Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1322; [1967]2SCR233
Shelat, J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Allahabad reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Allahabad, directing the respondents to pay to the appellant Rs. 18,142/- and costs. 2. Two questions arise in this appeal : viz., (1) whether the first respondent pledged certain quantity of aeroscraps purchased by him from military authorities at Bamrauli Depot, Allahabad and delivered possession thereof to the appellant under an agreement of pledge entered into between them and (2) whether the appellant was entitled to any relief when his case was that the first respondent never delivered to him the said goods and the said agreement never ripened into a pledge. 3. On January 10, 1946 the appellant advanced Rs. 20,000/- to the first respondent against a promissory note and a receipt. The first respondent also executed an agreement whereby he agreed to pledge as security for the debt the said aeroscraps a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1329; [1967]2SCR241
Bachawat, J. 1. The appellant is the tenant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the landlords of a non-residential accommodation in a part of a building in Mohalla Bulanala in the city of Varanasi. Respondent No. 1 as the allottee of the accommodation. Respondent No. 5 is the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi, authorised by the District Magistrate to perform his functions under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On February 11, 1956 the landlords obtained a decree for ejectment of the tenant from the accommodation. As the tenant was about to vacate the accommodation, on February 20, 1957, respondent No. 5 passed order under s. 7(2) of the Act directing the landlords to let the accommodation to respondent No. 1. On February 22, 1957, the landlords and the tenant agreed that the tenant would continue to occupy the accommodation at an enhanced rent and would be liable to eviction in execution of the decree for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Hegde, J. (1) These are connected writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. They raise common questions of law and fact. Hence they can be considered in a common judgment. (2) In these petitions, the petitioners who are serving as Enquiry Cum Reservation Clerks in the Northern Railway, seek the following reliefs : (1) a writ of mandamus to Respondent No. 1 (General Manager Northern Railway' requiring him to withdrew his order dated November 3, 1965, (order No. 754E/20-11 (Trip) (EIC) and to restore the names of the petitioners on the panel as shown in Annexure 'E' to the petition and to make permotions on the basis of that panel ; (2) a writ of mandamus to Respondent No. 2 (Railway Board) to withdraw its directions and orders to Respondent No. 1 to partially cancel the panel shown at Annexure 'E' to the petition; and (3) for consequential reliefs (3) The railway Board-by its communication No. E(NG) 63 PMI- 52 dated February 29, 1964, to the General Managers, All India ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER(1) These are connected with petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. They raise common questions of law and fact. Hence they can be considered in a common judgment. (2) In these petitions, the petitioners who are serving as Enquiry Cum Reservation Clerks in the Northern Railway, seek the following reliefs:1. A writ of mandamus to Respondent No.1 (General Manager, Northern Railway) requiring him to withdraw his order dated November 3, 1965, (order No. 754E/20-II (Trip) (EIC) and to restore the names of the petitioners of the panel as shown in Annexure `E' to the petition and to make promotions on the basis of that panel; 2. A writ of mandamus to Respondent No. 2 (Railway Board) to withdraw its direction and orders to Respondent No.1 to partially cancel the panel shown at Annexure `E' to the petition and 3. For consequential reliefs. (3) The Railway Board by its communication No. E (NG) 63 PMI-52 dated February 29, 1964 to the General Manager, All Indian Railways prescribe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1967]2SCR214
Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, by Special Leave, granted by this Court, is directed against the order dated October 13, 1966, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, dismissing Writ Petition No. 853 of 1966 filed by the appellant, under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The appellant filed the said writ petition under the following circumstances. The appellant was the Vice-Chancellor of the Osmania University, having been appointed, as such, by order dated April 30, 1964, passed by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, in his capacity as Chancellor of the said University. The appointment of the appellant, under the said order, as Vice-Chancellor, there is no controversy, was for a term of five years from the date of taking charge; and the appointment itself was made under sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Osmania University Act, 1959 (Andhra Pradesh Act No. IX of 1959). There is, again, no controversy that the appellant took charge as Vice-Chancellor, in terms of the said order, on Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC997; 1967CriLJ950; [1967]2SCR170
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 1964. Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 29, 1964 ,of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 1962. S. D. Banerjee, Advocate-General for the State of West Bengal, B. Sen, P. K. Chatterjee, M. K. Banerjee and P. K. Bose, for the appellant. M.C. Setalvad, A. N. Sinha and Sukumar Ghose, for the respondent, N.S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for inter- vener No. 1. A. V. Rangam, for intervener No. 2. V. A. Seyid Muhamad, Advocate-General for the State of Kerala and A. G. Puddisery, for intervener No. 3. O. P. Rana, for intervener No. 4. I. N. Shroff, for intervener No. 5. K. B. Mehta, for intervener No. 6. The Judgment of SUBBA RAO, C.J., WANCHOO, SIKRI, RAMASWAMI, SHELAT, BHARGAVA and VAIDIALINGAM, JJ. was delivered by SBBBA RAO, C. J. BACHAWAT J., delivered a separate concurring Judgment. SHAH, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. Subbarao, C.J. This Full Bench of 9 Judges has been cons- titute...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC927; (1967)69PLR287; [1967]2SCR165
ORDERThe scheme made in respect of the consolidation of village Dolike Sunderpur is hit by the second proviso to Art. 31A of the Constitution in so far as it reserves 100 kanals 2 marlas for the income of the Panchayat. The State is directed to modify the scheme to bring it into accord with the second proviso as interpreted in the majority judgment : [1967]2SCR143 in Civil Appeal No. 1018 of 1966 and to proceed according to law. There would be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC856; (1967)69PLR271; [1967]2SCR143
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1018 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 5, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 663 of 1965. B. R. L. Iyengar, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant. K. L. Gossain, O. P. Malhotra and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents. The Judgment Of SUBBA RAO C.J. and SIKRI and BACHAWAT JJ. was delivered by SIKRI, J. The dissenting Opinion of HIDAYA- TULLAH and SHELAT, JJ. was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab High Court dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under art. 226 of the Constitution, praying that the scheme of consolidation of village Ropalon, Tahsil Samrola, District Ludhiana, be quashed. The scheme which was sought to be quashed was made under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act. On May 2, 1961,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC600; [1967]2SCR138
Bachawat, J. 1. One S. N. Bhatnagar was the tenant of a building in a slum area in Delhi under the respondents. On December 5, 1960, the respondents obtained a decree for eviction of the tenant. By this decree, the tenant was allowed time to vacate till March 2, 1963. On June 19, 1964, the respondents obtained the permission for the execution of the decree from the competent authority under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (Act No. XCVI of 1956). Section 19 as it stood before December 21, 1964, was in these terms :- '19. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person who has obtained any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building in a slum area shall be entitled to execute such decree or order except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. (2) Any person desiring to obtain the permission referred to in sub-section (1) shall make an application in writing to...
Tag this Judgment!