Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC986; 1967CriLJ946; [1967]1SCR138
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Madras High Court dated July 16, 1963 in Criminal Revision Case No. 1139 of 1961. 2. The appellant was charged for having committed offences under s. 420, Indian Penal Code and s. 21(d) and (e) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (Act 74 of 1952), hereinafter called the 'Act', with regard to certain transactions between the appellant and P.W. 2, Rajam. The appellant was convicted of all the charges and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under s. 420, Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 100/- under each of clauses (d) and (e) of s. 21 of the Act by the District Magistrate, Kumbakonam. He further directed that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- out of the said fine should be paid to P.W. 2. On appeal, the convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur. The appellant took the matter in revision to the Madras High Court but the revision ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1078; (1967)69BOMLR138; (1966)0GLR1061; 1967MhLJ104(SC); [1967]1SCR135
Bachawat, J. 1. The question arising in this appeal by special leave is whether in a case falling under sub s. (3)(a) of s. 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act No. 57 of 1947), a tenant can claim protection from eviction by showing his readiness and willingness to pay the arrears of rent before the date of the institution of the suit. The appellant's husband was a tenant of a flat. The rent was in arrears for a period of more than six months. On December 22, 1956, the landlord served a notice on the tenant demanding the rent. The tenant neglected to pay the rent within one month of the notice. On January 11, 1957, he died. On February 4, 1957, the appellant sent the arrears of rent to the landlord by money order, but the landlord refused to accept the payment. On February 5, 1957, the landlord instituted the present suit for eviction of the appellant. The trial Court decreed the suit. The appellant filed a revision application before the Bombay ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1074; [1967]1SCR120
Subba Rao, C.J. 1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated. By a registered sale deed dated December 10, 1958, the appellants purchased the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 158 and 182/2 situated in village Sangaria in Tehsil Hanumangarh in the State of Rajasthan. On February 14, 1957, the Government of Rajasthan published a notification No. 7 (104) Rev/(A) dated October 19, 1956, under s. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, hereinafter called the Act, to the effect that the said land, along with others, was needed or likely to be needed for the public purpose of laying township and orchards. On January 9, 1958, another notification was published in the Rajasthan Gazette under s. 5(2) of the Act. On February 3, 1959, a further notification under s. 6 of the Act was published in the Rajastha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1071; [1967]1SCR128
Shelat, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Mysore quashing the memorandum dated July 4, 1963 whereby the State Government terminated the service of the respondent. The only question arising in this appeal is one of interpretation of the Government Order No. GAD 46 SRR, dated September 22, 1961. 2. The respondent entered government service as an officiating Computer in the Government Press on March 11, 1958 and continued in that post until September 1, 1958. He was thereafter appointed from time to time in officiating capacity in different posts though in the same department until December 3, 1959 when he was appointed as a proof examiner. He continued in that post until February 28, 1961. According to the appellants there was break in his service on March 1, 1961 as his service was terminated on February 28, 1961 and he was once again appointed on March 2, 1961 as a second division clerk (Industrial). He continued in that post until...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1742; (1967)69BOMLR133; [1967]1SCR110
Shelat, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the Judgment and order of the High Court of Maharashtra dismissing the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The question arising in the appeal is whether the Assistant Charity Commissioner appointed under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 as extended to the area of Vidharbha has jurisdiction to hold an inquiry under section 19 of that Act in spite of a previous finding by the Registrar under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 30 of 1951 that the trust in question was not a public trust within the meaning of the latter Act. The facts leading to the writ petition may briefly be set out. 2. In October 1953, one Jaferbhai claiming to be a beneficiary applied under s. 5 of the M.P. Act to the Registrar that the trust known as Mehdibaug founded in Nagpur in 1891 and its properties which were and are admittedly in possession of and managed by the appellant was a public trust. As required by section 5(2) of that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1030; 1967(0)BLJR353; 1967MhLJ181(SC); [1967]1SCR105
Bachawat, J.1. The appellant and the respondent entered into three contracts whereby the appellant agreed to buy and the respondent agreed to sell 352 bales of cloth. Originally, the contracts provided for delivery of the goods in May/June, 1948. The parties subsequently agreed that part of the goods would be delivered in June, 1948 and the balance goods would be delivered in July, 1948. The dispute between the parties concerns an item of 176 bales and another item of 46 1/2 bales. The respondent claimed from the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,72,856/- made up of (1) Rs. 84,006/2/- for loss in respect of 176 bales resold by the respondent with the consent of the appellant and (2) Rs. 88,849/14/- for the balance of the price of 46 1/2 bales bargained and sold but not taken delivery of by the appellant. On February 6, 1950, the respondent instituted against the appellant Civil Suit No. 10-A of 1950 in the Court of the District Judge, Indore claiming the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,72,856/-, interes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1124; 1967(0)BLJR513; [1967]1SCR93
Shah, J.1. This appeal with certificate under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution arises out of suit No. 17 of 1942 of the file of Subordinate Judge, Purnea, filed by Bijendra Narain son of Ishwari Narain against Mode Narain, Hari Narain and Rajballav Narain, sons of Bidya Narain, and others for a decree for partition and separate possession of a half share in the properties described in schedules A, B & C to the plaint. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and in appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Patna the decree was confirmed with a slight modification. The defendants in the suit have appealed to this Court. 2. One Mankishun had four sons : Talebar, Indra Narain, Chandra Narain and Shyam Narain. Talebar had two sons Hanuman and Raghu Nandan. Hanuman died leaving him surviving no lineal descendant and Raghu Nandan adopted Udit Narain - grandson of his uncle Shyam Narain. In 1923 Udit Narain and the sons of Shyam Narain instituted suit No. 27 of 1923 in the court of the Subor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1967(14)FLR386]; (1967)ILLJ412SC; [1967]1SCR77
Subba Rao, C.J. 1. These appeals - the former by certificate and the latter by special leave - raise the question of the scope of the field of recruitment to the cadre of District Judges. 2. The facts may be briefly stated. During the years 1961 and 1962, the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court called for applications for recruitment to ten vacancies in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service from Barristers, Advocates, Vakils and Pleaders of more than seven years' standing and from 'judicial officers'. The expression 'judicial officers' is a euphemism for the members of the Executive department who discharge some revenue and magisterial duties. The Selection Committee constituted under the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, hereinafter called the Rules, in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules, selected six candidates from the said applicants as persons suitable for appointment to the said service. Respondents 2 to 7 are the candidates so selected by the said Committee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC691; [1966]36CompCas901(SC); (1966)IILLJ546SC; [1967]1SCR15
ORDER95. In accordance with the opinion of the majority, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Industrial Tribunal set aside. The writ petitions are allowed in part and Section 33, 34(2) and 37 are declared ultra vires. There will be no order as to costs in all these proceedings. G.C. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC727b; [1967]1SCR68
Bachawat, J.1. Murari Lal is the manager of a joint family consisting of himself and his son, Faqir Chand. On June 7, 1949, he borrowed Rs. 75,000 from Sardarni Harnam Kaur, and by a registered deed of the same date, he mortgaged an immovable property for securing repayments of the loan. The mortgaged property belongs to the joint family. By a covenant in the mortgage deed, Murati Lal bound himself to repay the loan. Part of the loan was borrowed by Murari Lal for discharging an antecedent mortgage debt. On July 4, 1952, Harnam Kaur instituted Suit No. 219 of 1952 against Murari Lal claiming the usual preliminary decree for sale of the property. On March 13, 1953, Faqir Chand instituted the present suit against Harnam Kaur and also Murari Lal claiming a declaration that the mortgage deed was for immoral and illegal purposes and without legal necessity and was not binding on him and for consequential reliefs. On April 20, 1953, Harnam Kaur obtained a preliminary decree for sale in Suit ...
Tag this Judgment!