Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1711; [1965]35CompCas514(SC); [1965]3SCR110
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 892 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 22, 1958, of the Assam High Court in Misc. (First) No. 39 of 1955. D.N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. P.K. Chatterjee, for the respondent. The Judgment of RAGHUBAR DAYAL, R.S. BACHAWAT and V. RAMASWAMI, JJ. was delivered by BACHAWAT, J. MUDHOLKAR, J. delivered a separate Opinion. Bachawat, J. The respondcnt is a banking company now in liquidation. The appellant had a combined overdraft and deposit account with the Shillong branch of the respondent. On December 9, 1946, the appellant gave the respondent for collection two cheques for Rs. 8,200 and Rs. 600 respectively drawn on the Bharati Central Bank, Shillong. On receipt of the cheques, the respondent credited the appellant with the sum of Rs. 8,800 in the accounts. The respondent then sent the cheques to the Bharati Central Bank, Shillong for collection. Instead of paying cash, the Bharati Central Bank sent t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1647; 1966MhLJ457(SC); [1965]3SCR78
Sikri, J. 1. These five appeals by special leave raise a common question of interpretation of r. 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It is common ground that nothing turns on any dissimilarity in the facts of each appeal. It will accordingly suffice if facts in Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1964 are set out. 2. The respondent, Lachman Hotchand Kriplani, is a displaced person from West Pakistan. He has three brothers. They owned 731 acres of agricultural land in District Nawabshah, Taluka Nawab Shah, Sind - now in Pakistan. The respondent submitted a claim under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 (XLIV of 1950) - hereinafter referred to as the Claims Act. The word 'claim' was defined to mean 'assertion of a right to the ownership of, or to any interest in (i) any immovable property in West Pakistan which is situated within an urban area, or (ii) such class of property in any part of West Pakistan, other than an u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1981; 1965(0)BLJR780
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Karsandas H. Thacker, appellant, sued the respondent for the-recovery of Rs. 20,700 for damages for breach of contract. He alleged that he entered into-a contract with the respondent for the supply of 200 tons of scrap iron in July 1952 through-correspondence, that the respondent did not deliver the scrap iron and expressed his inability to comply with the contract by its letter dated January 30, 1953. In the meantime, the appellant had entered into a contract with M/s. Export Corporation, Calcutta for supplying them 200 tons of scrap iron. On account of the breach of contract by the respondent, the appellant could not comply with his contract with M/s. Export Corporation which in its turn, purchased the necessary scrap iron from the open market and obtained from the appellant the difference in the amount they had to pay and what they would have paid to the appellant in pursuance of the contract.2. The respondent contested the suit on grounds inter alia that there ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1892; [1965]3SCR53
Gajendragadkar, C.J. 1. The principal question which this appeal by special leave raises for ourdecision relates to the construction of Article 192 of the Constitution. Thesaid question arises in this way. The appellant Brundaban Nayak was elected tothe Legislative Assembly of Orissa from the Hinjili Constituency in Ganjamdistrict in 1961, and was appointed one of the Ministers of the Council ofMinisters in the said State. On August 18, 1964, respondent No. 2, P. Biswal,applied to the Governor of Orissa alleging that the appellant had incurred adisqualification subsequent to his election under Art. 191(1)(e) of theConstitution read with section 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(No. 43 of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act). In his application, respondentNo. 2 made several allegations in support of his contention that the appellanthad become disqualified to be a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly. OnSeptember 10, 1964, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Orissa ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC142; [1965]3SCR71; [1965]16STC599(SC)
Sikri, J.1. This appeal by certificate of fitness granted by the Rajasthan High Court is directed against its judgment dated May 7, 1963, quashing the order of assessment dated March 5, 1962, made by the Sales Tax Officer, Jodhpur City, in so far as it levied sales tax on the turnover of Rs. 23,92,252.75 np. 2. The respondent, M/s Shiv Ratan G. Mohatta, which is a partnership firm having its head office at Jodhpur, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, claimed before the Sales Tax Officer that they were not liable to be assessed to sales tax in respect of the above turnover because, firstly, the assessee was not a dealer within s. 2(f) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (Rajasthan Act XXIX of 1954) with respect to this turnover, and secondly, because the sales were in the course if import within Art. 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. Although the Sales Tax Officer set out the facts of the case relating to the second ground, he deemed it sufficient to assess this turnover on the ground that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1553; [1965]3SCR63
Mudholkar, J.1. The only question for consideration in this appeal by certificate from the High Court of Punjab is whether the suit for possession instituted by the respondents Lal Singh and Pratap Singh is within time. According to the appellants the suit is governed not by art. 141 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908) as held by the High Court but either by art. 142 or by art. 144 and is on that basis barred by time. While it is conceded on behalf of the respondents that the suit is not governed by art. 141 it is contended that it is governed by art. 144 and not by art. 142 and is within time. In order to appreciate the contentions it is necessary to set out the relevant facts which are no longer in dispute.2. Mst. Raj Kaur was in possession of 851 kanals 18 marlas of land situate in village Dhaipai in the former State of Faridkot. Out of this land 481 kanals 7 marlas was in her possession as occupancy tenant, the landlord being the Raja of Faridkot while the remaining land was he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1561; [1965]3SCR47
Wanchoo, J.1. This appeal on a certificate granted by the Assam High Court raises the question of the constitutionality of an annual tax levied by local boards for the use of any land for the purpose of holding markets as provided by s. 62 of the Assam Local Self-Government Act, No. XXV of 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant is a landholder in the district of Kamrup. As such landholder, he holds a hat or market on his land since the year 1936 and this market is known as Kharma hat. In 1953-54, the local board of Barpeta, within whose jurisdiction the Kharma market is held, issued notice to the appellant to take out a licence and pay Rs. 600/- for the year 1953-54 as licence-fee for holding the market. Later this sum was increased to Rs. 700/- for the year 1955-56. The appellant continued protesting against this levy but no heed was paid to his protests and the amount was sought to be recovered by issue of distress warrants and attachment of his property. Consequen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1909; [1965]3SCR34
Gajendragadkar, C.J. 1. Appellant No. 1, Kaluram Onkarmal, was let into possession of the premises described as holding No. 182H, G.T. Road, Asansol as a monthly tenant under Harbhajan Singh Wasal who was the owner of the said premises. The rent agreed to be paid was Rs. 35 per month payable according to the English Calendar. It appears that in 1953, the Calcutta National Bank Ltd. (now in liquidation) sued the owner Wasal on the original side of the Calcutta High Court on a mortgage. In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed and in due course, it was followed by a final decree. During the proceedings of the said suit, Mr. K. K. Ghose was appointed Receiver of the mortgaged properties, including the premises in the present suit. On February 18, 1960, the Receiver put the mortgaged properties to sale and the respondent, Baidyanath Gorain, purchased them. The said sale was confirmed by the Calcutta High Court on March 1, 1960. That is how the respondent became the owner of the su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1578; [1965]3SCR17
Gajendragadkar, C.J. 1. On August 4, 1956, the Governor of Madras issued a notification in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-section (4) of s. 64 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Madras Act XIX of 1952) directing that notification No. 638, dated the 25th May, 1937, relating to Sri Thiyagarajaswami Temple, Tiruvarur, Nagapattanam Taluk, Tanjor District, be continued for a period of five years from September 30, 1956. The earlier notification which was thus continued had itself been issued by the respondent State of Madras in exercise of the powers conferred on it by clause (b) of sub-section (5) of s. 65A of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Madras Act II of 1927), declaring that the temple in question and the specific endowments attached thereto shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter VI-A of the said Act. In other words, the earlier notification which brought the temple of Sri Thiyagarajaswami at Tiruvarur under the purview ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1666; (1965)0PLR231
J.R. Mudholkar, J. 1. The common question which arises in this group of appeals from 9 judgments of the High Court of Punjab which were disposed of along with 5 other appeals by a common judgment is whether the Union of India is liable to the consignees of different commodities or goods which were consigned to them by rail from various places in the country on account of their non-delivery. The appellants' consignments were admittedly being carried by a goods train, No. 35 down, assembled at Agra on or about August 28, 1949, and stabled at Asaoti, a railway station about half way between Mathura and Delhi. 2. There is no dispute that the appellants' consignments were to be delivered at Delhi and that they were in fact not delivered. According to the respondent these consignments were looted from the stabled train between the 4th and 11th September, 1947. Further according to it there being congestion in the yard at Agra the wagons in which these goods were being carried, along with oth...
Tag this Judgment!