Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The petitioner herein is a displaced person from West Pakistan. After coming to India he occupied as tenant the entire first floor of the property No. XVI/1588 (Old)/ 1674 (new), situate in 35, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The ground floor of that building was originally occupied by another tenant by name, Hari Singh. According to the petitioner Hari Singh vacated the portion of the building which he was occupying some time in 1956. Thereafter some unauthorised persons were occupying the same. (2) 28th December, 1956, the petitioner applied for transfer of the building in question in his favour. The established facts are:- (1) He is a displaced person; (2) He has no verified claim; (3) He is the lawful occupant of a portion of the premises, mentioned earlier; (4) The other portions of the building are in possession of unlawful occupants, and (5) The premises in question is an acquired evacuee property, which is an allottable property. All the authorities below have rejec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1967]37CompCas667(SC)
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court and arises in the following circumstances. The respondent is the widow of Diwan Balkishan who died in April, 1949. Before his death he took out two life insurance policies, one on September 8, 1944, for Rs. 14,000 and the other on November 12, 1944, for Rs. 20,000. It is not in dispute that at the time when these policies were taken out Diwan Balkishan was medically examined and nothing wrong was found with him. It appears that the first policy lapsed in March, 1947, and the second in May, 1947. Diwan Balkishan applied for revival of the two policies in November, 1948, and they were revived some time thereafter. It may be noted that at the time of revival the Lakshmi Insurance Company Limited, with which the policies were taken, did not think it necessary to have Diwan Balkishan re-examined medically and it revived the policies without such re-examination. Diwan Balkishan died in April, 1949, and thereaf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1222; [1967(14)FLR362]; (1967)IILLJ18SC; [1967]2SCR520
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against an award dated December 21, 1963 in Industrial Dispute No. 28 of 1963 of the Industrial. Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad on special leave granted by this Court. 2. The dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal related to the question of payment of bonus for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62 demanded by the workers of Azam Jahi Mills, Warangal. The Tribunal found that there was an available surplus for the first year but none for the second. It directed payment of bonus of one week's wages to all the workmen over and above the two weeks bonus which the employers had agreed to pay irrespective of any profits made by the company. In appeal before us the appellants contend that as there was no available surplus, if properly quantified, the question of payment of bonus in addition to that for the two weeks already agreed upon, does not arise. It is to be noted that the parties had entered into a settlement on February 22, 1960 which was to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1967)IILLJ427SC; (1967)69PLR85; [1967]2SCR496
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and arises in the following circumstances. The appellant was in the service of the State of Madhya Pradesh as a District and Sessions Judge. He was born on August 22, 1908 and would in the normal course have retired on completing the age of 55 years in August 1963. But on February 28, 1963, the Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a memorandum to all the Collectors in the State. Copy of this memorandum was also sent to the Registrar, High Court as well as the Finance Department and the Accountant General. The relevant part of this memorandum is as follows :- 'The State Government have decided that the age of compulsory retirement of State Government's servants should be raised to 58 years subject to the following exceptions................... 2. . . . . .3. . . . . .4. . . . . .5. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing paragraphs, the appointing authority may require a Government se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Hegde, C.J.(1) This petition for awrit of. habeas-corpus was submitted by the petitioner Ram Rishi.Anal from Jail. At present, he is held in judicial custody in Central Jail, New' Delhi. He prays that he may be set at liberty as his detention, according to him, is an illlegal detention. (2) The petitioner was arrested on November 7,1966. He says that he was arrested when he was attending a public meeting organised by Gau Raksha Mahabhian Samiti near Parliament Street Police Station. His case is that at the time of his arrest, he was not informed as to the cause of his arrest nor was he produced before any Magistrate at any time, but yet he is continued to be detained. These acts of the respondents, according to him, amount to a contravention of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. (3) The application of the pentitioner came up before a bench of this Court on January 9, 1967. On that day, notice of the petition was order(4) - The respondents made their return on January 17, 1967. Sri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1226; [1967(15)FLR63]; (1967)ILLJ724SC; [1967]2SCR507
Vaidialingam, J.1. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, confirming the conviction, by the City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, of the appellant of an offence under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Act 63 of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act), for breach of section 63 of the said Act, and cancelling a rule issued by it to respondents 2 and 3, herein, to show cause against the order of discharge passed by the trial Court. 2. The appellant was the Manager of the Saranpur Cotton ., Mill No. 2. The Inspector of Factories, Ahmedabad, found, on a visit to the factory concerned, at 3 a.m. on May 26, 1961, certain workers actually working in the stamping department, at that time. According to the register of workers, maintained by the factory, in the form of attendance register, those workers belonged to Group II, Relay II. According to the notice of periods of work, displayed in the factory, the period of work for Group II, Relay II, was fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Hegde, J. (1) Civil Writ petitions Nos. 180-D to 186-D of 1959 are connected petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution In these petitions the petitioners pray that this Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the record in these cases, and declare the orders passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs on 4th June. 1956, the Central Board of Revenue on 25th September, 1957, and the Central Government on 12th January. !959, 'as illegal, perverse, arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction, and quash the same. (2) The only point for decision is whether the petitioners have been able to establish that the impugned orders suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record or, in the alternative, whether any of the authorities concerned failed to exercise its jurisdiction as required by law. (3) A heavy penalty was imposed on the petitioners on the ground that they imported into India chaff cutter knives without obtaini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1967]2SCR489
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated September 19, 1966 in Writ Petition No. 1253 of 1965. 2. At the last General Election to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly held in February 1962, the appellant and the 2nd respondent - P. Rajaratna Rao - were the contesting candidates for election from the Kodumuru constituency in Kurnool District. The result of the election was announced on February 25, 1962 and the appellant was declared to have been elected by a majority of about 7,000 votes. The second respondent thereafter filed an election petition (Election Petition No. 180 of 1962) under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951), hereinafter called the 'Act' calling in question the election of the appellant on the ground that various corrupt practices had been committed at the election and claiming a two-fold relief namely, that the election of the appellant should be declar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1182; [1967(15)FLR71]; (1967)IILLJ46SC; [1967]2SCR476
Bhargava, J. 1. The appellant in this appeal, brought up by special leave, is the Northern Railway Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') which is an Association of the employees of the Northern Railway at Jodhpur registered in 1920 under the Co-operative Societies Act. The Society had in its employment 10 or 11 persons including Kanraj Mehta, the Head Clerk, Madho Lal, the Accountant, and three other Clerks, A. C. Sharma, V. D. Sharma and G. S. Saxena. At a meeting of the Committee of Management held on 6th April, 1956, it was decided to hold the 36th and 37th Annual General Meeting of the Shareholders for the years 1953-54 and 1954-55 on 28th April, 1956, i.e., after a period of about 22 days. Thereafter, Kanraj Mehta, the Head Clerk, on 8th April 1956, applied for leave on medical grounds, having submitted a certificate from a registered Vaid. Initially, the application for leave was for four days, but, by subsequent applications, he con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1300
K.S. Hedge, C.J. (1) The petitioner herein is private limited company having its office at Homby Road, Bombay. It is the sole distributing agent in India of the products of Messrs Sawyer's Inc. Portland, U. S. A. During the years 1954 to 1956, it imported into India 35 consignments of view master stereoscopes, reels, etc. In the past also it was importing thsse articles. Prior to 1954 import duties were being levied on those articles on the basis of the price entered in the invoices. The consignments that came to India between the years 1954 to 1956 are detailed in Annexure D when items I an (2) Both the petitioner as well a? the authorities under the Act have proceeded on the basis that the refund claimed is one under section 40. The first question that falls for decision is whether section 40 is applicable to the facts of the present case. The marginal note to that section reads :- 'NOrefund of charges erroneously levied or paid, unless claimed within three months.'If the body of the...
Tag this Judgment!