Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC840
J.M. SHELAT, J.1. This appeal, founded on a certificate, is by the legal representatives of one Hazarimal Shah, since deceased, who, prior to his death, was carrying on business inter alia in electric goods in the name and style of J. Hazarimal and Co. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated September 17, 1962, of the Appellate Bench of the High Court of Madras which reversed the judgment of a Single Judge who heard the writ petition filed by the said Hazarimal and allowed it quashing an order of the Assistant Collector of Customs under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.2. The said Hazarimal had obtained from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports, Madras, a licence permitting him import of electric bulbs falling under Entry 38-A(f) of the Schedule of the Import Trade Control Policy Book, popularly known as the Red Book, for the period from July to December, 1956. The book was issued by the Government of India and contained Government's policy and directiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC246; (1970)1SCC575; [1970]3SCR846
J.C. Shah, J. 1. This appeal is filed with special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore setting aside the order dated January 20, 1969, of the Director of Food & Civil Supplies of the State of Mysore under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act 21 of 1958.2. The appellants established a rice mill many years ago in village Mudugoppa, District Shimoga, in the former Indian State of Mysore and carried on milling operations. The respondents--N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros.--established in 1963 a rice mill in village Kelandur at a distance of about 11/2 miles from the site of the appellant's mill. A notification under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued in March 1966 for compulsory acquisition of the land and buildings on the site of the appellants' rice mill for use in the Sharavathi Hydro-Electric Project. In October 1967 an award acquiring the land and buildings was made. The award expressly recited that the appellants were entitled to remove the machinery of the ric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1021; (1971)73BOMLR510; 1971MhLJ81(SC); (1970)1SCC582; [1970]3SCR854
J.C. Shah, J. 1. The High Court of Bombay dismissed in limine a petition filed by the Century Spinning & . hereinafter called 'the Company'--for the issue of a writ restraining the respondent Municipality from enforcing the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act 40 of 1965 relating to the levy, assessment, collection recovery of octroi and in particular Section 105 and Sections 136 to 144 thereof, and from enforcing the Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1967, and from acting upon resolutions passed by the Municipal Council dated September 9, 1968 and September 13, 1968, and from levying, assessing, collecting, recovering or taking any other step under the Act, rules or the resolutions, and for an order restraining the Municipality of Ulhasnagar from levying, assessing, collecting any octroi on the goods imported by the Company within the limits of the Municipal Council for a period of 7 years from the date of its first imposition. With special leave, the Company has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC943
J.C. Shah, J.1. Special Leave to appeal is granted. Printing dispensed with. Mr. Setalvad, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 waives notice.The appeal is heard by us.2. The Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, framed charges against the first respondent under Section 406 I.P.C. in Case No. G/1023 of 1967 filed in his Court. Against that order a revision application was moved in the High Court of Calcutta, and it was prayed that the order framing the charge be quashed. Eight grounds were set up in support of the petition. The first ground was that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint for it was alleged that all the ingredients which constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust had, even on the allegations made by the appellant, taken place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Presidency Magistrate. We are informed at the Bar that this objection was raised before the Presidency Magistrate, 5th Court, who was asked...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1971(21)FLR159]; 1973LabIC87; (1970)IILLJ306SC; (1970)3SCC67
G.K. Mitter, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant challenges the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it and also contends that the finding of that court that there was a closure of the appellant's factory in the circumstances of the case was a perverse one which ought not to be upheld. The third and the last submission put forward was that the Labour Court had gone wrong in its interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as they stood at the time of the reference.2. The amount in stake in this appeal is quite an insignificant one but the appeal has been brought as a test case for a number of other similar disputes.3. The appellant is a partnership firm carrying on the manufacture and sale of bidis at various places in the Vidarbha region of the State of Maharashtra and other places including Nagpur. It employed 4000 men in its factories. On the issue of a notification by the Government of Bombay dated Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC42
I.D. DUA, J.1. In this appeal special leave was granted by this Court only on the question of the legality of the sanction for the appellant's prosecution. It is, therefore, unnecessary to narrate the facts in detail and only broad features of the case essential for our present purpose may be stated.2. The appellant who had been appointed as a Patwari, by order, dated October 23, 1937, and had taken charge of that office on April 14, 1937, was confirmed as such on April 31, 1943. It is not disputed that he was so appointed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. He was tried and convicted on September 27, 1968, by the Special Judge, Bhandara (Shri V.V. Joshi), for an offence punishable under Section 161 IPC, and also under Section 5(2), read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act 2 of 1947). The allegation against him was that he had accepted from the complainant a sum of Rs 25 as illegal gratification on January 17, 1967, for the purpose of effecting a mutation in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC803
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant, U.P. State Sugar Corporation entered into an agreement dated 2-8-1989 with the respondent, M/s Sumac International Pvt. Ltd. under which the respondent agreed to design, to prepare an engineering layout and to manufacture or procure and supply to the appellant the machinery and equipment for a complete sugar plant for extension and modernisation of the appellant's existing sugar plant at Rohana Kalan, District Muzaffarnagar, U.P. The respondent was required to set up a new plant of 2500 TCD at a new site or an adjoining site close to the existing sugar plant of the appellant. The total contract price was fixed under clause 2.1 of the contract at Rs 1780 lakhs.3. Under the terms of the agreement the respondent was required to set up the plant and make it ready for commercial production by 30-11-1990. The agreement stated that in this regard time was the essence of the contract and if the respondent failed to do so the consequences ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)2SCC290
V. BHARGAVA, J.1. The respondent in this appeal, who was the landlord of a building in Tiruchirapalli, filed an application under Section 10(2) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for eviction of the 1st appellant who was his tenant, on the following four grounds—(1) that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent;(2) that the tenant had sub-let a part of the building without the consent of the landlord;(3) that the tenant had used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased; and(4) that the tenant had caused material damage to the building”.2. The Rent Controller, before whom the application for eviction was filed, dismissed the application holding on all the four grounds in favour of the tenant and against the landlord. An appeal before the Appellate Authority empowered under Section 23 of the Act was also unsuccessful. Before that authority, the ground w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC958
S.M. SIKRI, J.1.This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab dismissing in limine the second appeal filed by Mst Mahli, plaintiff, now appellant before us, against the decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge (with enhanced appellate powers), dismissing the first appeal from the order and decree of the Subordinate Judge, III Class, Rohtak, filed by the plaintiff and accepting the appeal filed by the respondents. The trial court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession of 1/9th share of the land in dispute.2. In order to appreciate the points debated before us it is necessary to set out the pedigree table and a few facts.Nota Shiv Lal Chandgi Bhagwani widowDefendant 3 Ram Sarup Mst Mahliplaintiff daughter PhoolmatiDefendant 5 daughter ChhotuDefendant 4 daughter Hoshiar SinghDefendant 3 Ranbir SinghDefendant 13. Chandgi owned fair amount of land in village Asan, Tehsil and District Rohtak. He was Jat by caste and governed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2361; (1970)1SCC566; [1970]3SCR815
J.C. Shah, J. 1. A common question arises in these two appeals, and we will therefore dispose it of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant is the owner of a house at Shamli in District Muzaffarnagar in U.P., and the respondent is the tenant of that house. The appellant applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to file a suit for a decree in ejectment against the respondent. By order dated June 4, 1965, that Officer granted the permission, holding that the need of the appellant 'to occupy the premises was bona fide and genuine'. This order was confirmed in a revision application by the Additional Commissioner. The appellant then terminated the tenancy of the respondent in respect of the premises by a notice as required by law and filed two suits in the Court of the Munsif, Kairana, for ejectment and for payment of arrears of rent. The Trial Court decreed the suits holding that the pe...
Tag this Judgment!