Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2346; 1971CriLJ1556; 1970(0)KLT23(SC); (1970)2SCC71; [1971]1SCR166
J.C. Shah, J.1. The petitioners who are traders in foodgrains, edible oils, and other articles of food, challenge the validity of Section 7 read with Section 2(v) and 2(ix), and Section 19, Section 2(i) and Section 10 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 37 of 1954 and the rules framed thereunder. They claim that by the Act and the rules the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 20(3) of the Constitution are infringed.2. The Parliament, with a view to control adulteration and misbranding of articles of food, enacted the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The petitioners concede that they do not claim a fundamental right to carry on business in adulterated or misbranded foodstuffs : they claim that they are honest traders, and do not resort to any malpractice, still in carrying on their business in foodstuffs they are, by the Act, subjected to restrictions which are not reasonable. They contend that the Act presumes every trader...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1354; (1970)2SCC13; [1971]1SCR153
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 2 1 21 and 2122 of 1969.Appeals from the judgment and order dated July 18, 1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W. P. Nos. 464 and 602 of 1965.D. Narasaraju, A. Subba Rao and K. R. Sharma, for the appel- lant (in both the appeals)M. C. Setalvad P. Parameswara Rao, V. Rajagopal Reddy, S, L. Setia and K. C. Dua, for respondent No. 1 (in both the appeals).V. A. seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 2 (in both the appeals).156P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (in C.A. No. 2121 of 1969) and respondent No. 3 (in C.A. No. 2122 of 1969).The Judgment of HEGDE and GROVER, JJ. was delivered by HEGDE, J. SHAH, J. delivered a dissenting opinion : Shah, J. I agree that Appeal No. 2122 of 1969 must be dismissed. I also agree that if the states to dispose of the application for grant of a mining lease within the time prescribed by the rules, the failure,results in refusal to grant the lease. The High Court was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1887; (1971)73BOMLR903; (1970)1SCC685; [1971]1SCR146
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal by special leave, appears to have been brought as a test case. It arises from one of the 116 cross-objections filed in an appeal brought by the Special Deputy Collector, Ahmednagar to the High Court of Maharashtra, under Section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Act 30 of 1952) (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an award made by the arbitrator under Section 8(1) of that Act. The controversy in this appeal is as to the relevant provision of the Bombay Court Fee Act, 1959 under which the court-fee is payable on the claim made in the memorandum of cross-objection. According to the appellant on the claim in question a fixed court-fee of Rs. 5 is payable under Article 13 of Seh. II of the Bombay Court-Fee Act, 1959 but according to the State ad valorem court-fee is payable on that claim in question either under Article 1 or Article 3 of Schedule I of that Act. The High Court has come to the conclusion that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC945
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.— 1. In February and March 1964, the appellant Raja Ram was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Rohtak. He was committed to the Court of Sessions, Rohtak, for trial under Sections 331 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted of the charge under Section 331 but was convicted under Section 342 IPC and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed and he has now appealed to this Court by special leave. The charge against him read as follows: “I, K.S. Sindhu, Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak, hereby charge you Raja Ram son of Charan Dass as follows: Firstly, that you on or about in the month of March, 1964 at C.I.A. Police post, Jhajjar, while investigating a theft case in F.I.R. No. 2 of 1964 of P.S. Sampla, as A.S.I. Police voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Ranbir Singh, a minor son of Lakshmi Dutt for the purpose of extorting from Lakshmi Dutt a person interested in the said Ranbir Singh as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC914
A.N. RAY, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, dated August 25, 1967.2. The appellants are Mohan and Ranbir, two brothers and Ram Singh the father-in-law of Mohan. They were convicted under Section 326, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to four years1 rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 400 each and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were also convicted under Section 325, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years1 rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 200 each and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were further convicted under Sections 324 and 323, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and on the former offence sentenced to two years1 rigorous imprisonment while on the latter offence to six months1 rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1514; 1970CriLJ1391; (1970)1SCC724; [1971]1SCR138
I.D. Dua, J.1. The four appellants in these three appeals by special leave were tried in the court of the Special Judge for Greater Bombay on a charge of conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B, I.P.C. Accused No. 1 (Shiv Kumar Lokumal Bhatia) was a godown clerk; accused No. 2 (Hargun Sunderdas Godeja) was the Senior Godown Keeper and accused No. 3 (Hundraj Harchomal Mangtani) was the Godown Superintendent at the General Motors Godown at T-Shed, Sewri, Bombay, belonging to the Food Department of the Government of India. Accused No. 4 (Shankar Maruthi Phadtare) was a driver of Truck No. 2411. The allegation against them was that all these accused during the month of July, 1963 were parties to criminal conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of 1060 bags of red wheat which were released from the ship S. S. Hudson on July 7, 1963 at Bombay for storing them in the G-M.2 Godown at Sewri. In pursuance of this conspiracy, it was alleged, they had dishonestly and fraudulentl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC905
I.D. DUA, J.1. This is an appeal by three appellants with special leave from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated September 5, 1967. Originally five persons Rama Shanker Lal, Sukh Bhanjan Lal, Smt Krishna Devi, Harkho and Radha Krishna were jointly tried in the Court of the Second Assistant Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. Rama Shanker Lal and Sukh Bhanjan Lal were charged under Sections 120-B(1), 420, 468 and 471 IPC; Smt Krishna Devi under Sections 420 and 471 read with Section 120-B(1) IPC and Harkho and Hadha Krishna under Sections 468 and 120-B(1) IPC. The broad allegations giving rise to this case may be stated.2. Civil litigation had been going on for a long time between Brij Lal Mathur, father of Vishnu Pad Mathur (PW 1) and his distant collateral Bhimal Lal Mathur, father of Rama Shankar Lal and Sukh Bhanjan Lal relating to a grove and some agricultural land. On the death of Brij Lal Mathur in the year 1959 his son Vishnu Pad Mathur, who is stated to be a law graduate, desi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC972
1.This appeal by certificate arises from consolidation proceedings regarding Khata No. 24 in Village Keoli Khurd, Tehsil Khurja District Bullandshahr. The appellant contended in the said proceedings that he was a co-tenant with respondents Jyoti Prasad and Sonpal and therefore he is entitled to half share in the property included in Khata No. 24. Jyoti Prasad and Sonpal denied his claim. The Consolidation Officer accepted the claim made by the appellant. Jyoti Prasad and Sonpal appealed against that order to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Rampur. He dismissed that appeal. As against that order, Jyoti Prasad and Sonpal went up in revision to the Dy. Director of Consolidation, U.P. The revision petition was fixed for hearing on May 12, 1967. On that day the appellant's counsel moved an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation seeking an adjournment of the case firstly on the ground that the appellant was ill and secondly on the allegation that the petitioners' Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC810
A.N. GROVER, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment and decree of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The suit out of which the appeal arises relates to the properties which originally belonged to Nawab Zainulabud Din Khan, a retired Revenue Officer, who died at Hyderabad on December 18, 1953. The following pedigree table will be helpful in understanding the relationship between the parties:Hazarath Maroof Ali Shah Qadri Mir Dawur Ali Khan Syed Hydayat Mohiuddin Khan Nawab Zainulabudin Khan Daughter Daughter Syed Pusha Mohiuddin Khan Syed Muzaffuruddin Khan (Adopted son of Nawab Zainulabudin Khan (Defendant 3) Syed Gulam Das Tagir Khan (Defendant 5) Syed Qadar Ali Khan (Defendant 6) Mir Dawar Ali Khan (in whose favour Somajiguda house was gifted (Defendant 4) Asmutunisa Begam Mehrunissa Begum Khaderunissa Begum (daughter of Mehrunnissa Begam (Defendant No. 1) Syed Arifuddin Plaintiff (son of Mehrunnissa Begam) born 19492. In 1954 Syed Arifuddin who claimed to be the son of Sy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC796
K.S. HEGDE, J.1. The second respondent in this appeal is the owner of a premises in the city of Kanpur. The appellant is occupying that premises as a tenant. On August 6, 1962, Respondent 2 applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, under Section 3 of the UP Rent Control and Eviction Act, for permission to file a suit in the civil court for eviction of the appellant from the premises primarily on the ground that the said premises is required for starting dry-cleaning business by his son. The Rent Controller after holding the necessary enquiry granted the permission asked for but in revision the Commissioner reversed the order of the Rent Controller and rejected the application of Respondent 2. Thereafter Respondent 2 took the matter in revision to the State Government under Section 7(F) of the UP Rent Control and Eviction Act. The State Government after giving an opportunity to the parties to represent their case reversed the order of the Commissioner and restored that o...
Tag this Judgment!