Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1937
J.R. Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the Deputy Custodian General, Evacuee Property dated September 12, 1960 holding that one Zarina who migrated to Pakistan in the year 1949 had 7/48th interest in certain specified items of property left by her father Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin who died on December 21, 1954. The appellants before us are the widow and the two sons of this gentleman whom we shall hereafter refer to as Khan Bahadur.2. After his death proceedings were initiated by the Custodian of Evacuee Properly, Hyderabad to declare the share of Zarina in the properties left by her father as evacuee property. Pursuant thereto a notice dated February 17, 1955 under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 was issued by the Senior Assistant Custodian and served on the firm of M/s. Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons stating that Zarina was an evacuee, and as all properties belonging to her were evacuee properties including her sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC22; 1966CriLJ66; [1966]1SCR229
Ramaswami, J. 1. This appeal is brought by certificate granted under Art. 134(1)(c) ofthe Constitution from a judgment of the Madras High Court dated April 29, 1963in Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1963 affirming the conviction of theappellant-Sri Mahant Kaushalya Das under s. 4(1) (a) of the Madras ProhibitionAct and the sentence of one year Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 orin default rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The appellant is the hereditary Mahant of Sri Bairaghi Matam --a HinduReligious and Charitable Institution of a monastic nature. The appellant hasbeen residing in the Matam premises, Elephant Gate, Madras which is a publicplace of worship. On March 22, 1963 at about 10 a.m. the appellant was arrestedby the police and immediately produced before the VIII Presidency Magistrate onthe same day on a charge under s. 4(l)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act on theallegation that he was in possession of 3,960 grams of Ganja concealed in awooden box m the Matam premise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1818; [1965]57ITR149(SC); [1966]1SCR190a
Shah, J. 1. The 1st Income-tax Officer, C-II Ward, Bombay, served a notice under section 18A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, calling upon Bhagwandas Kevaldas - who will hereinafter be called the assessee to pay in four equal installments Rs. 25,973-5-0 as advance tax for the assessment year 1948-49. On September 17,1947, the assessee filed an estimate of his income under section 18A(2) and of the tax payable by him, and on January 10, 1948, he filed a revised estimate. An order under section 23B of the Act provisionally assessing the income was made by the Income-tax Officer and pursuant thereto on August 23, 1950, the assessee paid the tax so assessed. Regular assessment of the income was made on March 31, 1953, by the Income-tax Officer, and it was found that the tax paid on the basis of the estimate of the assessee was less than eighty per cent of tax determined as a result of the regular assessment. But the Income-tax Officer made no charged for interest under sub-section (6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1921; 1965MhLJ774(SC)
M. Hidayatullah, J.1. The appellant Gajjan Singh, who appeals to this Court by special leave against his conviction under Sections 471 and 474, Indian Penal Code and sentences in the aggregate of three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000, was convicted originally under Sections 466 and 474, Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. In an appeal by him the conviction under Section 466 was altered to one under Section 471 but the conviction under Section 474 and the sentences passed on him were maintained, by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.2. Gajjan Singh was the owner of truck No. MPE 5554 which was in the charge of Bhagat Singh, his driver. On August 19, 1960 the truck was checked at Nasik because it was suspected to be overloaded. The truck was said to be plying under a temporary permit No. 3175 which was produced before the authorities but on inspection it was found that the permit which had been issued for a period 1-7-1960 to 31-7-1960 was altered t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC220; 1966CriLJ179; 1966MhLJ129(SC); [1966]1SCR210
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 77, 162 and 163 of 1962 and 74 of 1965. Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders dated December 22, 1961 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) at Indore in Criminal Revisions Nos. 262, 263, 265 and 266 of 1960. A. S. R. Chari, and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant (in Cr. A. Nos. 66/62 and 74/65). W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant (in Cr. As. Nos. 162 and 163/62). I. N. Shroff for the respondent (in all the appeals). Sarkar, J. delivered a partly dissenting Opinion. The Judg- ment of Hidayatullah and Ramaswami, JJ. was delivered by Ramaswami, J. Sarkar J. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment to be delivered by my learned brother Ramaswami in these four appeals. I agree with him that the appeals by the appellant Kale, being Criminal Appeals Nos. 162 of 1962 and 163 of 1962 should be dismissed and have nothing to say in regard to these appeals. The other two appeals, namely...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC935; [1966]1SCR235
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta. The appellant is the owner of premises bearing No. P-16, Bentinck Street, Calcutta. It had let out a suite on the second floor of the premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 66 to Gee Tsing Po. The exact date when the suite was let to Po is not on the record but it was sometime before June 1954. In June 1954, Po sub-let the entire suite to respondent No. 1, Messrs. Serajuddin and Company, which will hereafter be referred to as the respondent. In July 1954, the appellant gave notice to Po terminating his tenancy with the expiry of August 1954. In September 1954 the appellant filed a suit against Po praying for his ejectment on certain grounds under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, No. XVII of 1950, which was then in force. That suit was still pending when the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, No. XII of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC38
ORDERSubba Rao, J. 1. This is an application for condoning the delay of 62 days in filing the petition for Special Leave to Appeal to this Court against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Case No. 681 of 1963. On April 14, 1964, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh delivered judgment in Criminal Revision Case No. 681 of 1963. On April 15.1.964, the petitioner filed an application in that Court for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment. Stamps were called for on August 5, 1964, and they were deposited on August 6, 1964 and the copy was ready on August 12, 1964. The time taken by the Court for furnishing the copy to the Petitioner was about 110 days. The Petitioner filed an application in the said Court for leave to appeal to this Court. The said application was dismissed on September 14, 1964, Before the dismissal of the said application the petitioner obtained the copy of the judgment. Thereafter on January 14, 1965 the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1966]1SCR163
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Ibrahim and Khurshed, brothers, sons of Paneh Ali, Isak and Baggu, sonsof Jawaye, owned Khasra No. 26, measuring 20 bighas, at village Alipore, TehsilHanumangarh. They migrated to Pakistan. The Assistant Custodian of EvacueeProperty, Hanumangarh, issued notice under s. 7(1) of the Administration ofEvacuee Property Act, 1950 (Act XXXI of 1950) hereinafter called the Act, tothese persons and also to Hazari, son of Chuni and Magha, son of Kana, statingtherein that Ibrahim and others had gone to Pakistan and that Hazari and Maghawere in illegal possession of the land. They were all required to show causewhy the land be not declared evacuee property. The notice was affixed at aconspicuous place in village Alipore. The notice could not be served on Hazariand Magha as they had died long before the issue of notice in 1955. 2. No objections were filed and on April 7, 1955 the Assistant Custodiandeclared Ibrahim, Khurshed, Isak and Baggu evacuees and the aforesaid propertyev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC193; [1966]1SCR168
Subba Rao, J.This appeal by certificate raises the question of the applicability of s. 9-A(10)(ii) (b) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (Madras Act IV of 1938), hereinafter called the Act, as amended by Act XV of 1943 and Act XXIII of 1943, to a mortgage in respect whereof a petition for scaling down the said mortgage debt under the provisions of the Act was filed.on August 18, 1930, the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants executed a registered deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of the family of Samu Pattar for Rs. 31,000. No interest was stipulated in the document, but the mortgagee was put in possession of the mortgage property. The mortgagee had to enjoy the income from the said property, and after appropriating interest due on the mortgage and after paying the revenue and the jenmi's purappad, he was to pay to the mortgagors one edangali of paddy every year within the 30th of Makarom. The mortgage was redeemable after the expiry of 60 years from the date of the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC126; 1965(0)BLJR841; [1966]1SCR158
Bachawat, J.1. The plaintiffs-appellants instituted Title Suit No. 91 of 1950, out ofwhich this appeal arises, for redemption of two usufructuary mortgages createdby plaintiffs No. 1 and ancestors of plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 dated July 5, 1927and April 15, 1928 in favour of the defendant for Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 1,300respectively. The mortgage dated July 5, 1927 was in respect of 7.20 acres of occupancyraiyati lands, consisting of four plots Nos. 149, 155, 955 and 957, in villageHichapur under the Tikari Raj. The mortgaged lands were part of a largerholding of 23.69 acres under khata No. 59, and the annual rent of the entireholding was Rs. 153-3-0. The mortgage deed provided that the mortgagee wouldpay Rs. 33-14-9 out of the total rent payable to the landlord and themortgagors would pay the balance rent. There was default in payment of rent forseveral years. The landlord obtained a decree for arrears of rent, and at therent sale held on June 18, 1934, the mortgage-defendant purchased the Hi...
Tag this Judgment!