Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1522; (1974)2SCC253; [1975]1SCR340; 1974(6)LC411(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J. 1. This writ application under Article 32 of the Constitution raises the question of the Constitutional tradition of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972 (Act of XXXVI of 1972), briefly called the Act, and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioners are land-owners in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and their grievance is that by the impugned Act they along with a large number of similar land-owners have been rendered landless. They further allege that the amount intended to be paid as compensation is illusory and the Act is, therefore, of a confiscatory nature. They also allege that exclusion of an 'orchard' from the definition of 'land' under Section 2(4) of the Act is motivated and designed in the interests of highly placed influential persons in the State who own such orchards. By taking an additional ground, they also aver that the Act is not saved by the provisions of Article 31A of the Constitution as applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir sinc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2044; (1974)2SCC539; [1975]1SCR333
A. Alagiriswami, J. 1. The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is impugned in these petitions as unConstitutional and void. Notices have been issued to the petitioners under Section 6 of that Act in order to evict them from a certain piece of land claimed to be Government land. The challenge to the Constitutional validity of the Act is based solely on the decision of this Court in Northern India Caterers v. Punjab : [1967]3SCR399 . In that case the validity of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 was under consideration. The State had leased its premises to the appellant therein for running a hotel and when the lease expired called upon him to hand over vacant possession of the premises. On the appellant failing to do so the Collector issued a notice under Section 4 of the Punjab Act requiring the appellant to show cause why an order of eviction should not be passed under Section 5. This Court while holding that 'there is an intelligible differe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1527; [1974(29)FLR207]; 1974LabIC1004; (1974)IILLJ271SC; (1975)3SCC64; [1975]1SCR348; 1974(6)LC417(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. Whether the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi (Respondent 1) is a 'commercial establishment' within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 (for short the Act) is the sale question that falls for determination in this appeal by certificate directed against the judgment dated February 8, 1967 of the High Court of Delhi.2. The facts bearing on this question may now be stated:Respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Federation) is a Company registered under Section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The primary objects of the Federation as given in the Memorandum or Association are :(a) To promote Indian business in matters of inland and foreign trade, transport, industry and manufactures, finance and all other economic subjects and to encourage Indian banking, shipping and insurance.(b) To encourage friendly feeling and unanimity among business community and association on all subjects connecte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2151; 1974CriLJ1476; (1975)3SCC335; [1975]1SCR327; 1974(6)LC408(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J. 1. This Court on 22 April, 1974 passed an order for release of the detenus. The reasons were to be given later. The reasons are as follows:2. In Writ Petition No. 961 of 1973 the petitioner was detained pursuant to an order of detention dated 15 January, 1972. He was released by the State Government pursuant to an order dated 23 April, 1973. On 25 April, 1973 there was another order of detention. The petitioner was detained pursuant to that order.3. In Writ Petition No. 1339 of 1973 the petitioner was detained pursuant to an order of detention dated 27 March, 1972. He was released by the State Government pursuant to an order dated 24 April, 1973. He was detained again under an order dated 26 April, 1973.4. In Writ Petition No. 1622 of 1973 the petitioner was detained under an order dated 6 November, 1972. The State Government released the petitioner on 28 April, 1973. He was detained again pursuant to an order dated 26 April, 1973.5. In Writ Petition No. 1636 of 1973 the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1539; (1974)2SCC348; [1975]1SCR321; 1974(6)LC361(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J. 1. In these four writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, the parties and the basic questions for determination are the same. They will therefore be disposed of by a common-judgment.2. The petitioner-firm is dealing in the manufacture of automobile parts, wires and cables. The petitioner made four applications on November 5, 1969, March 23, 1970, November 5, 1970 and November 6, 1970, for the grant of licences to import stainless steel sheets and electrolytic copper wire bars, for the period April-March 1970 and April-March 1971. At the time of the receipt of the first application dated November 5, 1969, Respondent 3 (Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Hyderabad) received some complaints that the petitioner-firm was misutilizing the imported material. After a preliminary investigation made by the C.B.I., a First Information Report was registered on December 12, 1969 with the police against the petitioner-firm and some others in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1389; (1974)1SCC717; [1975]1SCR173
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. The question for consideration is whether the minorities based on religion or language have the right to establish and administer educational institutions for imparting general secular education within the meaning, of Article 30 of the Constitution.2. The minority institutions which are in truth and reality educational institutions where education in its various aspects is imparted claim protection of Article 30.3. This raises the question at the threshold whether Articles 30(1) and 29(1) of the Constitution are mutually exclusive.4. Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution are grouped under the heading 'Cultural and educational rights'. Article 29(1) deals with right of any section of the citizens residing in India to preserve their language, script or culture. Article 30(1) provides that all religious and linguistic minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Article 29(2) prohibits discrimination in matters of admiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1533; (1974)4SCC827; [1975]1SCR312
R.S. Sarkaria, J. 1. In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a Private Ltd. Company, challenges the validity of the Cane Cess and Purchase tax levied on it for the month of January, 1968. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 are the State of Bihar, Certificate Officer and the Collector of Champaran, respectively.2. The facts are these :There was in force in the State of Bihar a pre-Constitution law known as Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937 (Act 7 of 1937). By notification issued under Section 29 of that Act, cane cess and purchase tax were being levied in respect of sugar cane intended to be used or used in a sugar factory. It was a temporary enactment. Originally, it was to remain in force until June 30, 1941. But its life was extended from time to time by different amending Acts. The last extension was made by Bihar Act 6 of 1950 upto January 30, 1955, which came into force on January 9, 1950 when it was published in the Bihar Government Gazette. Thereafter, B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1974)3CTR(SC)223
Sarkaria, J. - In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner a private Ltd. Company challenges the validity of the Cane Cess and Purchase tax levied on it for the month of January, 1968. Respondents 1, 2, and 3 are the State of Bihar, Certificate Officer and the Collector of Champaran, respectively.2. The facts are these :3. There was in force in the State of Bihar a per-Constitution law known as Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937 (Act 7 of 1937). By notification issued under sec. 29 of that Act, came cess and purchase tax were being levied in respect of sugar cane intended to be used or used in a sugar factory. It was a temporary enactment. Originally, it was to remain in force until June 30, 1941. But its life was extended from time to time by different amending Acts. The last extension was made by Bihar Act 6 of 1950 upto January 30, 1955, which came into force on January 9, 1950 when it was published in the Bihar Government Gazette. Thereafter, Bihar Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1543; (1974)2SCC196; 1974(6)LC345(SC)
Ray, C.J.1. These writ petitions under Article 32 were dismissed on 5 April, 1974. Reasons were to be given later on. These are as follows.2. The petitioners asked for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from denying the petitioners their quota of levy sugar which they had been receiving under the Levy Sugar (Supply Control) Order, 1972.3. Up to 1967 production, price, and distribution of sugar were controlled by the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the orders made thereunder.4. Every dealer in sugar was required by the Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1962 to obtain a licence for trading in sugar. The licences were required for any person who stored more than 10 quintals of sugar at a time for purposes of sale. The licences were issued annually. They were renewable.5. In 1971 the Central Government provided for partial decontrol of sugar by which producers were required to sell a part of the total product...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1589; 1974LabIC1010; (1974)4SCC374
1. This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court dated 30-7-1969 reversing the decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Lucknow dated 1-1-1964 in Regular Suit No. 36 of 1958. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit.2. The appellant joined service as a Junior Clerk in the Income-tax Department in 1925. He was promoted as an officiating Inspector in 1943 and as Income-tax Officer in 1946. Between 25th June, 1949 and 16th October, 1950, he was posted at Agra as Income-tax Officer, Ward B. Thereafter, he was transferred to Kanpur. Since complaints had been received with regard to his work at Agra, Shri R.N. Srivastava, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, made some preliminary enquiries and reported the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax. On the basis of the report, the Commissioner of Income-tax issued a memo dated 8th March, 1952 to the appellant and this memo is described in these proceedings as the first charge shee...
Tag this Judgment!