Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC702; (1973)2SCC366; 1972()WLN604
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court arising out of a suit filed by the appellant for possession of property known as Krishna Bhavan at Ajmer which was decreed by the trial court but has been dismissed by the High Court.2. The facts may be stated. Rai Bahadur Mool Chand Kapoor a retired officer of Railways who died on September 9, 1918 married three wives. He had no issue from the first wife but the respondent Krishna Chand Kapoor is his son from the second wife. The third wife Smt. Dhanta Devi had a daughter Chanda Devi and the appellant is her son. Dhanta Devi died in 1948 and. the present suit was filed in January 1949. It appears that Mool Chand Kapoor left considerable amount in cash and securities apart from the property in dispute, Mool Chand Kapoor after retirement had started doing business on. the Stock Exchange at Bombay. That business seems to have been continued by the respondent. The respondent entered into sever...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2504; 1972CriLJ1699; 1973LC17(SC); 1978(2)ELT410(SC); (1972)2SCC410; [1973]1SCR812; 1973(5)LC280(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. These two appeals are by special leave from the judgment dated 21 November, 1968 of the High Court at Madras dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 30 November, 1965 and the order of the Sessions Judge dated 16 November, 1965 acquitting the respondents.2. The question which falls for consideration in these appeals is the interpretation of Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to for brevity as the Section and the Act. The section is as follows:-No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall be instituted for anything done or ordered to be done under the Act after the expiration of six months from the accrual of the cause of action or from the date of the act or order complained of'.3. The respondents in both the appeals were prosecuted for violation of Rules 9, 53, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 66 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules punishable Under Section 9(b) and (d) of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2538; (1972)2SCC402; [1973]1SCR801
A.N. Grover, J.1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court given in four writ petitions filed by the respondents.2. The respondents are stated to be purchasers of certain premises which were originally owned by Dewan Bishan Das who was a former Prime Minister of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. He had constructed several buildings and structures on the disputed property which was situated in Magharmal Bagh in Srinagar. The respondents Haji Abdul Aziz Shah and his wife Abdul Salem Shah and Haji Mohammed Ramzan Shah purchased rights in 8 Kanals 9 Marias and 10,000 sq. feet of the area bearing Khasra Nos. 885 and 890 by two sale deeds which were got registered in July 1967. Respondent Haji Wali Mohammed purchased rights in the land measuring 25,704 sq. feet along with buildings and garages situated in Sarai Pain near the Exhibition Grounds. According to the respondents they started their own business establishments in the properties which had been purcha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2420; (1972)2SCC656
I.D. Dua, J.1. This is a petition by Durga Pada Ghosh under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus on the ground that the order of detention made against him under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) is void and unConstitutional.2. The detention order in this case was made by the District Magistrate, Burdwan on December 10, 1971 under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The unlawful activities in which the petitioner was alleged to have been indulging are stated in the order of detention as follows:1. On 15-9-71 at about 1 p.m. you with your associates viz. Sudhir Dey and others at the point of dagger and exploding bombs snatched away Rupees 1900/- from Shri Krishna Bahadur and Shyamapada Chakraborty of Raj Collegiate School on the road in front of the branch office of the State Bank of India, situated at Burdwan University. By such act in broad day light you created panic and terror an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2405; 1972LabIC1420; (1972)2SCC763; [1973]1SCR773
I.D. Dua, j.1. This judgment will dispose of three cased (i) W.P. No. 630 of 1970 (Shri R.L. Narasimham v. Union of India and Anr.) (ii) C.A. No. 2065 of 1970 (Shri B. Malik v. Union of India and Anr.) and (iii) C.A. No. 2165 of 1970 (Shri M.C. Desai v. Union of India) because they raise common questions of law. These cases were originally heard in November, 1971 by a Bench of which our late brother Roy J., was a member. Unfortunately before the judgment could be announced Roy J., died with the result that these cases were set down for hearing before the present Bench. The parties then filed written arguments, supplementing them by oral address. Shri R.L. Narasimham. at the hearing addressed us in person in support of his writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and Shri S.C. Manchanda addressed arguments on behalf of Shri Malik in C.A. No. 2065 of 1970. On behalf of Shri Desai in C.A. No. 2165 of 1970 Shri Gupta adopted the arguments addressed in the other two cases. In Apri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1973)4SCC99; 1973(5)LC317(SC)
Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court arising out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff, now represented by his legal representatives who are the appellants before us, was the Bhumidar of certain plots of land in village Sarkaripura in Varanasi district and that he was entitled to get possession of those plots as Bhumidar with which defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) had no concern. The Trial Court dismissed the suit but the first appellate court decreed the same. The High Court on appeal restored the decree of the Trial Court.2. The facts lie within a narrow compass. One Jhuru father of defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 2 herein) Smt. Sundariya was the original tenant of the plots in dispute. He died when Mst. Sundariya was still a child. She was brought up by Chhannu respondent No. 1 During her minority he managed the property left by Jhuru including the plots in question. Mst. Sundariya was married when she came of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2446; 1972MhLJ61(SC); (1973)2SCC307; 1973(5)LC313(SC)
Hegde, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal by certificate. Plaintiff Daulatrao who died during the pendency of this appeal sought several reliefs in suit No. 5-A of 1955 in the court of the Second Additional District Judge, Amravati. But at present we are primarily concerned with relief No. 1 claimed in the plaint viz :That it be declared that defendant No. 3 has no right or title to the property in Schedules A, B and 1/2 share in Schedule D and permanent injunction be issued to him not to interfere with plaintiff's enjoyment and possession of property shown in schedules A, B and 1/2 share in Schedule D.2. The relief claimed does not properly bring out the controversy between the parties. The plaintiff really wanted a declaration that he had not adopted the third defendant, Harishchandra and as such the said Harishchandra has no interest in the plaintiff's properties. The third defendant claimed that he had been adopted by the plaintiff on January 5, 1955. The trial court held that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2254; (1972)4SCC58; 1973(5)LC337(SC)
Dua, J.1. Kala Chand Saran has sent through Dum Dum Central Jail an application complaining against his detention under Section 3, Section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 25 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) and paying for his release. Though no provision of law is mentioned in the application it is obviously intended to be under Article 32 of the Constitution. The detention order, according to the return was passed by the District Magistrate, Midnapore on December 24, 1971 and the detenu was arrested pursuant to that order on December 29, 1971. The grounds of detention were served on the detenue at the time of his arrest. On December 30, 1971 the necessary report was made to the State Government and the order of detention was approved by that Government on January 4, 1972. The petitioner's representation was received by the State Government on January 10, 1972 and was considered by it on February 19, 1972. His case was placed before the Ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2400; (1972)2SCC534; [1973]1SCR761; 1973(5)LC335(SC)
I.D. Dua, J.1. The petitioner was arrested on November 8, 1971 pursuant to the order of detention of the same date passed under Sub-section (1)(a)(iii) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act). The grounds of detention were also served on him and the matter reported to the State Government on that very day. On November 16, 1971 the State Government accorded its approval and made the necessary report to the Central Government. The case was placed before the Advisory Board on December 3, 1971. On December 6, 1971 the petitioner's representation was received by the State Government but it was considered on January 8, 1972 nearly 33 days after its receipt. The Advisory Board gave its decision on January 13, 1972 and the order of detention was affirmed by the State Government on January 22, 1972. The detenu was communicated of this order on January 25, 1972.2. The only ground raised on behalf of the detenu be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2250; (1973)3SCC733; [1973]1SCR765; 1973(5)LC178(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. These three appeals are by certificate from the judgments dated 9 June, 1966, 10 December, 1964 and 19 July, 1966 of the High Court of Mysore.2. The only question which falls for consideration in these appeals is the interpretation of Section 63A(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. Civil Appeal No. 1084 of 1967 concerns applications for grant of permits on specified routes in the State of Maharashtra. On 8 April, 1963, the Regional Transport Authority, South Kanara issued a notification under Section 57(2) of the Act inviting applications from public carriers permit holders of South Kanara District intending to operate their vehicles in the State of Maharashtra. The permits were under reciprocal agreement between the State Governments of Mysore and Maharashtra. There were 28 vacancies for permits. 39 applications were made for the same. The respondent Kamath in Civil Appeal No. 1084 of 1967 submitted an application for permit. Hi...
Tag this Judgment!