Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1832; [1974(28)FLR177]; 1974LabIC1237; (1974)ILLJ367SC; (1974)4SCC43; [1974]3SCR221
A.N. Ray, C.J. 1. The provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Condition of Employment) Act, 1966 referred to as the Act are impeached as unConstitutional in these petitions and appeals.2. Broadly stated, the Act is challenged on these grounds. First, Parliament has no legislative competence to enact this measure. It is a legislation for regulating beedi and cigar industry. Therefore, it falls under Entry 24 in State List II. Second, the restrictions imposed by the Act violate freedom of trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). The Act imposes unreasonable burdens in cases where a manufacturer or trade mark holder of beedi has no master and servant relationship and no effective control on independent contractors or home-workers. The manufacturer or trade mark holder is rendered liable as the principal employer of contract labour. Third, Section 4 of the Act imposes conditions which are arbitrary, excessive extraneous. Fourth, Section 7(i)(c) regarding entry into industri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1755; [1974(28)FLR231]; (1974)ILLJ312SC; (1974)4SCC335; [1974]3SCR207; 1974(1)SLJ576(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against two inter-linked judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It will be convenient to dispose them of by this common judgment.2. Respondents 1 to 9 in Civil Appeal No. 1937 of 1972 made a petition (W. P. 1145 of 1969) under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the present appellants (the General Manager, South Central Railway and the Secretary, Railway Board) to fix the inter-se seniority of the writ petitioners as per original proceedings, dated October 16, 1952, of the Railway Board, and to further direct them not to give effect to the subsequent proceedings dated November 2, 1957 and January 13, 1961, of the Board issued by way of 'modification' and 'clarification' of its earlier proceedings of 1952.3. During the last World War, there was acute shortage of foodgrains and other necessaries of life. At the suggestion of B.N. Rau Committee, grain shops f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC989; 1974CriLJ784; (1974)4SCC84; [1974]3SCR200
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. 1. The appellant, a quondam inspector of Central Excise, has argued his case with perspicacity and plausibility, taking liberal advantage of our solicitude for giving this lay man a lengthy hearing. The charge broadly stated, is one of corruption falling under 161,T.P.C. and 5(1)(d), read with 5(2), of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ; the proof of guilt is built on a trap laid by the Special Police Establishment, apparently clinched by processes of chemical detection ; and the uphill task of the accused is to challenge in this Court, under Article 136, the concurrent findings upholding his culpability. Undaunted he has attempted to explain the incriminating evidence with adroitness worthy of a better cause and has taken us critically through the testimony of the P.W.s in an effort to substantiate a credible case for his exculpation.2. Now, the story, P.W. 1, a young man in his late twenties, had started a small factory in Shadara, called Uma Engineering Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1996; (1974)4SCC92; 1974(6)LC171(SC)
Iyer, J.1. These two civil appeals may be disposed of together. Both the appellants who were running cinema theatres in the State of Gujarat, have hitched their litigation wagon to the Liberty Talkies star. In Liberty Talkies v. The State of Gujarat : [1971]3SCR398 this Court laid down certain principles which according to the appellants govern their cases, although the State has refuted this contention.2. Very briefly, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1779 of 1969 was carrying on the business of showing cinemas in the name and style of Sadhna Talkies. He paid entertainment tax as required under the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923 (for short, the Act). From 1959 to 1962 such duty was paid and requisite returns made, but by notice dated 24-1-1969, the officers of the State demanded payment of Rs. 10,140/- as being the shortfall in the duty paid as against the duty due. This difference arises on account of the interpretation put by the State, now upheld by this Court in the Liberty...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1974)3CTR(SC)205
Krishna Iyer, J. - These two civil appeals may disposed of together. Both the appellants who were running cinema theatres in the State of Gujarat, have hitched their litigation wagon to the Liberty Talkies star. In Liberty Talkies v. The State of Gujarat this Court laid down certain principles which according tot eh appellants govern their cases, although the State has refused this contention.2. Very briefly, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1779 of 1969 was carrying on the business of showing cinemas in the name and style of Sadhna Talkies. He paid entertainment tax as required under the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923 (for short, the Act). From 1959 to 1962 such duty was paid and requisite returns made but by notice dated January 24, 1969, the officers of the States demanded payment of Rs. 10,140 as being the shortfall in the duty paid as against the duty due. This difference arises on account of the interpretation put by State, now unheld by this Court in the Liberty Talkies c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC650; (1974)1SCC854; 1974(6)LC169(SC)
Goswami, J.1. The appellant aged about 45 years at the time of trial is a crippled son of the respondent, Bogh Singh. Bogh Singh is in possession of ancestral land. The appellant is a disabled person having defective arms with which he cannot do any manual labour. Some time back his father executed an agreement in his favour to give him maintenance but subsequently he refused to do so. On the other hand he gave some of his land to his other sons. That led to the filing of a suit by the appellant against his father, the respondent, for grant of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month on the plea that he is entitled to it on the basis of custom. The suit was resisted by the respondent on various grounds. Several issues were framed in the trial and the Trial Court, amongst others, decided the first issue with regard to custom against the plaintiff, the appellant herein. The Trial Court found that the appellant was a disabled person but was not entitled to claim maintenanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1975)3SCC305; 1974(6)LC170(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J.1. The appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, by this Presidency magistrate, third court, Calcutta. The appeal by the accused proved unavailing and he has come to this Court under Article 136.2. It appears from the case that the accused and the complainant have been having business dealings before and both of them are traders in dry bones. It is represented before us that the case has been compounded by the parties and the affidavit of the complainant (second respondent) is also filed. We think that this is pre-eminently a case where mutual claims might have existed and probably there was some over-reaching by one of the other. Without going into the merits & accepting reasonableness of the compounding of the offence, we grant leave for the composition under Section 345(5), Criminal Procedure Code. The accused is consequently acquitted of the offence and the appeal is disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC759; [1974(28)FLR223]; (1974)ILLJ304SC; (1974)4SCC365; [1974]3SCR142
P.K. Goswami, J.1. The appellant and his brother, Srinivasamurthy are partners of a firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and exporting of polished granite memorial stones in the name and style of Messrs Narayauaswami & Sons. The firm is admittedly a factory both under the Factories Act as well as under the Employees' State Insurance Act (briefly the Act). The appellant claims to directly employ about 35 persons in his factory and has been paying contribution under the Act on their account. It is stated that adjacent to his own factory there is another factory situated on the appellant's land leased out by him to two persons, Chidambarchari and Shan-karsubbachari (hereinafter referred to as the contractors). The contractors employ about 50 workers in their factory for purposes of cutting and dressing the granite stones. The lorry drivers bring granite from the surrounding areas and unload them outside the factory. The contractors get these to their portion of the leased land f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC994; (1974)2SCC70; [1974]3SCR152
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals 1756 of 1967. Nos. 1755 and From the judgment and order dated the 4th October, 1966 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 854 and 855 of 1963. V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants. S. K. Dhingra for the respondents. The Judgment of D. G. PALEKAR and V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ. was delivered by Krishna lyer, J. R. S. SARKARIA, J. gave a dissenting, Opinion. KRISHNA IYER, J. These two appeals by the State of Haryana challenge the High Court's approach to an interpretation of two, crucial provisions of a land reforms law, namely, Ss. 10-A and 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (X Of 1953) 1953 (for short called "the Act"). Counsel for the appellants complains; that if the view upheld by the High Court of subordinating S. 10-A to S. 18 were not upset by this Court, large land' holders may extricate their surplus land in excess of the ceiling set, through legal loopholes, such as have been practise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC94; (1975)4SCC808; 1974(6)LC143(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J.1. The appellant was elected as the president of the panchyat samithi of Bapatla on July 18, 1970. The Government for reasons set out in its communication, issued a show-cause notice dated the 26th September, 1972 asking the president to submit an explanation within 21 days of the receipt of that notice why he should not be removed. Thereafter, various communications and other proceedings took place with which we are not concerned in the light of the final order that we are passing. We have suggested a course to the parties, which counsel fairly agreed, was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.2. The appellant has contended that the order removing him from his office as the president was passed without hearing him and the respondent State has contested his ground taking up the stand that an opportunity has been afforded but has not been taken advantage of. We are not going into the merits of the matter, because we feel that the ends of justice would be served by ...
Tag this Judgment!