Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC329; (1976)4SCC505; [1977]1SCR979; 1976(8)LC947(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal by certificate is from the judgment dated 11 April 1968 of the High Court at Calcutta.2. The respondent filed this suit against the appellant in the High Court: at Calcutta and claimed Rs. 76,691-2-0 with interest or in the alternative Rs. 78,204-8-4. The respondent's case in short is that the respondent delivered to the defendant appellant pursuant to several orders from time to time goods described as Mac Intyre Sleeves and other goods. The respondent alleged in the plaint that the appellant 'wrongfully purported to reject the Mac Intyre Sleeves' supplied by the respondent. The respondent further alleged that the rejection was unlawful inasmuch as the rejection was after lapse of reasonable time. The respondent claimed the sum mentioned in the plaint as reasonable price of the goods. The alternative case of the respondent is that the plaintiff respondent was entitled to the sum for supply of Mac Intyre Sleeves because the same were not supplied gratuitous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC899; (1976)4SCC513
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This judgment would dispose of the two Civil Appeals Nos. 1751 and 1752 of 1968 which have been filed by Shamal bhai Lalubhai Patel against a common judgment of the Gujarat High Court on the basis of a certificate of fitness granted under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution, as it existed then. The question involved in these appeals relates to the quantum of compensation in respect of the lands of the appellant acquired for the Western Railway.2. Civil Appeal No. 1751 of 1968 relates to the acquisition of land comprised in two survey Nos. 332/1 and 329. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of that land was issued on April 19, 1956. Survey No. 332/1 measures 109-3/4 gunthas equivalent to 13279 square yards. It may be stated that 40 gunthas constitute one acre and one guntha is equal to 121 square yards. The land acquisition officer assessed the compensation payable for the land comprised in survey No. 332/1 at the rate of Rs. 90/- p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC223; (1977)1SCC367; 1976(8)LC922(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the appellate judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated July 25, 1967 upholding the trial court's view that the 'existing rents' would be a 'fair measure' of the mesne profits claimed by the appellant.2. The suit is question was filed by the appellant for possession of the suit premises and for mesne profits or damages, or an enquiry into mesne profits and damages, and other consequential reliefs. The trial court granted a decree for possession and for arrears, as well as for mesne profits at the rate at which the premises had been let out to the defendant. It took the view that the rent permissible by the Rent Act should determine the mesne profits. The plaintiff felt aggrieved and claimed that he was entitled to mesne profits according to the 'present rental value' of the premises which it assessed at Rs. 60/- per 100 sq. feet. It preferred an appeal and as it has been dismissed by the impugned judgment of a Division ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC311; 1977(0)KLT237(SC); (1977)1SCC208; [1977]1SCR960; 1976(8)LC918(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 10 October, 1974 of the High Court of Kerala.2. The respondent in the High Court challenged the order of the Land Board directing him to surrender 8.78 acres of land. The High Court declared on a revision petition that the respondent was not liable to surrender the lands specified in the order of the Land Board.3. The respondent filed a statement under Section 85(a) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1964 hereinafter called the Act and showed there that the statement related to the family consisting of himself, his wife and children. Two of his children were minors on 1 January, 1970. The ceiling area allowed under Section 82(1) of the Act for a family consisting of two or more but not more than five members is 10 standard acres which should not be less than 12 and more than 15 ordinary acres in extent. On this footing the respondent would be entitled to have not less than 12 acres on the notified date, namely, 1 Janu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC331; 1977(0)KLT273(SC); (1977)1SCC363
A.C. Gupta, J.1. This appeal brought on a certificate of fitness granted by the Kerala High Court arises out of a proceeding under the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1970.2. The first respondent had an overdraft account with the Catholic Bank of India Limited since 1954. An order for the winding up of the Bank was made sometime in May, 1957. On a claim being filed by the official liquidator against the first respondent, the High Court of Kerala on January 8, 1963 made an order asking the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 5130/10 p. with future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the principal amount of Rupees 4663/39 p. This order was presumably made under Section 45D(4) of the Banking Regulation Act. 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). On May 1, 1970 Rs. 5130/10 p. was recovered from the first respondent leaving a balance of Rs. 2375/80 p. carrying interest at 6 per cent per annum still to be realized. Sometime in July, 1970 the Kerala Agricultur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC409; (1977)1SCC60; [1977]1SCR967
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. These two appeals by certificate have been consolidated by an order of this Court dated April 15, 1969. They are directed against a common judgment of the Delhi High Court dated February 14, 1967, in Regular First Appeals Nos. 5-D and 54-D of 1958, by which the judgment and decree of the trial court dated January 13, 1958 have been set aside with costs throughout. As this has resulted in the dismissal of the suit raised by the Union of India, it has filed the present appeals.2. The facts giving rise to the appeals are quite simple. Harjas Rai Malhotra, defendant) No. 3, is the father of Krishan Lal Malhotra, defendant No. 2. The liability of defendant No. 3 to income-tax and super-tax for the assessment year 1947-48, was fixed Rs. 1,25,090/11/- in March, 1952. A demand was made for its payment, but he neglected to meet it and a certificate was issued on October 8, 1952 to the Collector of Delhi for its recovery as arrears of land revenue. The Collector was asked to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC151; (1976)4SCC497; [1977]1SCR937
M.H. Beg, J.1. These are three appeals by certification against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, allowing appeals from the judgment of a learned Single Judge. The Jammu and Kashmir Government had filed three applications under Section 20 of the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration Act, 2002, to refer disputes arising out of three agreements between it and the appellant Company to arbitration under the arbitration clauses of agreements between the parties. The applications had been dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground that the arbitration clause was, in each case, a part of an agreement which was not duly executed in accordance with the provisions of Section 122(1) of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir which correspond to those of Article 199(1) of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench that allowed the appeals of the Conservator of Forests, Jammu Circle, after holding that the provisions of Section 122(1) of the Constitution of Jammu ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC334; 1977LabIC169; (1976)4SCC486; [1977]1SCR957; 1976(8)LC916(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. Colvin Taluqdars' College in Lucknow, ran by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, imparts education at the following different stages :(i) Pre-basic i.e., nursery classes.(ii) Junior basic, called primary stage, from class I to V.(iii) Senior basic i.e., Junior high school stage from class VI to VIII, and(iv) Higher secondary stage, called high school stage- classes IX and X.(b) Intermediate stage-Classes XI and XII2. In the beginning the college had no pre-basic or junior basic classes and started with class VI; classes I to V and nursery classes were opened later. The respondent was appointed ah assistant teacher in the basic section of the college in 1961. Following certain incidents involving her, she was suspended on or about August 20, 1970 and ultimately her services were terminated by the managing committee of the college some tune in October 1970. She filed a writ petition in the High Court at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) alleging inter alia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC286; (1977)1SCC396; [1977]1SCR942; 1976(8)LC999(SC)
H. R. Khanna, J.1. This appeal by Dr. Wilfred D'Souza is against the judgment of learned Judicial Commissioner Goa whereby be dismissed election petition filed by the appellant to declare the election of Francis Menino Jesus Ferrao respondent to the Goa Legislative Assembly to be void and to declare instead the appellant to be duly elected.2. The appellant and the respondent were the two candidates who sought election to the Goa Legislative Assembly from Benaulim Assembly constituency in the by election caused by the death of Vassudev Garmalkar. Polling took place on June 9, 1974 and the counting of votes on June 10, 1974. After the first count, the Returning Officer found that the total number of valid votes cast in favour of the appellant was 4,656 and of those cast in favour of the respondent was 4,654. 234 ballot papers were rejected. The respondent then applied for re-counting of the votes and the said application was granted. As a result of re-counting, it was found that the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC292; (1977)1SCC241
M.H. Beg, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants in a partition suit. It has come up before us after certification of the case under the unamended provisions of Article 133 as the decree of the Trial Court was modified so that the requirements of Order 45 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code had been fulfilled. Learned Counsel for the appellant (defendant No. 4 transposed on 5-11-51 as plaintiff No. 4) has confined his argument to liability of Rs. 42550/10/1 which resulted after the accounts which the appellant had to render on behalf of his branch of the family. The pedigree of the family is as follows : JAGGIAH | ___________________|_____________________ | | Maraeiah Butchiramayya (Plaintiff) d. 1912 d. 7 June, 1951 | | ________|_________ _________________|_________________ | | | | | | Son Daughters D2 D-3 D-4 D-5 D-1 Sitharamayya D-6 to D 8 Transposed as Plaintiffs Born 1903 2 to 5 by Order dt. 5.11.51 Died 1936 20.4.53 = D 6 to D-8 surrendered their rights to D-9, 10, 11, 12...
Tag this Judgment!