|
Advanced Search Options
Indian Laws - Supreme Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 10 of 10 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
1962 (1) TMI 92
... ...
... ... ..... to non-holding or late holding the elections at the gram panchayat as also municipal level only for the purpose of showing that even in such a case, the operation of the existing statutes or implementation thereof has not been held to have ceased. Thus, unless an appropriate case is made out for issuing a direction upon the State to make a legislation in terms of Article 243W read with Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution of India, prima facie the provisions of the Act as also the rules and regulations framed under the MRTP Act relating to town planning as well as the land use or the building plans have not become otiose. As other questions raised by the petitioners are already covered by the earlier decision of the High Court, which is the subject matter of several special leave petitions pending judgment before this Court, we are of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in entertaining the special leave petition at this stage, which is accordingly dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 91
... ...
... ... ..... rs cannot be exercised to do what the Code specifically prohibits the Court from doing. Sri Tripathi was competent to consider when the other party raised the objection whether the appeal was validly up for re-hearing before him. He considered the question and decided it rightly. It is also urged for the appellants that Sri Tej Pal Singh, had the jurisdiction to pas orders on the application presented by the appellants on December 17,1956, praying for the re-hearing of the appeal and that therefore his order could not be said to have been absolutely without jurisdiction. We do not agree. He certainly had jurisdiction to dispose of the application presented to him, but when s. 369, of the Code definitely prohibited the Court's reviewing or altering its judgment, he had no jurisdiction to consider the point raised and to set aside the order dismissing the appeal and order its re- hearing. We therefore see no force in this appeal and accordingly dismiss it. Appeal dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 77
... ...
... ... ..... ris was not disposed of by the Subordinate Judge for two years and it took the High Court three years to dispose of the revision petitions against the orders of the Subordinate Judge. The proceedings were further held up even after special leave was granted by this Court in March, 1957 for nearly five years before the appeal could be heard. This Court had ordered that the hearing of the appeals be expedited and heard on cyclostyled record but the record was not made ready for a long time. We also find that a large number of documents were included in the books prepared for use of the court to which no reference was made at the Bar during the course of the hearing. We trust that the case will be taken up for hearing with the least practicable delay and disposed of according to law. The appellants in the two appeals will be entitled to their costs both in this Court and the High Court. The costs of the trial court will be the cost in the cause. Appeals allowed. Cases remitted.
-
1962 (1) TMI 73
... ...
... ... ..... he appointment would be merely incidental to the main purpose of the enquiry. It would be difficult to conclude therefrom that the Special Committee were holding a parallel enquiry on matters pending decision by a court of law and that thereby their action tended to interfere with the course of justice." The same, with greater emphasis, can be said in the present case. The Departmental enquiry against Gurbaksh Singh did not tend to interfere with the course of justice. Bachan Singh, appellant, was conducting the enquiry under the orders of Pratap Singh. Pratap Singh directed the enquiry under orders from Government. Neither of them would commit contempt of Court in discharging his duty. I am therefore of opinion that the facts of the case do not make out that the appellants, by their alleged conduct, committed contempt of Court. I would therefore allow their appeals. BY COURT In accordance with the opinion of the majority, these appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 71
... ...
... ... ..... tee, on which the conclusion of the High Court was supported. In any event, a case cannot be an authority on a point of fact, and each case will have to be examined in the light of the circumstances existing in it. In the present case, the two Tribunals specially appointed to consider these matters, went thoroughly into the question, and discussed it from a correct angle. If they had examined they facts after instructing themselves correctly about the law, a Court of revision should be slow to interfere with the decision thus reached, unless it demonstrates by its own decision, the impropriety of the order, which it seeks to revise. No attempt of this kind has been made in this case, and in our opinion, the High Court was not justified in reversing the clear finding. In the result, this appeal must be allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside, and that of the appellate authority is restored. The landlord shall pay the costs here and in the High Court. Appeal allowed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 66
... ...
... ... ..... ity together as a unit. The power of excommunication is vested in him for the purpose of enforcing discipline and keep the denomination together as an entity. The purity of the fellowship is secured by the removal of persons who had rendered themselves unfit and unsuitable for membership of the sect. The power of excommunication for the purpose of ensuring the preservation of the community, has therefore a prime significance in the religious life of every member of the group. A legislation which penalises this power even when exercised for the purpose above-indicated cannot be sustained as a measure of social welfare or social reform without eviscerating the guarantee under Art. 25(1) and rendering the protection illusory. In my view the petitioner is entitled to the relief that he seeks and the petition will accordingly be allowed. BY COURT In accordance with the majority view of this Court, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 63
... ...
... ... ..... gly hold that when a person transfers property representing that he has a present interest therein, whereas he has, in fact, only a spes successionis, the transferee is entitled to the benefit of s. 43, if he has taken the transfer on the faith of that representation and for consideration. In the present case, Santhappa, the vendor in Ex. III, represented that he was entitled to the property in praesenti, and it has been found that the purchaser entered into the transaction acting on that representation. He therefore acquired title to the properties under s. 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, when Santhappa became in titulo on the death of Gangamma on February 17, 1933, and the subsequent dealing with them by Santhappa by way of release under Ex. A did not operate to vest any title in the appellant. The Courts below were right in upholding the title of the respondents, and this appeal must be dismissed with costs of the third respondent, who alone appears. Appeal dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 61
... ...
... ... ..... les but on persons. It has not been shown how the imposition of this tax is an unreasonable restriction on the rights of the petitioner to carry on trade, but it was submitted that by this means the petitioner will not be able to compete with the manufacturers outside the State of Assam. Assuming that this is so, it is clear that goods which are purchased are put to different uses and if the legislature thinks that certain classes of goods should pay the tax and not others that is a question of policy into which the courts cannot enter. We can only say that in such circumstances, per se there is no discrimination. There is no force in the second contention either. In view of our decision on these two points the third point, that is, the refusal of the Sales Tax Officer to amend the registration certificate will have no force. In the result this petition fails and is dismissed and the rule is discharged. The petitioner will pay the costs of the respondent. Petition dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 60
... ...
... ... ..... ld not exceed the bounds of reasonable restrictions on the right of freedom of speech and expression. It is clear, therefore, that cl. (2) of Art. 19 clearly save the section from the vice of unconstitutionality. It has not been contended before us on behalf of the appellant in C.A. 169 of 1957 or on behalf of the respondents in the other appeals (No. 124- 126 of 1958) that the words used by them did not come within the purview of the definition of sedition as interpreted by us. No arguments were advanced before us to show that even on the interpretation given by us their cases did not come within the mischief of the one or the other section, as the case may be. It follows, therefore, that the Criminal Appeal 169 of 1957 has to be dismissed. Criminal Appeals 124-126 of 1958 will be remanded to the High Court to pass such order as it thinks fit and proper in the light of the interpretation given by us. Appeal No. 169 of 1957 dismissed. Appeals Nos. 124 to 126 of 1958 allowed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 58
... ...
... ... ..... d freedom of movement throughout the territory of India and has laid down detailed rules as to arrest and detention. It has also, by way of limitations upon the freedom of personal liberty, recognised the right of the State to legislate for preventive detention, subject to certain safeguards in favour of the detained person, as laid down in cls. (4) and (5) of Art. 22. One of those safeguards is that the detained person has the right to be communicated the grounds on which the order of detention has been made against him, in order that he may be able to make his representation against the order of dentention. In our opinion, in the circumstances of this case, it has not been shown that the appellant had the opportunity, which the law contemplates in his favour, making an effective representation against his detention. On this ground alone we declare his detention illegal, and set aside the Order of the High Court and the Order of Detention passed against him. Appeal allowed.
|
