Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC85; [1966]3SCR672
Hidayatullah, J. 1. At the last General Election to the Assembly in the Madras State five candidates filed their nomination papers for the Nilakottai constituency. The appellant K. S. Abdul Azeez was one of them and at the ensuing election he was successful having polled 4,000 and odd votes in excess of those of his nearest rival. Four other candidates had filed nomination papers and they included respondents 3 to 5 in this appeal. One of the candidates withdrew and the nomination paper of the 5th respondent (Peyathevar) was rejected at the scrutiny. He had shown in his nomination paper only one symbol in the spaces provided for three symbols and that was the star which is reserved for the Swatantra Party. He was not the accredited candidate of the Swatantra Party and as he had not shown any other symbol, the nomination paper was held to contain a defect of substance. 2. After the election was over two voters (who are respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal) filed an election petition again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1721; [1966]3SCR676
1. The appellant Prabhu is the owner of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 224, 215, 244, 299, 320, 506, 617 and 687 situated in village Nilakpur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, in the State of Rajasthan. The appellant's father Jora had executed a usufructuary mortgage of the said land in about 1936 for a period of twenty years in favour of one Ganga Din. After the expiry of the period prescribed by the said mortgage, the appellant obtained a decree for redemption on July 16, 1956. This decree declared that the mortgage and all encumbrances created by the mortgagee or any person claiming under him were extinguished and directed the mortgagee to deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the appellant. 2. It appears that during the continuance of the mortgage, the mortgagee Ganga Din had let out the aforesaid land to respondents 1 to 3 Ramdev, Yadram and Nathu respectively. 3. Meanwhile, on October 15, 1955 the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (No. 3 of 1955) (hereinafter called 'the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1931; 1966(0)BLJR997; [1966]3SCR663
Subba Rao, J. 1. The facts that gave rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. In the plaint there are three schedules, A, B and C. We are concerned in this appeal only with schedules A and C and nothing, therefore, need be said in regard to schedule B. The lands described in schedules A and C were situated in Rohini Ghatwali Estate. When that Estate was in the management of the Court of Wards, on March 25, 1873, the then Deputy Commissioner, Santal Paragana, on behalf of the Court of Wards representing the said Estate executed a lease in perpetuity in respect of the A schedule property in favour of Maharaja Sir Jai Mangal Singh Bahadur, the predecessor-in-interest of the 2nd defendant, for the purpose of erecting dwelling houses thereon. The 2nd defendant and his ancestors had been in possession of the said property since the date of the said lease. The lands described in Schedule C annexed to the plaint were not covered by the said lease, but it is alleged that the 2nd defendant and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1754; [1966]3SCR657
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. What is the appropriate amount of court-fees payable on the petition of appeal filed by the appellant, Orient Paper Mills Ltd., under Schedule III, Part II of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950, that is the short question of law which arises for our decision in this matter. 2. The appellant carries on the business of manufacturing and selling paper and paper board, and is registered as such under the Central Excise and salt Act, 1944 (No. 1 of 1944) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The respondent, the Union of India, charges excise duty under Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Act on the paper manufactured by the appellant before the manufactured goods are cleared out of the appellant's ware-house. Among various kinds of paper which the appellant manufactures and sells, are included 'Packing and Wrapping' and 'Printing and Writing Paper'. The aforesaid 'Printing and Writing Paper' is of various varieties and it includes Machine Glazed Poster popularly known as M.G. P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1750; [1966]3SCR649
Ramaswami, J.1. These appeals arise out of 3 suits for damages filed by the heirs of three persons, namely Shri Ram Parkash, Shrimati Panni Devi and Sant Gopi Chand who died as a result of the collapse of the Clock Tower situated opposite the Town Hall in the main Bazar of Chandni Chowk, Delhi belonging to the appellant - Corporations formerly the Municipal Committee of Delhi. 2. Suit No. 552 of 1952 was filed by the heirs of Shri Ram Parkash, suit No. 930 of 1951 was filed by the heirs of Smt. Panni Devi and suit No. 20 of 1952 was filed by Kuldip Raj whose father, Gopi Chand was killed by the fall of the Clock Tower. All the suits were tried by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ist Class, Delhi who disposed of all the suits by a common judgment dated July 9, 1953. The Subordinate Judge granted a decree for a sum of Rs. 25,000 to Shrimati Subhagwanti and other heirs of Ram Parkash in suit No. 552 of 1952, a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the heirs of Shrimati Panni Devi in suit No. 930 of 1951 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1742; 1966(0)BLJR821; 1966CriLJ1349; [1966]3SCR643
Ramaswami, J. 1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the High Court of Patna dated September, 1963 in Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 1961. 2. The appellant, alongwith 13 others, was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Patna who by his judgment dated April 22, 1961 convicted all the accused under Sections 302 / 149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Lakhan and Indo were convicted under s. 148, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and Gopi was convicted under s. 147, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Indo was also convicted under s. 326, Indian Penal Code and Gopi was convicted under s. 326 / 109, Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. Appellant Lakhan was convicted under Sections 326 / 149, Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence was awarded on this charge. Lakhan and Indo were convict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1729; 1966(0)BLJR629; (1966)IILLJ137SC; [1966]3SCR631
Wanchoo, J.1. The main question raised in this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Patna High Court is the constitutionality of s. 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, No. 8 of 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question arises in this way. The appellant is carrying on business in petroleum products in the Patna district. Habibur Rahman was serving as a watchman and Abdul Rahim as a driver in the permanent employ of the appellant at the Dinapore depot. They were charged with gross misconduct and an enquiry was held by the appellant in that connection. Habibur Rahman was discharged on May 5, 1960 and one month's pay in lieu of notice was offered to him. Abdul Rahim was dismissed on April on April 22, 1960. These two employees made applications under s. 26 of the Act in December 1960 before the labour court. These applications were obviously barred by time. The labour court condoned the delay without giving any notice to the appellant on the question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1775; 1966CriLJ1491; [1966]3SCR636
Ramaswami, J. 1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Orissa High Court dated March 2, 1964 in Government Appeal No. 49 of 1963 by which the High Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Puri and convicted the appellants under s. 353 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to 4 months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The decree-holders Panu Sahu and Naba Sahu levied execution of the decree (Ex. Case No. 125/62) in the Court of the Munsif, Puri against the appellants and a writ of attachment of the moveables of the judgment-debtor was issued for execution through P.W. 2, Sadhu Charan Mohanty, a peon of the Civil Court, Puri, returnable by August 10, 1962. P.W. 2 reached the village of the judgment-debtors on August 10, 1962 at 10 a.m. with the warrant of attachment and asked the judgment-debtors to pay the decretal dues of Rs. 952.10 nP, and when he was going to seize some of the moveables, the appellants came there wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1734; 1966MhLJ982(SC); [1966]3SCR623
Sikri, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree of the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Civil Special Appeal No. 5 of 1949, and arises out of a suit filed by the appellant, Seth Gulabchand, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, against heirs and legal representatives of Seth Govindram Seksaria, are the original side of the High Court of the former Indore State for specific performance of an agreement dated February 28, 1941, entered into between the plaintiff and the deceased Govindram. Sanghi, J., decreed the suit on June 11, 1948. Against this judgment and decree, the defendants filed an appeal to a Division Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court and the plaintiff also preferred a cross appeal. The Division Bench accepted the defendants' appeal, reversed the judgment and decree of Sanghi, J., and dismissed the plaintiff's suit as also his cross appeal. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an appeal under s. 25 of the Madhya Bharat Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1718; [1966]3SCR617
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises mainly the question whether a civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondents for the recovery of possession of the plaint-schedule land and mesne profits. 2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated : The respondents, claiming to be the khatedars of an extent of 57.07 acres of land in Mauza Bhanpur, Tahsil Huzur, Western District Bhopal, filed a suit against the appellant on the ground that the latter was in illegal possession thereof. The appellant contested the suit mainly on the ground that he was the khatedar of the said land and that he was in possession thereof in that capacity. He also pleaded that his title to the property was declared by the Tahsildar in an application for ejectment filed by him against the respondents under the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 (Act No, IV of 1932), hereinafter called the Act and that the said decision would be a bar to the maintainability of the suit in a civi...
Tag this Judgment!