Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC430; [1966]1SCR574
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of single judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the appellant's suit for recovery of possession of certain property and for mesne profits. It is not disputed that the only question of law which arises in this appeal is whether the appeal could be heard and disposed of by a single Judge of the High Court. The other questions raised are purely question of fact. Article 133, Clause [3] of the Constitution clearly provides that notwithstanding anything in the article no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from a judgment, decree or final order of one Judge of the High Court unless Parliament by law otherwise provides. Parliament has passed no law rendering the judgment of a single Judge appealable to the Supreme Court. Though this provision dose not detract from the power of this court under Art. 136 to entertain an appeal from a decision of a single Judge, it is the settled practice of this court not to interfere with a finding of fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC439
J.R. Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court of Gujarat dismissing summarily the applicant's application under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure for revision of the judgment of the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad passed in an appeal under Section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.2. The appellant is the tenant of certain premises belonging to the respondent, the rent of which was fixed at Rs. 50. According to the respondent, the appellant was required under the terms of the tenancy to pay in addition municipal taxes and charges for electric energy consumed by him. The appellant did not pay rent from June 1, 1956 for a period of over six months, in consequence of which the respondent gave a notice to him on February 20, 1957 terminating his tenancy and also demanding, the rent and other charges which were due from the appellant. As the appellant did neither vacate the premises, nor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC997
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought on behalf of Defendants 1 to 6 and 24 to 39 against judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated April 17, 1963 in First Appeal No. 215 of 1961 allowing an application for amendment of the plaint and remanding the suit for retrial before the Civil Judge (S. D.) at Surat.2. The first respondent filed the suit 'for partition of the Joint family properties' in the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) at Surat, being Special Suit No. 5 of 1957, against his grandfather, his father, his uncles and others. The plaintiff is the son of Defendant No. 14. Defendant No. 1 is the grandfather of the plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the brothers of defendant No. 1. Defendants Nos. 7, 18, 24 and 26 arc the uncles of the plaintiff. The contesting defendants alleged that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit for partition of the joint family properties because he had not obtained the previous consent of his father--Defendant No. 14 who was join...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC614; 1966CriLJ472; [1966]1SCR539
Sarkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a conviction for bigamy and for the abetment of it under Sections 194 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted the accused persons but on appeal the Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh convicted them. Hence this appeal. 2. Originally four persons were charged, namely, Kubja the bride, Kanwal Ram the bridegroom, Hira Nand and Seesia both relations of the birde, the latter two having been charged under S. 494 read with s. 109 for abetment of the offence of bigamy committed by the two first mentioned accused. The charges were framed on the complaint of Sadh Ram to whom Kubja had been earlier married. The complainant had also implicated Hiroo, the mother of Kubja but she was discharged by the magistrate. Hira Nand died pending the appeal in this court. 3. Sadh Ram was married to Kubja sometime in 1940-41. The marriage between the appellant Kanwal Ram and Kubja is said to have taken place in September 1955. By this time the Hin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC428
R.S. Bachawat, J. 1. The question in this appeal turns entirely on the meaning to be given to the words 'the cost of carriage and freight and such other charges as are usually incurred in conveying and causing the same (the manganese ore) to be delivered to the purchasers in terms of the sales', as used in two mining leases.2. The appellant is the lessee of the Laugher and Netra manganese mines in Balaghat district under lease deeds, dated August 17, 1938 and December 5, 1938 by the State Government of Central Provinces and Berar. Both the leases provided for payment of royalty at the rate of 5 per cent of the sale value at the pit's mouth of dressed ore raised from or out of and carried away or exported from the demised lands. Clause 2 of Part VI of the lease provided for the computation of royalty thus:'2. In order to arrive at the sale value of the manganese ore at the pit's mouth for the purpose of assessing the royalty as hereinbefore provided the lessee shall at the request of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC595; 1966(0)BLJR744; 1966CriLJ465; [1966]1SCR560
ORDER40. In accordance with the majority judgment the appeals are dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC529; [1966]1SCR543
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 247 and 248 of 1963. Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated the August 3. 1959 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeals from original order Nos. 124 and 125 of 1956. Niren De Additional Solicitor-General, S. R. Banerjee and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. A.V. Vishwanatha Sastri and P. K. Mukherjee, for the res- pondent. The Judgment of Sarkar and Raghubar Dayal, JJ. was delivered by Sarkar J., Ramaswami J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. Sarkar J. These two appeals arise out of proceedings for ascertainment of the annual value of premises No. 12, Mission Row, Calcutta, occupied by the appellant. The annual value was ascertained with a view to assess the municipal rates payable in respect of the premises. The appeals raise a common question of law making it unnecessary to deal with them separately, that question being whether the order of remand made by the High Court at Calcutta to the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC385; [1966]1SCR505
Shah, J. 1. By this petition the petitioner seeks to restrain the State of Gujarat from enforcing the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 20 of 1964, on the plea that certain provisions of the Act infringe the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to the petitioner under Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. 2. The Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act 22 of 1939 was enacted by the Provincial Legislature of Bombay and rules were framed thereunder. By a notification issued under the Act, the whole area within a radius of 12 miles of Ahmedabad City was declared in respect of certain agricultural produce, a market area for the purpose of that act and a market yard and a market proper were established for transactions in specified commodities. A market committee was established under s. 5 of the act for the Ahmedabad market area. In 1959 a locality known as the Kalupur market was declared a sub market yard for the purposes of the Bombay Act, and traders carrying on business in the Kalu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC523; 1966CriLJ459; [1966]1SCR493
Hidayatullah, J.1. Dr. S. Dutt who appeals to this court by special leave against the judgment and order of Mr. Justice Misra of the Allahabad High Court [Lucknow Bench] dated February 12, 1965 was examined as an expert witness by the defence in a Sessions trial [State v. Matadin and Ors. - S. T. No. 60 of 1957] in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hardio. Dr. Dutt claimed to hold a diploma from the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London to the effect that he had Specialized in the subject of criminology, He was cross examined inter alia about this claim by the District Government counsel who was assisted by one Mr. Shyam Narain, Deputy Superintendent, Police [C. I. D.] Lucknow. Mr. Shyam Narain earlier had deposed himself as an expert witness for the prosecution. Dr. Dutt's testimony ran counter to the testimony of Mr. Shyam Narain and the credentials of Dr. Dutt were challenged. The Judge asked Dr. Dutt to produce all his academic diplomas and certificates for his i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC455; [1966]1SCR485
Shah, J.In 1957 the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur granted to Messrs. Bundelkhand Motor Transport Company, Nowgaon-hereinafter called 'the appellant'-a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to ply stage carriages on an interregional route-Jabalpur to Chhatarpur-in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the permit was countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa within whose jurisdiction a part of the route lay. The permit was renewed in 1960 for a period of three years expiring on August 9, 1963 by the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, and it was countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa. On June 7, 1963 the appellant applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur for renewal of the permit, and by order dated December 6, 1963 the permit was renewed for the period ending February 9, 1966. By its application dated December 7, 1963 the appellant requested the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa to countersign the permit so renewed. This applicati...
Tag this Judgment!