Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1495; (1974)2SCC354; [1974]3SCR872; 1974(6)LC310(SC)
H.R. Khanna. J.1. A decree for ejectment from the premises in dispute and for recovery of Rs. 7,163/12/3 was awarded by learned Additional Sub Judge Patna in favour of the two plaintiff-respondents against the Board of Trustees T. K. Ghosh's Academy Patna and other defendants. On appeal filed by some of the defendants the Patna High Court set aside the decree for ejectment. The amount for the recovery of which decree had been awarded by the trial, court was also reduced to Rs. 3,725/2/-. The present appeal has been filed on certificate by the Managing Committee T.K. Ghosh's Academy and other defendants against the decision of the High Court.2. The two plaintiff respondents are the sons of Shri Jadu Nath Palit who founded in 1876 a school known as T.K. Ghosh's Academy The school attracted some of the best students and Ur. Rajendra Prasad, Dr. B.C. Roy, Mr. Hasan Imam and Mr. Sachidanand Sinha received their education in this school. The school was run in premises which originally belong...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1123; 1974(0)BLJR789; (1974)2SCC288; [1974]3SCR867; 1974(6)LC294(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the temple of Shree Maharaja Ram Janki Lacchuman Maharaj in the village of Mauza Deogan in the State of Bihar is a religious trust within the meaning of the term in Section 2, Clause (1) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, or a private endowment.2. Two brothers, Ram Adhikari Choudhary and Ram Lochan Choudhary, and Amir Prasad Choudhary, son of their brother, for himself and as guardian of Ramakant Prasad Choudhary, who were ail members of joint Hindu family executed on 17.6.1921 a samarpannama by which they dedicated certain properties to the above mentioned temple. By that deed of dedication they completely divested themselves of any interest in the properties except that they and the members of their families were to be shebaits. By the same deed five persons, who were absolute strangers to the family, were appointed panches 'to take the rendition of account of the income and expenditure from the manager, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1126; 1974MhLJ602(SC); (1974)2SCC393; [1974]3SCR882
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, under Article 133(i)(a) of the Constitution.2. On March 24, 1953 defendant 1 executed on behalf of himself and his minor son defendant 2, a deed of mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant 3 is also a son of defendant 1 but he was born, after the mortgage deed, on September 30, 1955. On January 11, 1956 a registered deed of partition was executed amongst the defendants under which the mortgaged property was allotted 10 the share of defendants 2 and 3.3. On September 1, 1956 the mortgagee filed Civil Suit No. 3A of 1956 to enforce the mortgage. On September 20, 1958 the trial court passed a preliminary decree for sale of defendant 1's interest in the mortgaged property. It held that part of the consideration for the mortgage was not supported by legal necessity and the balance of the debt incurred on the mortgage was tainted with immorality. Though, therefore, de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1564; 1974CriLJ1029; (1974)4SCC568; [1974]3SCR891
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This criminal appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court affirming the conviction of the five appellants, Bhajan Singh, Chain Singh, Baldeo Singh Jagat Singh and Gurbachan Singh Under Section 302/149 T. P. C. and sentence of imprisonment for life on each of them. Bhajan Singh, Chain Singh and Jagat Singh have further been convicted Under Section 147 I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each and the two other appellants have also been convicted Under Section 148 I. P. C. and sentenced to one and a half years rigorous imprisonment each. Special leave was refused to Baldev Singh and Gurbachan Singh.2. The prosecution case may briefly be stated:Chain Singh and Baldeo Singh arc sons of Bhajan Singh, Gurbachan Singh is the son of Jagat Singh. The deceased is Bakhsheesh Singh, who was the brother of Major Singh and a cousin of appellant, Bhajan Singh. Major Singh had purchased some land in their village Paiva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1567; 1974CriLJ1033; (1974)76PLR677; (1974)4SCC603; [1974]3SCR863; 1974(6)LC389(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This appeal by special leave, by three out of twenty three, who alone were convicted by the High Court in reversal of a total acquittal by the trial court, turns on the propriety of the Court of Appeal convicting accused persons whose initial advantage of a presumption of innocence has been strengthened by a judicial affirmation at the first level.2. The few facts are these. Two groups the complainants' and the accused's have been on terms of bitter hostility a background material which has legitimately induced both the courts to be very sceptical about the veracity of the prosecution witnesses in the absence of unlying corroboration. As found by both the courts, a confrontation and exchange of violence occurred on June 22, 1964 each party calling the other aggressor. Anyway, several on the prosecution side did receive gunshot wounds, although luckily not fatal, and three among the accused bunch had on their person lathi blow injuries. The trial Judge disbelieve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1502; 1974LabIC1001; (1975)3SCC162; [1974]3SCR857
P.N. Goswami, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay of 9th December, 1971, in Special Civil Application (S.C.A.) No. 1354 of 1970 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants and the first nineteen respondents and respondents 22 to 24 are at present the employees in the Agriculture Department of the State of Maharashtra following reorganisation of States on 1st November, 1956.2. Respondents 1 to 19 were the original petitioners in S.C.A. No. 1354 of 1970. They were officers from the former Hyderabad State prior to the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, (briefly called the Act). They prayed in their said application for a writ to set aside the Bombay Government's Resolutions of 17th February, 1958 and 16th May, 1969 and the provisional gradation list of 27th September, 1969 and the promotion orders of 5th and 6th June, 1970 and other consequential reliefs. They had impleaded in the said application five respondents, the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1974)3CTR(SC)187
Beg, J. - The Collector of Customs, Madras, has come up, by grant of special leave to appeal, against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court quashing an order of the Central Government which confirmed an order of appellant confiscating a large quantity of sewing machine needles. The respondent had imported the needles under a licence which did not, according to the case of the Customs Department, cover the goods imported. A learned Single Judge of the High Court had set aside a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the respondent as the sewing needles imported by the petitioner-respondent were not, according to the learned Judge proved to belong to the prohibited class, but the confiscation order had, rather inconsistently, been maintained. On an appeal by the respondent against the refusal to quash the confiscation order the Division Bench of the Madras High Court came to the conclusion that there was no prohibition at all as contemplated by Section 3 of the Import Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1209; 1975CriLJ553; (1974)4SCC540; [1974]3SCR852; 1974(6)LC481(SC)
M.H. Beg, J.1. The Collector of Customs, Madras, has come up, by grant of special leave to appeal, against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court quashing an order of the Central Government which confirmed an order of the appellant confiscating a large quantity of sewing machine needles. The respondent had imported the needles under a licence which did not, according to the case of the customs' Department, cover the goods imported. A learned Single Judge of the High Court had set aside a penalty of Rs. 5.000/- imposed upon the respondent as the sewing needles imported by the petitioner-respondent were not, according to the learned Judge, proved to belong to the prohibited class, but the confiscation order had, rather inconsistently, been maintained. On an appeal by the respondent against the refusal to quash the confiscation order, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court came to the conclusion that there was no prohibition at all as contemplated by Section 3 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC856; (1974)2SCC221; 1974(6)LC300(SC)
ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL.4. As years passed, Government changed its policy and by a circular dated December 19, 1953, a new decision was reached and communicated to the concerned officers. Since the appellant rests its claim on, the strength of this circular memorandum, it is appropriate to set it out in full here.GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM; In supersession of all orders issued so far in connection with the disposal of Galper lands in charge of the public works department, Government is pleased to direct that the principles laid down in the accompanying note printed as an accompanyment, should be adopted while disposing of such lands in future.2. These orders in the accompanying note do not supersede the orders contained in Government Resolution, Revenue Department No. 7056/49, dated the 14th October, 1950, as the letter are applicable to the disposal of Galper Lands under the control of the Revenue Department.By order and in the name of the Governor of Bombay Sd/-(P.R. Jos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC480; 1974CriLJ1504; (1975)3SCC192; 1974(6)LC469(SC)
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. In this case the appellant has been released by the High Court after his appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing his first habeas corpus petition was admitted and was pending before us. The High Court, on a subsequent application by the petitioner after the receipt of the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, that the oil which was alleged to be adulterated and purchased from the petitioner by the Food Inspector was not adulterated, allowed his habeas corpus petition and directed his release as aforesaid. Dr. Singhvi contends that since this appeal involves the larger question of whether for offences under the Food Adulteration Act a person can be detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, as also other important questions, we should hear this appeal. It is not necessary for us to express our view on any of these points or to say whether the High Court is right or wrong on the view it has taken on the seve...
Tag this Judgment!