Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC61
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The only question that arises for decision in this appeal by special leave is whether the Union of India failed to conform to the principles of natural justice while disposing the representation of the appellant made under Section 9(2) of the Citixenship Act, 1955 read with Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules, 1050.2. According to the appellant, he was born at Hapur in Meerut District. He was domiciled in that city. In 1949, while he was 15 years' of age, he came to live with his sister at Delhi. He continued to live at Delhi till March, 1950. In that month there was an outbreak of serious communal disturbances all over Northern India. His sister's family being panic stricken left for Pakistan. They took the appellant who was a minor at that time to Pakistan. But his parents continued to live in India. After sometime the appellant was desirous of coming back to India but he was unable to get the necessary permit. Under these circumstances he applied for and obtained a Pak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1492; 1970CriLJ1389; (1970)3SCC46
A.N. Ray, J.1.This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court at Patna dated 28 February, 1967 allowing the appeal in part by acquitting Earn Rattan Singh, Sheo Pujan Singh and Ram Nagina Singh and acquitting the remaining accused of the charge under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and dismissing the appeal by upholding the conviction of those remaining accused under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and of the appellant and accused Manogi Singh under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and altering the sentence of death imposed on Raj ballam into one of rigorous imprison ment for life.2. The appellant and seven others are all Gwalas by caste and residents of village Rayapur situated at a distance of 5 miles from Maner Police-station in the District of Patna where the occurrence took place. The 8 accused belonged to three different families. The accused Sheo Pujan Singh and Rajballam are sons of the accused Manogi Singh. The appellant Sheo Mahade...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1536; (1970)3SCC446
J.C. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal filed with certificate granted by the High Court of Patna under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution, and that appears to be the only justification for the appeal to be on the file of this Court. 2. One Bideyanath Misir died many years ago leaving him surviving five sons - Makund, Mohan Lal, Basudeo, Ranu and Bouku. Mohan Lal relinquished his interest in the property of the joint family. Ranu died on November 9, 1913, leaving him surviving his wife Alikrani and no lineal descendants. After the death of Makund and Basudeo, Bouku and his sons and grandsons instituted, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga, an action for partition and separate possession of their share in the properties described in the Schedule to the plaint on the plea that the properties were of the joint ownership of the parties. The plaintiffs claimed a half share in the properties on alleging that they were entitled to a fourth share in the right of Bouku and another fou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1372; 1970CriLJ1266; (1970)1SCC590; [1970]3SCR913
A.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 26 May, 1967.2. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to three months simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default thereof a further simple imprisonment for three months.3. The case started on a complaint filed by Bishan Kaur on 23 October, 1963. The complaint was that the appellant Chaman Lal who was at that time President of Municipal Committee, Sujanpur in the District of Gurdaspur had made defamatory remarks against her character at a public meeting held at Sujanpur on 29 July, 1962 and that he further wrote a letter on 2 August, 1962 to the Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur which contained defamatory statements against her character and further that on 27 August, 1962 the appellant repeated those defamatory allegations before the Civil Surgeon.4. The appellant pleaded justification un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1539; 1971(0)BLJR4; (1970)1SCC628; [1970]3SCR903
J.C. Shah, J.1. Kanpur Sugar Works Ltd.--a public limited Company-is engaged in the business of manufacturing sugar in village Marhowrah, District Saran, in the State of Bihar. Prior to 1956 it possessed a considerable zamindari property. Under a notification issued in exercise of the power under the Bihar Land Reforms Act 30 of 1950 the entire zamindari vested in the State with effect from January 1, 1956. But by the provisions of the Act homestead lands and lands of the factory remained in the occupation of the Company. The Circle Officer commenced a rent assessment proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms Act for determining the rent payable by the Company. The Company claimed to classify lands in its occupation under three heads: (i) 12 bighas 9 kathas 7 dhurs on which the factory buildings stood, and on that account assessable to rent under Section 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950; (ii) 50 bighas 3 kathas 13 dhurs of cultivable land under Khas cultivation of the Company liable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC977; (1971)73BOMLR521; 1970CriLJ891; (1970)1SCC547; [1970]3SCR909
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 5 December, 1966 dismissing in limine the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 16 August, 1966 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sholapur. The High Court by an order dated 3 April, 1967 also refused leave to appeal to this Court.2. The appellant was accused No. 1. He was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.3. Broadly stated, the charge against the appellant was that he in conspiracy with his brother, accused No. 2 committed murder of Revansidhappa Shivappa Patil and Mahadeo Sidran Patil. The defence of both the appellant and his brother was one of total denial.4. The right to prefer an appeal from sentence of Court of Sessions is conferred by Section 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The right to appeal is one both on a matter of fact and a matter of law. It is only in cases where there is a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1350; [1970]40CompCas1128(SC); (1970)3SCC65
K.S. Hedge, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave. It arises from the decision of the appellate bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 113 of 1969 on its file. That appeal was directed against the order made by Kantawala, J. in Company Petition No. 100 of 1969, a petition made by the Registrar of the Companies under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up the appellant Company. The winding up application was filed by the Registrar on August 8, 1969. In that petition notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why the petition should not be admitted and advertised. The petition was posted for hearing on September 8, 1969. The notice issued was served on the appellant on September 1, 1969. On the date of the hearing the appellant appeared through an advocate and asked for an adjournment of the proceedings. That prayer was rejected and thereafter the Company Judge passed the following Order:Mr. Chagla for Company applies for adjournment with a view to approach t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC981; 1970MPLJ544(SC); (1970)3SCC281
J.C. Shah, J. 1. Nemi Chand Jain-hereinafter called 'the plaintiff-is the owner of five tenement in the town of Jabalpur and B.C. Kame- hereinafter called the defendant' is the tenant of those tenements under distinct tenancy agreement. After determining the tenancies by a notice, the plaintiff instituted five suits in the Court of the Civil judge, Second Glass, Jabalpur, for orders in ejectment against the defendant in respect of the five tenancies, on the plea that the defendant had failed and neglected to pay the rent for a period exceeding three years. The summonses in the suits were served upon the defendant on May 6, 1963. The Court re-opened after the summer recess on June 10, 1963, and the defendant deposited in Court on June 11, 1963 Rs. 1,841 being the amount of rent and other dues for 88 months. The deposit was not supported by an application by the defendant for extension of time or for condonation of delay in making the deposit. The defendant also did not continue thereaft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1376; 1970LabIC1163; (1970)1SCC619; [1970]3SCR878
Hidayatullah C.J. 1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, December 21 1966 dismissing a petition under Article 32(2-A) of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution filed by the petitioner/appellant G.R. Baqual for certain reliefs on the ground that he has been discriminated against and punished without recourse to statutory provisions and procedure. The facts of the case are as follows:The appellant who is a Graduate of the Punjab University entered the Secretariat service of the Jammu & Kashmir State on November 8 1946 as a clerk. Later he was promoted as Superintendent on September 26, 1957 and was holding a grade of Rs. 150-15-300 (revised 200-20-300-25-400). He was then appointed as Personal Assistant in gazetted rank in the grade of Rs. 200-400 (revised 250-25-350-30-500) and became P.A. to the Chairman of the Legislative Council by his order dated October 23, 1959. The appellant was then transferred to the Civil Secretariat as an Under-Secretar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1971(0)BLJR251; (1970)1SCC587; [1970]3SCR899
Hidayatullah, C. J. 1. On May 28, 1966, Bhola Prasad Mandal, Supply inspector Pathargama with other officers searched a godown belonging to Nagarmal Tekriwal (appellant) and found stored therein 45 quintals of rice, 90 quintals of paddy, 5-50 quintals of grains, 3 quintals of wheat, one quintal Arhar and 207 quintals of Khesari together with weighing scale and weights and measures. As Nagarmal did not possess a licence under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealer's Licensing Order, 1966, he was prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of Clause 3 of the order. He was convicted by the Munsif Magistrate, First Class and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The foodgrains found in his possession were also ordered to be forfeited to the State. He appealed unsuccessfully to the Sessions Judge, Santhal Parganas. Dumka and his revision in the High Court was summarily dismissed. He now appeals by special leave granted by this Court.2. The defence of ...
Tag this Judgment!