Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC974; [1971]1SCR629
S.M. Sikri, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Kerala is directed against its judgment and decree reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissing the Suit of the original plaintiff, appellant before us. The relevant facts for determining the points raised before us by Mr. Chagla. learned Counsel for the appellant, are as follows.2. On December 5, 1931, the plaintiff executed a hypothecation bond in favour of the Travancore Government in respect of a loan of Rs. 6,000/-. On December 12.1931. another bond was executed in respect of a further loan of Rs. 4.400/-. On May 28, 1932, the plaintiff executed another hypothecation bond in favour of the father of Neelakama Iyer Subramonia Iyer respondent before us. In the Government gazettes dated February 21. 1939, and April 25, 1939, under paragraph 6 reference is made to the arrears of Rs. 4,193 chs. 19 ca. 9 plus interest under the special loan to be paid by Luka Mathai of Pallithanathu, Kottayam ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1781; (1970)2SCC350; [1971]1SCR626
A.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 19 November, 1963 of the High Court of Bombay dismissing the appellant defendant tenant's application for revision in a decree for eviction of the defendant.2. The appellant was tenant of the respondent. On 28 April, 1954 the appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act for fixation of standard rent. During the pendency of the application the respondent landlady served a notice on the appellant in the month of March, 1955 terminating the tenancy on the ground that the appellant had failed to pay rent from 1 March, 1954. On 25 April, 1955 a suit was filed for eviction of the appellant.3. During the pendency of the suit on 29 June, 1956, the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 55/7/- p.m. The contractual rent was Rs. 85/- p.m.4. When the suit came up for hearing on 5 October, 1956, it appeared that the appellant paid all the arrears of rent in accordance with the standard rent but did not pay the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1573; (1970)2SCC272; [1971]1SCR612
(1) A discussion took place in the Lok Sabha on April 2, 1969 about certain remarks alleged to have been made by Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Puri regarding untouchability. Shri Tej Kiran Jain and five other plaintiffs have filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 26,000.00 as damages against Shri N. Sanjiva Reddy, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, defendant No. 1, Shri Narendra Kumar Salve, defendant No. 2, Shri B. Shankaranand, defendant No. 3, Shri S. M. Banerrjee, defendant No. 4 and Shri Y. B. Chavan, defendant No. 5, Members of Lok Sabha on the allegation that the plaintiffs are the admirers and followers of Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Puri. It is alleged that during the course of the above discussion certain remarks were made by the defendants which were defamatory and calculated to lower in public estimation Jagadguru Shankaracharya. The plaintiffs, accordingly, claimed a decree for recovery of Rs. 26,000.00 as damages from the defendants.(2) During the pendency of the suit, an appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1330; (1971)73BOMLR806; 1970CriLJ1158; (1970)2SCC122; [1971]1SCR617
A.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment dated 18 December, 1968 of the High Court at Bombay dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction of Moti alia? Narayan Sheshanna Yadav and Sheshanna Bhumanna Yadav accused No. 2nd 3 respectively except that the conviction of accused No. 2 of the substantive offence of murder under Section 302 was altered and accused No. 2 was convicted of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B as well as of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court confirmed the sentence of death passed against accused No. 3 Sheshanna Bhumanna Yadav. Accused No. 2 son of accused No. 3 was at the time of the judgment of High Court of 17 years of age. The High Court reduced the punishment of accused No. 2 to rigorous imprisonment for life. Accused No. 1 Hiralal was the domestic servant of Dr. Nanavati grandfather of the deceased Narendra. Accused No. 2 is the son of accused No. 3.2. Accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC794
J.C. SHAH, J.1. By our order dated December 2, 1969, we requested the Sunni Central Waqfs Board constituted under the U.P. Muslim Wakfs Act 16 of 1960, to frame a scheme and recommend to this Court the name of a person who according to them, would be a fit person to be a mutawalli of this Waqf. We observed that in making the recommendation the Board will take into account the extent of the estate, the interest of the beneficiaries, the qualification of the proposed mutawalli and his status and the possibility that he will be able to devote sufficient time to the management of the Waqf and other relevant matters.2. The Board has now submitted a scheme to this Court. No objection has been raised on behalf of the appellant to the provisions of the scheme. The only objection raised by Mr Sinha, appearing on behalf of the appellant, is to the recommendation that the respondent Khurshed should be appointed a mutawalli. Several grounds have been alleged in the reply affidavit filed by the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1832; (1970)2SCC217; [1971]1SCR586
J.M. Shelat J. 1. This appeal, by certificate, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Patna dated March 8, 1965, whereby it set aside the order of the Chancellor of the University of Patna dated September 26, 1964 passed under Section 9(4) of the Patna University Act, III of 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. On the retirement of one Dr. Muhar as the University Professor of Political Science a permanent vacancy occurred in that post. The Vice-Chancellor of the University, after obtaining the approval of the Chancellor for filling up the vacancy by direct recruitment, got the post advertised through the Bihar Public Service Commission. In his letter requesting the approval, the Vice-Chancellor had stated that he did not propose to lay down any qualifications in addition to those prescribed under the relevant University Statute. The advertisement, as published by the Commission, announced the necessary qualifications as under:First or second class Master's degree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1651; [1970]78ITR486(SC); (1970)2SCC225; [1971]1SCR581
J.C. Shah, J. 1. Jawahar Lal Rastogi hereinafter called 'the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family which carries on the business of money-lending at Lucknow and is also interested as a partner in different firms engaged in the business of manufacturing barbed wire, pharmaceuticals, etc.2. On September 14, 1964, the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, called upon the assessed to furnish within 10 days certain information with regard to its income and assets. On September 17, 1964 the Income-tax Officer submitted to the Commissioner of Income-tax a report requesting that he be authorised to enter and search the premises of the assessee. The Commissioner by his order dated September 19, 1964, authorised entry and search after recording reasons for his belief that it was necessary to carry out the search. On September 21 and 22, 1964, the premises of the assessee were searched and a large number of documents were seized and were taken away to the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer also prep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)2SCC253
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 7/8 March. 1968 of the High Court of Gujarat convicting the appellant under Section 105A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and imposing a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine a further rigorous imprisonment for 8 months.2. The appellant and two other accused were owners of Mahendra Silk Mills (hereinafter referred to as the Mills) a unit of Mahendra Silk Mills Private Ltd., at Ahmedabad. All the three accused were brothers. They were charged under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative under Section 165A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that on or about 17 December, 1964 when the Central Excise Inspector Aillawadi had shown his intention to take legal steps while investigating the act of evasion of excise duty in respect of certain silk cases, all the three accused in order to prevent him from doin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1566; 1970CriLJ1415; (1970)2SCC113; [1971]1SCR599
I.D. Dua, J. 1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant challenges his conviction and sentence under Section 302, I.P.C. for the murder of his brother-in-law (husband of his wife's sister). The occurrence is stated to have taken place on Sunday October 8, 1968 at about 4.45 p.m. near the clock tower in Ludhiana City. It is not disputed that on August 13, 1968 the appellant Tapinder Singh, a business man and a Municipal Commissioner, had lodged a first information report (Ex. PR) with the police station, Sadar, Ludhiana against Kulwant Singh, deceased whom he described as his Sandhu (his wife's sister's husband) and one Ajit Singh, alleging that on the pretext of consulting him they had taken him in their car to the canal near the Agricultural College and after getting down from the car, when they had walked about 150 paces on the banks of the canal, the deceased Kulwant Singh, saying that he would teach the appellant a lesson, whipped out a--clasp-knife and attacked him. Ajit Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1970]78ITR268(SC); (1970)3SCC859
J.C. Shah, J.1. This, appeal is filed with certificate under Section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in ' mica mining '. Under Article 42 of its articles of association, remuneration payable to the managing director and the deputy managing director of the assessee was fixed at 30% of the annual net profits subject to the minimum of Rs. 5,000. In the year of account ending June 30, 1958, the assessee debited an amount of Rs. 66,106 paid to the managing director and the deputy managing director. For the assessment year 1959-60 the Income-tax Officer while computing the taxable income in exercise of his power under Section 10(4A) of the Income-tax Act allowed only Rs. 54,670 as remuneration for the managing director and the deputy managing director, and disallowed the balance of Rs. 11,436. He was of the view that the allowance paid to the two directors was excessive or unreasonable having regard to the legitimate...
Tag this Judgment!