Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1749; (1972)3SCC845; 1973(5)LC98(SC)
Shelat, J.1. On September 24, 1971, the District Magistrate, Hooghly, in exercise of the power conferred on him under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed the order impugned in this petition directing the petitioner's detention, being satisfied that it was necessary to do so 'with a view to preventing him acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order or security of the State'. Pursuant to the order the petitioner was arrested on that very day and detained in Hooghly Jail.2. The grounds of detention served on the petitioner on that occasion were as follows :(1) On 8-7-71 at about 21.00 hours you along with your associates held a meeting in a house at village Jagannathpur, P.S. Khanakul, District Hooghly and decided to kill Jotedars and richmen of the locality.(2) On 10-7-71 at about 21.30 hours you along with your associates attacked one Sk. Ismail s/o ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1930; (1973)2SCC54; 1973(5)LC102(SC)
Hegde, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought on the foot of a promissory note executed by deceased R.A. Krishnan and G.R. Harihara Iyer (10th defendant in the suit). But in the suit, decree was claimed against defendant No. 1 to 10 personally, against their assets and against the business assets of the deceased Veeraraghava Iyer. A decree against the assets of deceased R.A. Krishnan in the hands of Defendants 1 to 9 was also claimed.2. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. The trial court dismissed the suit but the High Court in appeal decreed the suit against the assets of R.A. Krishnan in the hands of his heirs and against the 10th defendant personally. Not being satisfied with that decree, the appellant has brought this appeal. The suit promissory note reads : Rs. 25,000/- On demand we promise to pay THE ALATHUR BANK or order the sum of Rupees Twenty five Thousand only with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2161; (1973)2SCC301; 1973(5)LC142(SC)
Hegde, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of Flat No. 20-B on the 5th floor of the building by name 'Shalimar' situate at Marine Drive, Bombay. On April 24, 1959 he entered into an agreement called 'Lease and Licence agreement' with the appellant under which he was permitted to occupy that flat at a monthly 'compensation' of Rs. 250/-. On May 5, 1959, the appellant occupied the flat in pursuance of that agreement. In 1962 a co-operative society by name 'New Shalimar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.' was formed. Thereafter Respondent No. 1 became a member of that society. To be exact he became a member of that society on January 26, 1962. On March 28, 1963 the appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the Bombay, Rent Act before the Small Causes Court, Bombay for fixing the standard rent of the flat occupied by him. Respondent No. 1 filed his objections to that suit on August 5, 1963. In his objections statement he pleaded inter alia (1) that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1674; (1973)2SCC118; [1973]1SCR562; 1973(5)LC94(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The appellant is a transport operator. He applied for and obtained a permit from the R.T.A., Chitradurga for the inter-state route from Chitradurga in Mysore State to Srisaila in Andhra Pradesh, on January 18, 1964. Even before this permit was issued to him, the Government of Mysore had notified a draft scheme under Section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) providing for the operation of the trunk routes by the State Transport Undertaking in the Bellary District. M.S.R.T.C., a State Transport Undertaking and other rival claimants objected to the issue of the permit in question to the appellant but their objections were over-ruled by the R.T.A., Chitradurga. Aggrieved by that order M.S.R.T.C. and other rival claimants took* up the matter in appeal to the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Meanwhile on April 18,1964, the Government issued a notification under Section 68D(3) of the Act approving the draft scheme earli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC153; 1973CriLJ223; (1973)3SCC89; 1973(5)LC130(SC)
Mathew, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reversing the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Kurnool in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1968 acquitting the 20 accused in the case.2. The prosecution case was as follows Deceased Pedda Venkata Reedy was a rich and influential person of Singaripalli village in Giddalur Taluk. PWs 1 to 7 are his sons and they were living together as members of a joint family. Of his sons, PW 6 was a student of the final year M.B.B.S. class and PW 7, an advocate practising in Giddalur. The accused were related to each other and they also belong to Singaripalli village. On the evening of December 29, 1967, PW 2 found some buffaloes belonging to A-3 grazing in the horse-gram field belonging to their family. He drove them to the cattle pound. A-2, A-5 and A-13 interfered and PW 2 was beaten by A-5. PW 2 came and told about this incident to his father and brothers. His father and PW 1 went to the house o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2069; 1972MhLJ55(SC); (1973)2SCC312; [1973]1SCR570
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal by certificate. The plaintiffs sued for possession of the properties described in Schedule I and IV of the plaint as reversioners of one V. Rm. Shanmugam Pillai who admittedly was the last male holder of those properties as well as several other properties. They also claimed past and future mesne profits in respect of those properties. Properties detailed in Schedule I were said to have been endowed for a charity by name Annadhana Chatram Charity. The plaintiffs claimed possession of those properties as 'Huqdars'. They claimed possession of Schedule IV properties as reversioners. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs' claim in part. It gave a decree in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint Schedule I properties but dismissed their claim regarding Plaint-Schedule IV properties. Both the parties appealed against the judgment and decree of the trial court. The High Court allowed the appeal of the defendants and dismissed that of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1716; (1972)2SCC329; [1973]1SCR584; 1973(5)LC135(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Madras High Court.2. The appellant's predecessor in office T.G. Kuppuswamy Iyer filed on April 14, 1950 a suit in the District Court, Madurai, under Section 84(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, (Act II of 1927) against the respondent and two other persons who are not parties to the appeal for a declaration that the suit Mandapam was a private Mandapam, i.e., family property of Thoguluva Thirumalier and was not a temple covered by the provisions of the aforesaid Act. This suit had to be instituted because the authorities appointed under the Madras Act II of 1927 held that the premises No. 29 South Masi Street, Madurai wherein the idol of Sri Srinivasaperumal and certain other idols were located was a temple within the meaning of the said Act. The District Judge decreed the suit in favour of the appellant but the High Court, on appeal, reversed that judgment and passed a decree holding that the premi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1678; 1972CriLJ1024; (1972)3SCC829; 1973(5)LC88(SC)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The Petitioner challenges the validity of his detention by this application under Article 32 of the Constitution. The District Magistrate of 24-Parganas having been satisfied that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order directed his detention under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 No. 19 of the 1970 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The State Government was intimated of this order on 14-7-71 and it approved the Order on 21-7 71, The petitioner was arrested on 12-7-71 on which date he was served with the grounds of detention order reported to the Central Government enclosing there with the grounds upon which the detention was made and other relevant documents. Two representations were received from the detenu by the State government one on 11-8-71 and the other on 12-8-71 which were considered and rejected by it on 2-9-71. Thereafter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1656; 1972CriLJ1006; (1972)3SCC831; [1973]1SCR546; 1973(5)LC80(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This is a petition through jail under Article 32 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of habeas corpus by Kanu Biswas, who has been ordered by the District Magistrate 24Parganas to be detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) 'with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.'2. The order of detention was made by the District Magistrate on November 13, 1971. The petitioner was arrested in pursuance of the detention order on November 14, 1971 and was served the same day with the order as well as the grounds of detention together with vernacular translation thereof. On November 18, 1971 the District Magistrate sent report to the State Government about the passing of the detention order along with the grounds of detention and other necessary particulars. The State Government considered the matter and approved the detention order on November 24, 1971. Necessary report...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1863; (1972)2SCC442; [1973]1SCR533
I.D. Dua, J.1. This appeal is by special leave. The appellant assails the order of the Judicial Commissioner, Tripura dated June 25, 1971 dismissing his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Collector of Excise, Tripura, dated July 5, 1970.2. The appellant was granted licence for the period April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1966 for running a warehouse for supply of country liquor to excise vendors in the territory of Tripura. The Bengal Excise Act, 1909 (hereinafter called the Act) had been extended to that territory on August 1, 1962. The appellant's licence was subsequently extended for a further period of two years ending March 31, 1968. On November 6, 1967 the appellant applied to the Excise Collector praying that he should be permitted to continue the supply of country liquor for a period of five years commencing April 1, 1968. The Collector recommended the appellant's case to the Government on November 18, 1967 for extension of his licence for a fu...
Tag this Judgment!