Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1840; (1972)1SCC771; [1972]3SCR361
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Patna High Court holding that the nomination papers of the respondent Smt. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh had been illegally rejected by the Returning Officer. For that reason the election of the returned candidate Shri N.E. Horo from the 51 Khunti Parliamentary (Scheduled Tribe) Constituency in the State of Bihar was set aside.2. On May 1, 1970 the Election Commission of India issued a notification calling upon the above-named Parliamentary Constituency to elect a Member to the Lok Sabha in the vacancy caused by the death of late Shri Jaipal Singh. The last date for filing the nomination papers was May 8, 1970. The date for scrutiny was May 9, 1970. Several persons filed nomination papers including Theodore Bodra and others. Two nomination papers were filed on behalf of the respondent who was a Congress (Ruling) candidate for the aforesaid by-election. According to the respondent she was the widow of late Shri Jaipal Singh and was a member of the Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1293; 1972CriLJ872; (1972)1SCC639; [1972]3SCR329
H.R. Shelat, J.1. The petitioner was arrested and detained on February 5, 1971 in pursuance of an order of detention passed on that very day by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under Section 3(1) and (3) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities). Act, President's Act 19 of 1970.2. There is no dispute that, as required by the Act, his case was referred to the Advisory Board and on receipt of its report that there was sufficient cause for his detention, the State Government under Section 12 of the Act made an order or decision confirming the said detention order and continuing his detention thereunder. The order of confirmation and continuation was made on May 5, 1971.3. The only contention raised in this petition was that the order or decision of confirmation of the said detention order was made one day after the expiration of the period of three months from the date of detention, that the said period of three months would end on the midnight of May 4, 1971, and that any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1290; (1973)2SCC26; [1972]3SCR342
M.H. Beg, J.1. There are two appeals by Special Leave before us, Leave, against the Judgment and decree of a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing a plaintiffs second appeal.2. The plaintiff's case was that the Government of Rampur had given him a house 'under the orders of His Highness the Nawab of Rampur, passed on 23rd June, 1945'. It appears that, after the merger of Rampur State in Uttar Pradesh in 1949, when Rampur became a district of Uttar Pradesh, this house was given by the Government of Uttar Pradesh to the Municipal Board of Rampur, Defendant-Appellant, which demanded rent from the plaintiff by notice. On the plaintiff's refusal to pay, the house was attached on 23rd February, 1955. The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 100 under protest. He then filed his suit, on 26.10.1956, for a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the house, and, in the alternative, that he is a 'licensee' entitled to remain in possession of the house for life without payment o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC899; (1972)1SCC726; [1972]3SCR332
K.S. Hegde, J. 1. Both these appeals, the former by certificate and the later by special leave arise from the decision of the High Court of Bombay in a reference under Section 54 of the Bombay Stamp Act.2. When Civil Appeal No. 660 of 1967 came up for hearing on a previous occasion, objection was raised as to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the High Court was not competent to grant a certificate in the case under Article 133 of the Constitution. At that stage, the appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal so as to enable it to move this Court for special leave against the impugned decision. That prayer was allowed by this Court. Thereafter the appellant sought and obtained special leave of this Court to appeal against the decision in question. Hence Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1972 came to be filed. In view of this appeal, we may now proceed on the basis that Civil Appeal No. 660 of 1967 stands withdrawn and the same is disposed of accordingly. Hereafter we shall on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC892; 1972MPLJ545(SC); (1972)1SCC696; [1972]3SCR353
M.H. Beg, J.1. There are two appeals by Special Leave before us, one by the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, and another by the State of Madhya Pradesh, against the Judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing a Writ Petition filed by the Respondent employee of the Bhopal Municipal Corporation (hereinafter called the 'Corporation').2. The employee's case was: He was born on 1st July, 1912, appointed a Lower Division Clerk in April, 1962, promoted as a Upper Division Clerk in February, 1964. A general order dated 21 December, 1967, (Annexure 'A') had been passed by the Administrator, Municipal Corporation, purporting to carry out the orders of the Government of Madhya Pradesh which had decided that the age of compulsory retirement of all servants of the Corporation, other than Class IV servants, should be 55 years. The employee was informed of it by a communication dated 22nd December, 1967, (Annexure 'B'). The Municipal Corporation of Bhopal, which was...
Tag this Judgment!