Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1657; (1966)IILLJ324SC; [1966]SuppSCR74
Shah, J.1. The appellant is engaged in carrying on the business or regulating forward trade in groundnut oil and mustard-seed and is recognised as an Exchange under provisions of the Forward Contract Act, 1952. On June 1, 1964 the Government of India issued an order prohibiting trading in diverse commodities including groundnut oil and mustard-seed, and in consequence thereof no further business could be carried on through the appellant Exchange. On July 17, 1965 the appellant served notices of retrenchment upon 30 out of its 37 employees and paid them salary for the period of notice and retrenchment compensation under s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 14 of 1947. The workmen then raised an industrial dispute. Conciliation proceedings to solve the dispute having failed, the Delhi Administration referred to the Labour Court the dispute whether retrenchment of the workmen by the appellant was unjustified and illegal. The workmen pleaded that retrenchment 'on the ground of the ban imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1683; [1966]SuppSCR55
Wanchoo, J. 1. The only question raised in this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab High Court is the interpretation of s. 9(1) of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, No. LXIV of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question arises in this way. The appellants were mortgagees of certain properties, including a house, on the basis of a mortgage-bond dated July 19, 1928. The consideration of the bond was Rs. 25,000 and interest was provided at nine per cent per annum compoundable annually. Out of the properties covered by the bond, one of the properties was sold to Bibi Chand Tara on October 23, 1937 subject to the earlier mortgage of 1928. In October 1949, Bibi Chand Tara was declared an evacuee. 2. In 1939 the appellant filed a suit against the original mortgagors and others including Bibi Chand Tara for the amount due under the mortgage. A preliminary decree was passed in their favour in March 1942 and the final decree followed in April 1945. It appears...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC57; [1966]SuppSCR63
Sikri, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of Dhavan, J., in Civil Revision No. 1209 of 1957. The learned Judge, following Sarju Prasad v. Civil Judge, Farrukhabad I.L.R. [1959] All. 354, held that an order of the Court on an objection against an award made under s. 12(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act (U.P. Act V of 1954) (hereinafter called the Act) was appealable under s. 39 of the Arbitration Act (X of 1940) Mr. J. P. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant urged that this decision of the Allahabad High Court is wrong. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions of Mr. Goyal, it is necessary to give a few facts and set out the relevant statutory provisions. During consolidation proceedings in village Dharaki-Garhi, a question of title arose. The Consolidation Officer, acting under s. 12(4) of the Act, referred the question of title to the Civil Judge, Aligarh, who referred the same to the arbitrator, Shri Vikram Singh, who had been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC333; [1966]SuppSCR38
Ramaswami, J.1. These appeals are brought, by special leave, from the judgment and decree of the Madras High Court dated September 20, 1961 in A.S. Nos. 45 and 202 of 1957. 2. Narandas Morardas Gaziwala and Lakshmi Chand & Co. were two firms of partnership carrying on business in lace and silver thread at Surat in the State of Bombay. They had dealings with another firm at Kumbakonam - Krishna and Company - who acted as their agents for selling their goods in the three districts of Tanjore, Tiruchirapalli and Mathurai in the State of Madras on commission basis. The two partners of Krishna & Co. were Murugesa Chettiar and his wife's sister's husband Gopal Chettiar. It appears that Krishna & Co. was acting as commission agents on behalf of the two firms at Surat from 1944 till 1951 when the partnership of Krishna & Co. became dissolved by mutual agreement between the partners. Murugesa Chettiar, one of the partners of Krishna & Co. tool over all the assets and liabilities of the firm on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1713; [1966]SuppSCR46
Shelat, J. 1. On March 31, 1959 the respondents obtained a licence to import certain machinery from West Germany. The import licence contained particulars of the machinery to be imported and inter alia stated that its value would be 'C.I.F. value of Rs. 45,000'. One of the conditions upon which the licence was issued was that : 'the above application is accepted and import licence is granted having quantity and value as the limiting factor and is not valid for clearance if the actual value of any item exceeds the C.I.F. value indicated in the licence by more than five percent.' 2. The machinery arrived at the port of Calcutta sometime in July 1960 and was allowed to be cleared on the bill of entry submitted on behalf of the respondents. The bill of entry showed the C.I.F. value of the machinery at Rs. 44,843.61 nP. The customs authorities thereafter assessed the duty payable on the said machinery and the duty so assessed was paid by the respondents. On May 6, 1961, in consequence of ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC87; [1966]SuppSCR27
Shah, J. 1. By a notification issued on March 2, 1937 under s. 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 13 of 1912, the Government of India extended, subject to certain modifications, the United Provinces Town Improvement Act, 8 of 1919, to the territory of Delhi, and thereafter set up an Improvement Trust under the Act for that territory. The Trust prepared an industrial development scheme with the object of relieving congestion by inducing a flow of population from the crowded parts of the town of Delhi to certain other areas. Under the scheme land in those areas was to be developed and after construction of roads, storm water drains, street-lighting, refuse and sewage disposal works, schools, parks, playgrounds, dispensaries, welfare centers and police-station a part of the land was to be allotted to industrial concerns for construction of industrial buildings and the rest for construction of residential and other buildings. 2. The scheme was sanctioned under s. 42 of the Act by the Government of I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC49; 33(1967)CLT1(SC); [1966]SuppSCR22
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Orissa High Court. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. A suit was brought by eleven plaintiffs (who are appellants before us) including Dolai Molliko for a declaration that the plaintiffs were tenants with occupancy rights in the lands in dispute. The suit was resisted by the defendants who are now respondents. The Munsif dismissed the suit. Thereupon there was an appeal by the plaintiffs. During the pendency of that appeal, Dolai Molliko, appellant, died in March 1958. An application was made within time for bringing on record his heirs, and these heirs were two, namely, the widow and a major son of the deceased. No objection was made to this application and consequently the widow and the son of the deceased were substituted on record as heirs. The Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit and gave the declaration prayed for by the plaintiffs. Then followed a second appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC77; [1966]SuppSCR15
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta, December 5, 1961, arises from a suit between landlord and tenant. The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (appellant) is the landlord and Biswanath Sonar (respondent) is the tenant, and the tenancy is in respect of a piece of land with a rent of Rs. 4/- per month. According to the Company the tenancy commenced in December 1938 and according to the tenant in the beginning of 1935. The two courts of fact have found in favour of the Company on this point and the High Court has very properly accepted this concurrent finding but has held that tenancy began on the 1st of December, 1938, but more of that later. The suit was commenced in the Court of the Munsif at Asansol by the Company after serving a notice dated June 28, 1950 terminating the alleged monthly tenancy of the respondent with the expiry of December, 1950. The notice was served on June 29, 1950. The Company asked for the relief...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC181; [1966]SuppSCR1
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated December 15, 1959 in O.S. Appeal No. 22 of 1955. 2. The respondent was a trader at Madras in hides and skins. The appellant was a firm, Gordon Woodroffe and Company (Madras), Limited, doing business among other things as exporters of hides and skins. For the period of 8 months commencing from January, 1949, there were as many as 101 contracts entered into between the appellant and the respondent. The case of the respondent was that he entered into an agreement with the appellant to act as agents for shipping the goods (hides and skins) to United Kingdom and for finding purchasers there. It is alleged that the appellant used to make payment to the respondent in respect of the goods sent to it for shipment in the nature of advances and he used to set off these advances when payment was made to the respondent after the goods were shipped. The respondent will hereinafter be referred to as the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1707; [1966]36CompCas426(SC); [1966]60ITR508(SC); 1966MhLJ1089(SC); [1966]3SCR948
ORDERED that the Court Receiver be and is hereby appointed Receiver of the properties belonging to the joint family in suit and all the books of accounts papers and vouchers with all necessary powers under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure including power to vote and/or exercise all the property rights in respect of shares belonging to the joint family in the several joint stock companies mentioned in the plaint including power to file suit..................' 6. Under this order, all the necessary powers under Order XL, rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure were conferred upon the Receiver, including the right to file suits. Assuming that a petition for winding up of a company is not a suit within the meaning of Order XL, rule 1(d) of the said Code, the other powers mentioned therein are comprehensive enough to enable the Receiver to take necessary proceedings to realise the property of and debts due to the joint family. Can it be said that the petition filed by the Recei...
Tag this Judgment!