Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2254; (1973)2SCC597
S.N. Dwivedi, J.1. The first appellant, Dr. Vijay Kumar, is the father of the second and third appellants, Ajay Kumar and Ashok Kumar. Dr. Vijay Kumar was the tenant of the shop No. 2855, Guru Nanak Building, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. The respondent is the owner of the shop. On January 12, 1965 he applied for ejectment of the appellants from the shop. The application was made to the Rent Controller under proviso (b) to Sub-section (i) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The application alleged that the first appellant has sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with a part of the shop to the other appellants. The application was contested by the appellants. By his order, dated December 6, 1966, the Rent Controller allowed the application and directed ejectment of the appellants. Their first appeal against his order was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on April 25, 1968. Their second appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi on October 29, 1971. They have preferred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2119; [1973(26)FLR426]; 1973LabIC1147; (1973)IILLJ305SC; (1973)2SCC247; 1973(5)LC742(SC)
Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore, This Court, while granting special leave, confined it only to the question of giving of uniforms to welders and winders.2. The appellant has a factory employing on an average 200 workers. On February 12, 1968 a reference was made by the Government of Mysore for adjudication to the Tribunal of six points which were in dispute. Point No. 4 was whether all workers should be provided with a pair of uniforms and a pair of shoes per year. In the written statement filed by the appellant before the Tribunal it was submitted that it was giving uniforms to the watchmen, drivers, sweepers, canteen workers and such other workmen who were to be provided with protective clothing under the Factories Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It was not considered necessary that uniforms should be issued to other classes of workers.3. The Tribunal was of the view that a general demand that all workers should be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2232; [1973(26)FLR428]; (1973)IILLJ301SC; (1974)3SCC187; [1974]1SCR240a
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. By order dated January 25, 1969, the State of Maharashtra referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, for adjudication three disputes between the appellant and its workmen. The said disputes were registered by the Tribunal as Reference (I.T.) No. 42 of 1969. The appellant filed in the Bombay High Court Special Civil Application No. 799 of 1969 under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of reference. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 31st July/1st August, 1969, dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the reference made by the State Government was valid. The appellant has filed the above appeal, by special leave, challenging the decision of the High Court.2. The facts leading up to the filing of the Writ Petition may now be stated. On July 6, 1963, there was a settlement between the appellant and the workmen represented by the Secretaries of two unions-the Chemical Engineering and Metal Workers Union, Poona and the Association of Engin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2394; [1973(27)FLR37]; (1973)IILLJ321SC; (1973)2SCC492; [1974]1SCR228
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, by the workmen is against the award dated October 20, 1967, of the Industrial Tribual, Madras, in I.D. No. 65 of 1966 in so far as it declined to grant additional bonus for the years 1962 and 1963.2. The respondent, Dunlop Rubber Company of India Limited, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of tyres and tubes for light and heavy vehicles, has a factory in Calcutta, besides one at Ambattur in Madras, which was started or about 1959. At the time of the award, the company was employing about 1200 workmen but, during the years 1962 and 1963, it was employing about 800 workmen. The company paid to its workmen for each of these two years, 1962 and 1963, 12 weeks' basic wages as annual bonus. The workmen were not satisfied with the said payment and demanded additional bonus of three months' basic wages for each of these years. According to the workmen, the company has made a net profit of about 3.30 crores in each of these years....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2309; 1973CriLJ1537; (1973)2SCC372; [1974]1SCR215; 1973(5)LC694(SC)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The appellant was charged by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sangrur, with an offence under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act. He was found guilty of the offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.2. The appellant appealed against the decision to the Sessions Judge, Sangrur. He dismissed the appeal.3. The appellant filed a criminal revision before the High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge. The revision was also dismissed.4. This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment of the High Court.5. The case against the appellant was as follows. The appellant presented Railway Receipt No. 641154 dated September 22, 1967, for consignment of a parcel of apples purporting to be from one Uchana Das of Solan to one Sham Lal of Dhuri and endorsed to him by the consignee, to the parcel clerk at the Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2121; 1973LabIC1148; (1973)IILLJ275SC; (1974)3SCC172; 1973(5)LC744(SC); 1973()WLN490
Palekar, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan from an Order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Writ Petition No. 162 of 1966. By this Order the High Court quashed the order of the State Government dated August 27, 1965 directing the compulsory retirement of the respondent from service with effect from December 2, 1965 on completion of 25 years' qualifying service under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.2. The respondent had been appointed as a Constable in the State of Ajmer on the 8th November, 1939 in the force then known as his Excellency the Grown Representative's police. On the 1st January, 1947 he was promoted as a Head Constable in that Force. After Independence the Police Force was designated as Central Reserve Police. By an order dated December 25, 1951 the respondent was promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector and was transferred to the Government Railway Police, Ajmer and continued in the said post upto March 16, 1953. Thereafter he was e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2423; (1973)2SCC467; [1974]1SCR210
A.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court raises an important question as to whether after an auction sale in execution of a decree a decree-holder auction-purchaser can move the executing court for delivery of vacant possession of an immovable property or whether he has to file a separate suit to get that possession. The short facts of the case are as follows. In May 1956 one Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad obtained a money decree against Harnandrai Badridas. In January 1959 Mr. S. Tibrewal, a member of the Calcutta Bar was appointed Receiver in an insolvency proceeding against one Durga Prasad Goinka, a partner of the defendant firm in respect of premises No. 99 and 128 Cotton Street, Calcutta for the purpose of selling those properties. On 3 April 1958 Mr. Tibrewal was also appointed receiver in execution of the decree obtained by Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad for the sale of the two premises. On 26 April 1958 the properties were put up to sale b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC598; (1973)2SCC263
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This appeal relates to a house situated in Ujjain City of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent purchased it from Jassabal, the widow of one Guman Singh. The appellant attached the suit house and the respondent preferred a petition under Order 21, Rule 58 C.P.C. That petition having been allowed the appellant filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 63 C.P.C., out of which this appeal arises.2. The appellant (he died during the pendency of the appeal and his eldest son was brought on record) averred in the suit that Guman Singh and his cousin Onkar Singh who were members of a joint Hindu family were having monetary dealings with him and on 27-5-1945 executed an agreement Ext. P. 2 admitting their liability for Rs. 32,500 and also undertaking to pay it by the year 1951. The dispute between them was referred to arbitration and on the basis of the award given by the arbitrator a decree was obtained and in execution of the decree the disputed house was attached by him and the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2272; 1973LabIC1227; (1973)IILLJ283SC; (1974)3SCC167; [1974]1SCR247
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal on certificate is against the judgment and order dated September 23, 1970, of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Writ Appeal No. 31 of 1970.2. By order dated July 25, 1968, the State Government referred to the Industrial Tribunal Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, for adjudication certain disputes. The appellant raised a preliminary objection that in respect of the items covered by the present reference, there was a previous award in I.D. No. 20 of 1957 passed by the Tribunal on September 26, 1958. As the said award had not been terminated, the present reference by the State Government on July 25, 1968, was incompetent. The workmen, on the other hand, contended before the Tribunal that the previous award had been terminated according to law and, therefore, there was no bar to the State Government making the present reference. The Industrial Tribunal by its award dated October 31, 1969 upheld the objection of the company and held that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1920; (1974)2SCC27; [1974]1SCR253
S.N. Dwivedi J.1. The appellant, the Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate Ltd., is the tenure-holder of a large area of land in two villages in the district of Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh, Aithal Buzurg and Bukkanpur. Some of its land have been declared as 'surplus land' under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act). It went in appeal against the order declaring surplus land to the District Judge, but without success. Its writ petition has been partly allowed and partly dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the latter part of the order of the High Court.2. The scheme of the Ceiling Act is to allow a tenure-holder to retain such of his plots as are assigned to him as his ceiling area and to acquire the remaining plots as surplus land. The ceiling area and the surplus land are determined by the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Ceiling Act. The Prescribed Authority issues a ...
Tag this Judgment!