Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC402; 1966MhLJ213; [1966]1SCR689
Bachawat, J.1. This appeal raises a question of construction of s. 20 of the Indian Arbitration act, 1940. The appellant instituted Suit No. 1712 of 1949 in the Bombay High Court against the respondent claiming a decree for money said to be due on account of various dealings between the parties. On or about February 18, 1954, the parties entered into an arbitration agreement for reference of the disputes to the arbitration of Sri Ramrikhdas Parasrampuria. The agreement also provided for withdrawal of the suit. In view of the agreement the suit was duly withdrawn. Sri Parasrampuria was subsequently removed and in his place, two other arbitrators were appointed. These arbitrators were also subsequently removed, and in their place, Sri S. V. Gupte was appointed the arbitrator. The time for making the award was extended by orders of court from time to time up to March 21, 1958. Two more applications for extension of time were rejected by the Court. Sri S. V. Gupte was unable to make the aw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC495; [1966]1CompCas49(SC); 1966CriLJ457; [1966]1SCR651
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises the short question whether theappellant contravened the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (VII of 1947), hereinafter calledthe Act. 2. During the years 1951 to 1956 the appellant, Ram Rattan Gupta, visitedthe Far Eastern countries after obtaining the necessary foreign exchange fromthe Government of India. During that period the appellant opened currentaccounts with the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, at Singapur,Hong Kong, Osaka and Tokyo, without the general or the special permission ofthe Reserve Bank of India. In the different branches of the said Bank hedeposited the unspent part of the foreign exchange given to him. The balance ofthe said deposits made at the various branches of the Bank was 40 (sterling).The appellant received payments from those accounts even after he returned toIndia. The Director, Enforcement Directorate, Foreign Exchange Regulation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC543; [1966]1SCR656
1. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 948 of 1964. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 24, 1964 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 543 of 1964. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Bishan Narain, S. Murthy and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant. G. B. Pai, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondents.2. The Judgment of Wanchoo and Shah, JJ. was delivered by Shah, J. Hidayatullah, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. Shah, J. Messrs Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Company- hereinafter called "the plaintiffs"-commenced an action in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad against the Kedia Ginning Factory Oil Mills of Khamgaon-hereinafter called "the defendants" for a decree for Rs. 31,150/- on the plea that the defendants had failed to supply cotton seed cake which they had agreed to supply under an oral contract dated July 22, 1959 negotiated between the parties by conversation on long distance telephone. The plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC489; [1966]36CompCas1(SC); [1966]1SCR683
Bachawat, J.1. The appellant is a limited Company carrying on transport business inSouth Arcot District. M. A. Khadar, the contesting respondent in Civil AppealNo. 202 of 1965, holds 13 shares and his brother M. J. Jabbar, the contestingrespondent in Civil Appeal No. 203 of 1965, holds 163 shares in the company.Articles 29 and 30 of the articles of association of the Company read : '29. The notice shall name afuture day, not being less than seven days from the service of the notice, onor before which such call or other money and all interest and expenses that mayhave accrued by reason such non-payment are to be paid and the place wherepayment is to be made, the place so named being either the registered office ofthe company..... are usually made payable and shall state that in the event ofnon-payment at or before the time and at the place appointed the share inrespect of which such payment is due, will be liable to be forfeited. 30. If the requisitions of anysuch notice as aforesaid be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC538; 1966MhLJ527(SC); [1966]1SCR618
Wanchoo, J. 1. The appellant took on lease two survey numbers from the respondent,Sholapur Borough Municipality on April 1, 1946 for a period of three years. Theland is situate within the municipal limits. About November 8, 1946, the BombayTenancy Act, No. 29 of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 1939-Act) wasapplied to this area and s. 3-A of that Act provided that every tenant shall onthe expiry of one year from the date of the coming into force of the BombayTenancy (Amendment) Act, (No. XXVI of 1946} be deemed to be a protected tenantunless his landlord has within the said period made an application to theMamlatdar for a declaration that the tenant was not a protected one. Therespondent did not file a suit within one year and therefore the appellantclaimed to have become a protected tenant under the 193.9-Act. The 1939-Act wasrepealed in 1948 by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, No. LXVII of1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 1948-Act). Section 31 of the 1948-Actprov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC653; [1966]1SCR643
Sarkar, J.1. On January 10, 1914, the appellant's predecessors-in-interest executedan instrument which has been described in these proceedings as a deed ofsettlement. There is some dispute as to the interpretation of this instrumentbut this much is not in controversy that it provided that the properties setout in Schedule A to it would be responsible for meeting the expenses of thecharities specified in Schedule B. Schedule B set out 17 different charitiesand the amount to be spent on each. The total of the amounts mentioned came toRs. 4,311-0-0 and the instrument provided that 'in respect of the sum ofRs. 4,311-0-0 which has been set apart for the expenses of the aforesaiddhar-mams we have created a 'charge' on the entire properties mentioned in theA Schedule herein.' That the properties were charged with the payment ofthe amount is not disputed. It is unnecessary to refer to the other provisionsin this instrument in detail and it will be sufficient to state that theyprovided that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC470; [1966]1SCR628
Sarkar, J.1. In a certain money suit, being Small Cause Suit No. 9 of 1953, a decree had been passed against. Narasimhaswamy and his four sons who were members of a Mitakshara Hindu Joint family. In execution of that decree the share of the four sons in the joint family properties, described altogether as 4/5th share, were put up to auction on December 21, 1936 and purchased by one Sivayya whose successors-in-interest are the appellants. The father Narasimhaswamy's share had not been put up for sale because an application for his adjudication as insolvent was then pending. The sale to Sivayya was duly confirmed. Thereafter Sivayya sold the properties purchased by him at the auction to one Prakasalingam. On November 6, 1939, an order was made under O. 21 Rules 35 [2] and 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure for delivery of joint possession of the properties purchased to Prakasalingam along with the member of the joint family in actual possession. This order was duly carried out and possess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC405; [1966]1SCR606
ORDER Ramji Lal Lambardar, testified to the factums of the death of Maha Chand and the succession [to him] of Mst. Bhagirathi his widow. There is no objector. Hence mutation in respect of the heritage of Maha Chand in favour of Mst. Bhagirathi, his widow is sanctioned. Date the 29th December 1925. Signature of: The Revenue Assistant.' 9. The order shows that it was made as a result of there being no objection from anybody to the statement of Ramji Lal, Lambardar, about the death of Maha Chand and Bhagirathi succeeding him as widow. The plaintiffs, who were minors, may not have attended the public Assembly. They being minors could not have understood the significance of any general notice, I any issued in that connection and the gathering of people. It is not for the Revenue Authorities to make any regular enquiry about the devolution of title. They make entries for revenue purposes about the person who is considered prima facie successor of the deceased. A widow would be considered an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC395; [1966]1SCR580
Wanchoo, J.1. These three appeals raise common questions and will be dealt with together. They arise out of two suits filed against the Government of India claiming damages for loss of goods which were destroyed by fire on the railway platform at Morar Road Railway Station. One of the suits was filed by Birla Cotton Factory Limited, now represented by the West Punjab Factories Limited [hereinafter referred to as the Factory]. It related to six consignments of cotton bales booked from six stations on various dates in February and March 1943 by the Factory to Morar Road Railway Station. In five of the cases, the consignment was consigned to J. C. Mills while in one it was consigned to self. The consignments arrived at Morar Road Railway Station on various dates in March. Delivery was given of a part of one consignment on March 7, 1943 while the remaining goods wee still in the custody and possession of the railway. On March 8, 1943, a fire broke out at the Morar Road Railway Station and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC557; 1965MhLJ850(SC); [1966]1SCR594
Shah, J. 1. The first respondent Tukaram was a protected lessee within the meaning of that expression in the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act 24 of 1951 - hereinafter called the Berar Act in respect of certain land at Mouza karwand in the Vidharbha Region [now in the State of Maharashtra]. The appellant - who is the owner of the land served a notice under s. 9 [1] of the Berar Act terminating the tenancy on the ground that he required the land for personal cultivation, and submitted an application to the Revenue office under s. 8 [1] [g] of the Berar act for an order determining the tenancy. The Revenue officer determined the tenancy by order dated July 2, 1957 and made it effective from April 1, 1958. In the meantime the Governor of the State of Bombay [the Vidharbha region having been incorporated within the State of Bombay by the Sates organization Act 1956] issued Ordinance 4 to 1958 a ban was imposed against eviction of tenants, and by s. 3 of Act 9 of 1958 a ban was im...
Tag this Judgment!