Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1363; 1967CriLJ1212; [1967]2SCR309
Hidayatullah, J. 1. These are two appeals, one (Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1964) by one Purna Chandra Rao who has been convicted under section 342, Indian Penal Code by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh but in lieu of the sentence the High Court released him under section 562(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code after due admonition, and the other (Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1964) by one A. K. Mallu against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court releasing the respondent (who is the appellant in the other appeal) after admonition under section 562 (1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The two appeals have been respectively filed by the complainant who had lodged a complaint against him on which the conviction resulted, and by the accused. In so far as the appeal of the accused is concerned, we have recorded an order separately which shows that Mr. K. R. Chaudhary, Advocate of this Court appeared before us and told us that he would like to withdraw from the case. As the accused is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1342; 1967(0)BLJR321; 1967MhLJ652(SC); (1967)69PLR290; [1967]2SCR298
Bachawat, J.1. The appellant, the respondent and two other persons carried on business in partnership under the name and style of Nayagaon Farm. The respondent was the managing partner and was incharge of the partnership assets. The firm was dissolved and a suit was instituted by the appellant for the taking of the accounts of the dissolved firm. Eventually a final decree was passed in the suit in favour of the appellant against the respondent for Rs. 17,143/11/0 and Rs. 3,171/6 as on account of costs. The appellant applied for execution of the decree by arrest and detention of the respondent in prison. In this affidavit in support of the application, the appellant relied upon the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to s. 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. At the hearing of the application those grounds were not pressed but his counsel relied upon the ground mentioned in Clause (c) of the proviso. By Clause (c) of the proviso to s. 51, the court is empowered to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1344; 1967(0)BLJR427; [1967]2SCR301
Shelat, J.1. by an executing Court setting aside an auction sale as a nullity is an appealable order. 2. In pursuance of a decree passed against the appellant (judgmendebtor) the judgment creditor took out execution proceeding. An auction sale of the factory belonging to the appellant was ordered by the executing court. In pursuance of that order the Amin (the auction officer) held an auction sale on September 10, 1962. Respondent No. 1 was held to be the highest bidder for Rs. 2,45,000/-. The appellant challenged the auction sale alleging that the Amin had not realised 1/4th of the sale proceeds immediately after the said auction was closed as required by O. 21 R. 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure. His case was that the Amin realised the said amount and deposited it in the Treasury on September 11, 1962. The appellant thereafter filed an application under O. 21 R. 84 before the Civil Judge. Aligarh. Respondent No. 1 contested that application stating that he had tendered the said amou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1331; 1967CriLJ1200; (1967)0GLR571; (1967)IILLJ261SC; [1967]2SCR290
Ramaswami, J. 1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated July 29, 1964 in Criminal Revision No. 385 of 1963. 2. On March 14, 1961 respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the appellant who was officiating in the post of Divisional Operating Superintendent, Western Railway, Rajkot. It was alleged in the complaint that the appellant had committed offences under Sections 166, 167 and 182, Indian Penal Code. The appellant objected before the trying Magistrate that the complaint under s. 182, Indian Penal Code by a private person was barred under s. 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that as the alleged acts of the appellants were said to be done in his official capacity and in discharge of his official duty and as the appellant was a public servant not removable from his office save with the sanction of the Central Government, the complaint was not maintainable in the absence of sanction of Central Government under s. 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1335; 1967CriLJ1204; [1967]2SCR271
Subba Rao, C.J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raises the question of VALIDITY of the detention of the petitioner under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (Act No. 31 of 1946) (hereinafter called the Act).2. The petitioner is a Pakistan national who entered India without any travel documents. On May 8, 1964, he was arrested in New Delhi by the Customs Authorities under s. 135 of the Indian Customs Act, 1962. On May 9, 1964, he was ordered to be enlarged on bail. On May 18, 1965, he was ordered to be released. When he was about to be released from jail, a detention order was served on him by the Central Gnment under s. 3(2)(g) of the Act. It was said that he had to be detained, as police investigation was in progress in respect of a case of conspiracy to smuggle gold of which he was a member. On May 29, 1965, he was convicted by the Magistrate, First-Class, Delhi, of an offence under the Customs Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1283; [1967(14)FLR282]; (1967)IILLJ271SC; [1967]2SCR265
Subba Rao, C.J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by two teachers for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the orders of promotion of respondents 3 to 83 and to direct the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the 1st respondent, and the Director of Education, Jammu and Kashmir State, Srinagar, the 2nd respondent, to promote them to the cadre of gazetted teachers with retrospective effect. 2. The facts are simple. The 1st petitioner entered Government service of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir on May 16, 1943, as a teacher in the Government School, Trehgam. He is an M.A., B.T., and is at present working as a teacher in the Government Higher Secondary School, Sopore. The 2nd petitioner was likewise appointed as a teacher on February 26, 1952, in the Government Middle School, Nigam, Kashmir. He is a B.A., B.T., and is at present working as a teacher in the Government High School, Batamallo. In the year 1957, the 1st respondent prepared a sen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1272; [1967]2SCR286
Shah J.1. A revision application under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act filed by the appellants against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, by order dated July 15, 1961. The appellants then moved on November 13, 1961, the High Court of Allahabad for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders, inter alia, of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer. The petition was summarily rejected by D. S. Mathur, J., observing that the period of 'limitation expired on 7th November, 1961 and no explanation had been furnished why the writ petition could not be filed on November 7, 1961'. A special appeal against that order was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court observed that the petition was dismissed by Mathur, J., on the ground that it was filed beyond 90 days from the date of the impugned order 'after excluding the time taken in obtaini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1257; [1967]37CompCas233(SC); [1967]2SCR256
Subba Rao, C.J. 1. These are cross-appeals - the appeal has been filed by H. A. K. Rao, a Chartered Accountant, and the cross-appeal has been filed by the respondent therein - against the judgment and order of the Mysore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 473 of 1964 filed by the former challenging the validity of the notification issued by the latter regulating the conduct of elections to the Central Council and the Regional Councils of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. 2. The facts are not in dispute and they may be briefly stated. H. A. K. Rao, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 447 of 1965, is a chartered accountant by profession and is a fellow member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute'. The election to the Central Council and the Regional Councils of the Institute was to take place in the month of August, 1964. On February 22, 1964, the President of the Institute issued a notification in exercise of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
I.D. Dua, J.(1) These two letters Patent Appeals (Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 26-D and 27-D of 1964) arise out of the same proceedings and being directed against one main judgment of a learned Single Judge, may be disposed of by one judgment. The only question falling for our determination relates to the plea of limitation and lies within a narrow compass, namely, whether Article 97 of the Limitation Act applies to the case or whether it is governed by the residuary Article 120, no other Article being applicable in terms. Of course at one stage Shri hardy learned Counsel for the respondents also attempted to apply Article 62 of the Limitation Act but this attempt was not seriously persisted in.(2) Turning now to the facts on 26-11-1946, Messrs. Gokal Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (Hereafter called the vendor Company) entered into an agreement to sell the building in question situated in Lahore (now in West Pakistan) for a consideration of Rs.1,35,000/- to Shri Ram Lal Puri (hereinafter cal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1251; 33(1967)CLT1028(SC); [1967]2SCR245
Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, on certificate, is directed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court, dated January 4, 1963, and rendered in Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 94 and 95 of 1960. 2. The circumstances, under which this appeal arises, may be briefly stated. The predecessor-in-title, of the respondents, had executed three mortgages in favour of the appellant-company, which is registered in London. The first mortgage was executed on October 23, 1903, securing a sum of Pounds 1,35,000/-. Inasmuch as, according to both parties, this mortgage has been completely redeemed in 1935, it is not necessary to make any further reference to this transaction. The second mortgage was executed on December 18, 1906, under which a sum of Pounds 77,500/- was borrowed by the mortgagor. Even according to the appellant, in respect of this mortgage, the respondents had paid a total sum of Pounds 1,77,349/- by way of interest which is more than twice the principal amount covered by the mortgage. The...
Tag this Judgment!