three applications made by the respondent. Only two applications are in the printed record. The first application is dated May 23, 1957, and is addressed to the Provincial Iron and Steel Controller, Kanpur, through the District Magistrate, Deoria. In this application the respondent stated that he was a political sufferer and he was constructing a public temple for which he required ...
Tag this Judgment!