Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1080; [1967]1SCR207
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Assam High Court and arises in the following circumstances. The appellant had obtained a money decree against Thakur Prosad Joyaswal and others in 1947. As the decree remained unsatisfied it was transferred from Calcutta to Gauhati for execution. On May 2, 1953, an application was made for execution in the court at Gauhati by attachment under O. XXI, r. 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure of certain movable property of the judgment-debtors which was said to be in the possession of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Military Engineering Service, Pandu. Consequently an order was issued under O. XXI r. 46(1)(c)(iii) prohibiting the Sub-Divisional Officer from parting with the property of the judgment-debtors. It may be mentioned that the Sub-Divisional Officer is subordinate to the Garrison Engineer, Shillong. Though certain applications were put in on behalf of the Sub-Divisional Officer before the court, it was only on February 1, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC752; 1967CriLJ656; (1967)69PLR107; [1967]1SCR211
Bhargava, J.1. These six appeals, filed on the basis of certificates granted by the High Court of Punjab, arise out of a single judgment of that Court, and consequently, they have been heard together. Two of the appeals Nos. 150 & 151 of 1962 have been brought up by Bakhshish Singh Dhaliwal (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') against his convictions on three different charges of cheating under s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code which were upheld by the High Court. The remaining four appeals Nos. 196-199 of 1962 have been filed by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of the appellant in respect of offences of cheating on some other counts recorded by the High Court. 2. There were all together four trials before a Special Tribunal originally constituted under Ordinance 29 of 1943. In these four trials, the appellant was charged for having committed ten different offences of cheating by making representations to the Government of Burma and obtaining payments of money to the ext...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC776; 1967CriLJ665; [1967]1SCR201
Ramaswami, J.Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1964 : 1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Madras High Court dated December 3, 1963 in Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 1961 by which the appellant was convicted under s. 409, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The appellant was elected President of the Narinjipet Panchayat Board on May 17, 1958. At that time he was duly elected member of the Board. It appears that a sum of Rs. 4,000 of the Board had been invested in four National Plan Savings Certificates in the Bhavani Post Office. It was alleged that the appellant cashed them on February 11, 1959 and did not bring the amount in the account books of the Panchayat Board. The defence of the appellant was that he signed the certificates and handed them over to P.W. 4, the Deputy Panchayat Officer of the block within which the village was located. This was done by the appellant because P.W. 4 approached him and asked him that the Bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1140; [1967]1SCR181
Subba Rao, C.J.1. This appeal by special leave raises the question, whether the land described as 'Vantari Muttah' in Talluru village was included in the assets of Jaggampeta A and D Zamindari estates, in Peddapuram taluk, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, at the time of the Permanent Settlement. 2. The undisputed facts may be briefly narrated. The said Muttah comprises an area of 50 puttis, i.e. about 400 acres, and five tanks are situate therein. The said Muttah was granted to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants and respondents 2 to 5 long before the Permanent Settlement in consideration of payment of Kuttubadi of a sum of Rs. 620/-. At the time of Inam Settlement, it was not enfranchised by the Government. After the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948 was passed, on September 22, 1952, by a notification issued thereunder, the Government took over the Jaggampeta Estate. In April 1953, when the appellants and respondents 2 to 5 trie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1118; 1967(0)BLJR189; [1966]36CompCas866(SC); [1967]1SCR190
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 606 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 5, 1964 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 362 of 1959. P. K. Chatterjee, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. The Judgment of WANCHOO and SHAH, JJ. was delivered by WANCHOO, J. BACHAWAT, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. Wanchoo, J. Two questions of law arise in this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Patna High Court. The facts which have been found by the High Court and which are necessary for our purposes may be briefly narrated. The appellant was the defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note for Rs. 10,000 executed on February 4, 1954 by the defendant-appellant in favour of the plaintiff- respondent. 12 per cent per, annum interest was to run on the promissory note which was payable on demand or to the order of the plaintiff-respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1036; (1967)0GLR260; [1967]1SCR174
Shelat, J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat quashing the order of suspension of a licence for sale of cinema tickets passed by the first appellant on February 28, 1961. 2. At all material times the respondent was carrying on and still carries on the business of exhibiting cinematographic picture at Lakshmi Talkies in Ahmedabad and had obtained for that purpose a licence for sale of tickets which was valid upto December 31, 1960. On an allegation that through his manager and other employees he was indulging in sale of tickets contrary to the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 framed under the Bombay Cinema (Regulation) Act, XX of 1953 a notice dated June 14, 1960 was served upon him to show cause why the said licence should not be suspended. On an inquiry having been held by the first appellant, that officer passed the impeached order suspending the said licence for a period of two months from the date of service of the order. B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1196; [1966]1SCR167
Subba Rao, C.J. 1. This appeal by special leave raises the question of the construction of some of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59 of 1958), hereinafter called the Act. 2. Appellant - 1st defendant is the owner of premises No. 6022, Gali Mandir Wali, Arya Samaj, Delhi. Ram Saran Das, respondent No. 2 herein, was the tenant of the appellant in respect of the said premises and Ram Kishan Das, respondent No. 1 herein, was a sub-tenant. On January 30, 1959 the appellant obtained a decree for ejectment against the 2nd respondent from the court of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi. To that suit the 1st respondent, the sub-tenant, was not made a party. When that decree was sought to be executed against the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent obstructed delivery of possession of the premises on the ground that he, as a sub-tenant, had become a tenant under the provisions of the Act. The executing court rejected his claim. Thereafter, on May 22, 1962, the 1st respondent fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1204; [1967]1SCR162
Bachawat, J. 1. The only question arising in this certificate appeal is whether the will of Nursingdas Seal imposed any restriction on the power of the executrix appointed by the will to dispose of his immovable properties vested in her as the executrix. 2. Nursingdas Seal was the owner of garden land measuring 31 bighas and known as premises Nos. 26, 27 and 28, Dum Dum Cossipore Road, Ghooghoodanga. He died in December, 1888, leaving a will dated December 11, 1888 whereby he appointed his widow, Sukheswari, as the executrix and bequeathed his estate to Sukheswari for her natural life and thereafter to his son, Nilakantha absolutely by way of vested remainder. 3. On September 9, 1899 one Sewdas Mohata purchased the interest of Nilkantha in the garden lands at an auction sale held in execution of a decree passed in a suit to enforce a mortgage dated September 7, 1893 executed by Nilkantha. Nilkantha became an insolvent and his estate vested in the Official Assignee of Bengal. Sewdas's t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1134; 1967(0)BLJR278; [1967]1SCR153
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Patna High Court. A suit was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for a declaration, and in the alternative for possession, in respect of certain properties. It was prayed that a deed of gift executed on July 31, 1953 by Mst. Phuljhari Kuer in favour of the appellant Ramrati Kuer was not binding on the plaintiffs-respondents. Mst. Phuljhari Kuer was originally a defendant but died during the pendency of the suit. The case of the respondents was that the common ancestor of the parties Ramcharan Singh had three sons, namely, Ramruch, Uttim Narain and Basekhi Singh. After the death of Ramcharan Singh, his three sons separated in status though the properties were not divided by metes and bounds. Uttim Narain died sometime before 1900 leaving a widow Mst. Zira Kuer but no children, and Mst. Zira Kuer in her turn died in 1943. Ramruch had a son Basudeo Narain. According to the respondents, Basudeo Narain died during the life-ti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1193; 1967(0)BLJR487; [1967]1SCR147
Shah, J. 1. On July 25, 1958 the parties to this appeal were married under the Special Marriages Act 43 of 1954. There was a child of the marriage. Alleging that on November 10, 1959, his wife Veena - who will hereinafter be called 'the respondent' - had without reasonable cause deserted him and had failed to return and live with him in spite of repeated requests, the husband, M.P. Shreevastava - hereinafter called 'the appellant' - filed a petition in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi, for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. This petition was decreed ex parte on March 13, 1961. On May 21, 1961 the respondent returned to the residence of the appellant and offered to live with him. She also wrote letters to the appellant requesting him to allow her to go to his house and live with him as his wife, but the appellant refused to receive the letters. Attempts made through certain friends of the family to persuade the appellant to take the respondent back into the marital home ...
Tag this Judgment!