Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1766; 1966CriLJ1486
R.S. Bachawat, J. 1. The appellant is an employee of the Northern Railway. The first respondent is the Superintendent of Police, North District, Delhi. The second respondent is the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Delhi. The second respondent opened a history sheet for the appellant, and the first respondent directed the entry of his name in Part II of the surveillance register, commonly known as police register No. 10. The history sheet and the register are kept under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 framed under the Indian Police Act, 1861. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court challenging the legality of these and other actions of the respondents and asking for the issue of appropriate writs. The High Court dismissed the petition. The appellant now appeals to this Court by special leave.2. Rules 23.4 to 23.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 deal with police register No. 10, Rule 23.4 (3) (b) empowers the Superintendent of Police to enter in his disc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC203; [1966]3SCR919
Wanchoo J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. A notice was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Jabalpur Division for auction of various contracts in that division in July 1959. The conditions of the auction specified inter alia (a) that no person would be allowed to bid for any forest contract at the auction unless he had signed the sale notice in token of his agreement to abide by the conditions thereof and deposited a sum of Rs. 500/- as earnest money in respect of each forest contract before bidding therefore; (b) that the Divisional Forest Officer reserved to himself the power without assigning any reason to accept the highest or any bid, (c) that the consideration due under a contract was to be payable where it exceeded Rs. 3,000/-, in four equal instalments, the first instalment being payable immediately at the close of the auction; (d) that the successful bidde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1586; 1966CriLJ1210; [1966]3SCR933
Hidayatullah, J.1.This is an appeal by certificate under Art 134(1)(c) of the Constitution against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated September 4, 1963 by which the conviction of the respondent Motilal Kanoria under s. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- (in default simple imprisonment for one month) imposed by the Presidency Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta, were set aside and an acquittal was entered. The facts of the case are not in controversy and may therefore be stated briefly. Motilal Kanoria was a director of Lachminarayan Jute ., Calcutta. The Company was managed by a firm of the name of Mukhram Lachminarayan and Motilal Kanoria was one of the partners of the firm. The Company and the Managing Agents has a common address in Calcutta. Motilal Kanoria used to sign on behalf of the Managing Agents and also generally to deal with the affairs of the Company. All transactions in this case were by Motilal Kanoria and he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC92; [1966]3SCR926
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court of Assam dated August 14, 1959 rejecting summarily an appeal in an execution case. The appellants against whom the decree for ejectment is being executed are the widow and son of one Maliram Agarwala whose father Arjun Das had taken on lease the suit land from one Mohd. Soleman, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The decree was passed as far back as November 28, 1950 in a title suit filed against the appellants and was later confirmed by the High Court. 2. The present execution began on August 16, 1954 and was pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge, L.A.D., Gauhati when the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 (Assam Act 12 of 1955) came into force from June 26, 1955. The appellants thereupon claimed the benefit of s. 5 of the Act which grants protection from eviction to tenants, under certain circumstances. The execution Court heard arguments and on November 12, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1788; 1967MhLJ1(SC); [1966]3SCR885
Sikri, J.1. These two petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution raise substantially the same questions of law and were heard together and may conveniently be disposed of together. It would be convenient to give a few facts in Writ Petition No. 66 of 1965. 2. The petitioners who are citizens of India are owners of some land in Greater Bombay in the South Salsetta Taluka in the Bombay Suburban District. There are four respondents to the petition; the first is the State of Maharashtra, the second the Commissioner, Bombay Division, the third the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Fourth the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, established by notification under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The predecessor in office of the second respondent, by notification dated March 30, 1962, published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette, purporting to act under s. 4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894) - hereinafter referred to as the Act - notified that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1783; 1966CriLJ1495; [1966]3SCR880
Ramaswami, J. 1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur, Bench dated November 11, 1963 in Criminal Appeal no. 153 of 1963. 2. The respondent Narharrao, a police Head Constable was attached to the Murtizapur Police Station in September, 1962. He was investigating offences under sections 110, 102 and 117 of the Bombay police Act against two persons, viz., Onkar and Harihar. It is alleged that Onkar and Harihar approached Narharrao for showing them some favour. The latter demanded Rs. 25 as a bribe for weakening the prosecution case which was to be launched against Onkar and Harihar. The respondent accepted Rs. 5 on or about October 14, 1962 and Rs. 10 on or about October 19, 1962 as illegal gratification. The respondent was tried in the Court of the Special Judge, Akola for accepting bribe under s. 161, Indian Penal Code or alternatively for committing criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duties which is punishable under s. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1998; [1966]3SCR875
Ramaswami, J. 1. The question of law involved in these appeals is whether the disputed brick kiln on plots nos. 596 and 597 in Mauza Sarwat, Pargana and District Muzaffarnagar and leased out to the appellant is a 'building' within the meaning of section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U.P. Act I of 1951). 2. The respondents are the owners of a brick kiln located on the two plots nos. 596 and 597 in Mauza Sarwat, Pargana and District Muzaffarnagar. They leased out the brick kiln to the appellant under a registered lease deed dated December 29, 1950. The lease was to take effect from January 1, 1951 and terminate on September 30, 1953. The rent was fixed at Rs. 41 per mensem payable annually in the month of October. The rent for the period October 1, 1952 to September 30, 1953 remained due against the appellant. The respondents filed a suit (no. 1125 of 1953) in the Court of Munsif Muzaffarnagar for the recovery of Rs. 492 being arrears of rent from October 1, 195...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1977; [1966]3SCR863
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the decree of the Punjab High Court in a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for pre-emption. The appellants are vendees to the sale which was pre-empted. The facts found by the courts below are these. The property in suit consisted of agricultural land as well as some baras in village Jalalpur. Punnu Singh and Mansha Singh who were also parties to the suit as defendants sold the property in suit on January 15, 1955 to the appellants. Thereafter consolidation proceedings took place in this village and came to an end before the present suit was filed on January 14, 1956. Of the vendees, six had no share in the village from before while four already had some share in the village. As a result of the consolidation proceedings, six of the vendees who had no share in the village from before were allotted other land in place of the land which they had purchased under the sale-deed. The other four vendees who had some share in the v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1824; [1966]3SCR868
Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore in Civil Revision Petition No. 1044 of 1962, filed under section 17 of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951 (Mysore Act 30 of 1951) - hereinafter referred to as the Act - whereby the High Court set aside the order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Bangalore. The III Additional Judge had set aside the order of the First Munsiff, Bangalore, who had directed the eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute. 2. The appellant before us, Padmanabha Setty, hereinafter referred to as the tenant, was the tenant of a non-residential premises No. 281, Old Tharagupet, Bangalore City. The tenant had installed some machinery in the premises. The respondent, K. P. Papiah Setty, is the landlord. He had purchased the premises for his own use and occupation, namely, for the purpose of shifting his business which he was carrying on in a rented building to the premi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1899; 1967(0)BLJR59; [1967]37CompCas42(SC); [1966]3SCR856
Subba Rao, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Punjab High Court confirming that of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi, striking out the defence of the appellant under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter called the Code. 2. Kanhaya Lal Bhargava, the 1st respondent, filed a suit on April 27, 1962, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi, against Messrs. Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills Private Limited, the appellant, and one Ram Sarup for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 45,112.94. Pending the suit, on October 27, 1964, the 1st respondent filed an application in the said Court under order XI, rule 21, of the Code, read with order XXIX, rule 3, thereof, for striking off the defence or in the alternative for directing Jugal Kishore, a director of the Appellant-company, to appear in court on December 14, 1964. On December 3, 1964, the court made an order therein directing the said Jugal Kishore to be present in court on December...
Tag this Judgment!