Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC749; (1972)1SCC366; [1972]2SCR874a; 1972(4)LC449(SC)
1. These three appeals, by special leave, are directed against the common judgment and order dated August 18, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court dismissing Civil Rule Nos. 827(F) to 829(F) of 1966, which were applications filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to excuse the delay in filing three appeals against the decision of the Additional District Judge, Howrah, dated June 27, 1963, in three Land Acquisition Reference Cases.2. In this judgment we are referring the ranks of the parties as in Civil Appeal No. 821 of 1968. The first respondent is the Howrah Municipality. The second respondent had taken a lease of about 21 bighas 9 kotas of land from the first respondent and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have taken a sub-lease from the second respondent of the said area.3. The circumstances leading up to the order of the High Court may be stated : About 41 bighas of land situated in Salkia at Howrah were acquired by the Government of West Bengal for the purpose of u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1804; (1972)4SCC635; [1972]2SCR853
1. All these appeals and Writ Petitions are directed against the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (V of 1963) and notifications issued thereunder. In the first group of appeals, the notification challenged is G.O.Ms. No. 601 Home (Transport II) Department dated 27th March, 1963. In the second group of appeals Nos. 1439-1441/68 and in the two writ petitions the impugned notification is numbered as G.O.Ms. No. 435 Home (Transport II) Department dated March 28, 1968.2. The appellants and the writ petitioners all carry on transport business in the State of Andhra Pradesh under stage carriage permits granted by the Transport authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act IV of 1939. Their complaint against the ever increasing burden of taxation they are called upon to bear which is said to have passed the breaking point. A short history of the taxes levied in the area which came to Andhra Pradesh from the State of Madras and the increase thereof from stage to stage by the new State base...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1530; 1972MPLJ349; (1972)1SCC402; [1972]2SCR864; 1972(4)LC398(SC)
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal, on certificate, is whether the High Court has complied with the directions given by this Court in its judgment dated January 25, 1968 in Civil Appeals Nos. 1244 and 1245 of 1967 and adjudicated upon the question whether the claim made by the respondent that the tanks and wells in question were constructed on 'occupied land' belonging to the Jagirdar within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Acts, Samvat 2008 (Act 28 of 1951) (hereinafter to be referred as the Abolition Act).2. The facts leading up to the present decision of the High Court may be stated: In Samvat 1885 the Ruler of the erstwhile Gwalior State conferred on the predecessor in title of the respondent the Jagir of Mauza Siroli situated in Pargana Gwalior. The Abolition Act came into force on December 4, 1952. Section 3 provides for resumption of Jagir-lands by the Government. Under Sub-section (3), the date appointed under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC819; (1972)1SCC388; [1972]2SCR890
1. This is an appeal, by special leave, from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dismissing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for issue of an appropriate writ or order quashing the order dated 28-2-1968 passed by the Full Bench, Small Causes Court, Bombay, in appeal No. 95 of 1963 from the order dated 21-2-1963 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay, in R.A.E. Suit No. 9293 of 1959.2. In this appeal we are concerned with a plot of land admeasuring 2108 square yards in Survey No. 171, Hissa No. 7, at Ghatkopar. This plot belonged to one Jamnadas Chhotalal Dani. On 15-11-1948, Jamnadas executed two leases in favour of one Bhawanji Lakhamsi and Maojibhai Jethabhai, defendants 1 and 2. The subject matter of the first lease was two plots, the one referred to above and another in the same area measuring 805 square yards. The subject matter of the second lease was a third plot in the same area.3. The leases were for a period of ten years and in respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2044; 1972CriLJ1309; (1972)1SCC326; [1972]2SCR845
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is by certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The appellant is the Manager of Sree Krishna Oil Mills, Midnapore, the proprietor of which was one Srilal Bajoria. Both these persons were tried jointly for an offence under Section 7(1)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The proprietor Srilal Bajoria was acquitted but the appellant was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. The offence in respect of which the appellant was charged was that he being the Manager of the Oil Mills for manufacturing mustard oil was responsible for the adulteration. On July 10, 1964, at about 11 A.M. the appellant was going in a truck carrying 100 tins of mustard oil and was stopped by the Food Inspector, Kharagpore Municipality. On being questioned by the Food Inspector the appellant informed him that the oil which he was carrying was manufactured at Sree Krishna Oil Mills, Midnapore. As ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC792; (1972)4SCC764; 1972(4)LC462(SC)
S.M. Sikri, C.J.1. In these Civil Appeals the respondents have filed miscellaneous petition praying that this Court may be pleased to permit them to raise the following additional ground :That the licence granted in this case is nothing but a contract and it is by virtue of the contract that the option to purchase the undertaking is being exercised. As the controversy has arisen out of a contract only and the undertaking is sought to be purchased in terms of the contract, there is no compulsory acquisition of the undertaking within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution and as such the writ petition and the appeal are not maintainable.2. It is stated that this ground goes to the very root of the matter but was not raised before the High Court. The appellants objected to this fresh ground being allowed to be taken up, but we consider that as this ground goes to the very root of the matter it should be allowed after the appellants are compensated by costs.3. We further consider th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC971; 1972MPLJ641(SC); (1972)1SCC209; [1972]2SCR838; 1972(4)LC418(SC)
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashing the proceedings initiated on the complaint filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Saugor in the Court of the Magistrate of the First Class Saugor for imposition of a penalty on the respondents.2. The matter arises thus. Chhotabjhai Jethabhai Patel, a partnership firm of which the second respondent, Jhaverbhai Bhulabhai Patel is a partner, carried on business on a fairly large scale as manufacturers of bidis at various places in the State of Madhya Pradesh including Saugor. Being unable to secure sufficient quantities of tendu leaves, grown in the forest units in the State, the firm took leases for the collection of such leaves in the States of Bihar and Maharashtra. They actually imported tendu leaves under two railway consignments from Bihar to Saugor. They informed the Divisional Forest Officer about the same and asked for permission for transport of the leaves and to utilise the said leaves for manufactu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC843; 38(1972)CLT267(SC); 1972LabIC431; (1972)4SCC781; 1972(4)LC350(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment dated 15 April, 1970 of the High Court of Orissa dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.2. The appellant in the writ petition asked for a writ of mandamus for quashing the order dated 19 May, 1969 passed by the Inspector of Schools, Cuttack Circle. The order stated that the date of birth of the appellant as recorded in service registers was 1st January, 1908 and since the appellant exceeded the age of 58 years he was requested to hand over charge of his duties by 24 May, 1969 to Madhusudan Das, the Senior most trained graduate assistant teacher of Sadhu Charan Bidhyapitha Nanpur, Cuttack.3. The appellant's case was as follows. The appellant was appointed Head Master of Sadhu Charan Bidhyapitha in the year 1949. By a letter dated 19 May, 1969 the appellant was retired from service. The Inspector of Schools and the other respondents, namely, the State of Orissa and the Director of Public Instruction had no auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC468; 1972CriLJ267; (1972)74PLR712; (1972)3SCC280; 1972(4)LC424(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment dated 20 March, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana setting aside the acquittal of the appellant.2. The High Court passed the order on a revision application under Section 489 of the CrPC made by Harmit Kaur widow of the deceased Bharpur Singh.3. The prosecution case was as follows : Gurdit Singh and Hazura Singh, Hazura Singh married twice. By Nihal Kaur Hazura Singh had two sons, the deceased Bharpur Singh and Mangal Singh and a daughter. By the other wife Narinder Kaur Hazura Singh had one son the appellant and four daughters. The family lived at a place called Gholia Khurd and cultivated land. Hazura Singh had also land at Jalalabad. The land at Jalalbad was given on 'Batai'. Three years before the date of occurrence which was 11 September, 1967 Nihal Kaur with her son Bharpur Singh and his wife Harmit Kaur and her other son Mangal Singh shifted to Jalalabad. Hazura Singh remained at Gholia Khurd. There...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC471; [1972(24)FLR184]; (1972)ILLJ627SC; (1972)4SCC578; [1972]2SCR816
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. All these appeals, by special leave, are directed against the Award dated January 20, 1967 of the National Industrial Calcutta in Reference No. NIT-1 of 1966. Civil Appeal No. 415 of 1967 is by the Company regarding the disallowance of certain items by the Tribunal for arriving at the available and allocable surplus for calculating bonus to be paid for the accounting year 1964-65.2. Civil Appeals Nos. 813 and 1302 of 1967 are by the two Unions representing the workmen, against that part of the Award rejecting the claim of the Unions for adding back certain items for the purposes of calculating the rate of bonus to be paid by the appellant Company.3. As mentioned earlier, the year of account is 1964-65, which is October 1, 1964 and ending September 30, 1965. The appellant Company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, in 1935 and was made into a public company in 1958. It is a venture of the British Oxygen Company incorporated in England and the English...
Tag this Judgment!