|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 138 Records
-
1977 (8) TMI 183
Issues:
Determining if the plaintiff can benefit from Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 due to earlier proceedings to save limitation.
Analysis:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of arrears of exemption fee for a period from 1951 to 1959, claiming it as the successor in interest of the Corporation. The defendants contested, arguing that a major part of the claim was barred by limitation and that the cause of action in the current suit differed from the earlier proceedings.
The central issue was whether the plaintiff could exclude the time spent in the earlier proceedings to save limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The plaintiff contended that the earlier suit was prosecuted in good faith, citing precedents like Ramdutt v. E. D. Sasoon & Co. and S. K. Dutt v. Purnachandra Sinha to support their argument that the phrase "other cause of a like nature" should be interpreted liberally. However, the defendants emphasized the requirement that the Court must be unable to entertain the earlier proceedings due to a defect of jurisdiction or a similar cause.
The Court examined various precedents, such as Siddalingana Gowd v. Bhimana Gowd, Madan Mohan Jew v. Bejoyabati Dassi, and Jai Kishen Singh v. Peoples Bank of Northern India, to determine the applicability of Section 14. It was noted that the earlier suit in 1952 was decided on its merits, and there was no defect of jurisdiction or infirmity preventing the Courts from entertaining it.
Ultimately, the Court held that the plaintiff's claim for arrears of fees from 1951 to 1957 was indeed barred by limitation. The cause of action in the current suit was deemed distinct from the earlier proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to exclude the time spent in the prior proceedings for computing the limitation period under Section 14. A decree was granted in favor of the plaintiff for the undisputed sum of arrear fees from 1957 to 1959, along with costs, despite the main issue being decided in favor of the defendant.
-
1977 (8) TMI 182
Issues Involved:
1. Fraud by bank officials
2. Liability of banks to the customer
3. Material alteration of the cheque
4. Negligence and good faith under the Negotiable Instruments Act
5. Breach of contract by the bank
6. Liability of the collecting bank
7. Policy considerations for banks regarding fraudulent activities by employees
Detailed Analysis:
1. Fraud by Bank Officials:
"This is a blatant case of fraud practiced on banks by their officials to the prejudice of the banks as well as the customer or the drawer of a cheque." The judgment highlights the fraudulent actions of bank officials who colluded with an individual named S. P. Madan to defraud both the banks and the customer, Durga Devi.
2. Liability of Banks to the Customer:
"The liability of the banks to the customer was never in doubt." The court affirmed that the banks are liable to the customer for the fraudulent actions of their officials. The Punjab National Bank and the National and Grindlays Bank were held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 18,000 and interest to the plaintiff.
3. Material Alteration of the Cheque:
The cheque issued by Durga Devi was materially altered by substituting "Shri Satya Pal Madan" in place of "The State Bank of India," and the date and amount were overwritten. "The whole cheque except the signature of Durga Devi was, therefore, materially altered when presented for collection." This alteration was obvious, and the acceptance of such a cheque indicated collusion by the bank officials.
4. Negligence and Good Faith under the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The Punjab National Bank could have been protected under section 10 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if the payment was made "in accordance with the apparent tenor of the instrument in good faith and without negligence." However, the court found that the officials acted with fraud and collusion, negating any claim of good faith. "There was total negligence on the part of the officials of the Punjab National Bank."
5. Breach of Contract by the Bank:
The court held that the Punjab National Bank breached its duty of care to the plaintiff. "The liability of the Punjab National Bank to the plaintiff arises out of a breach of contract." The bank's failure to detect the forgery and material alteration of the cheque resulted in a loss to the plaintiff, making the bank liable for damages.
6. Liability of the Collecting Bank:
The National and Grindlays Bank was also held liable under section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for failing to act in good faith and without negligence. "The trial Court has held the National and Grindlays Bank as being also under obligation to act in good faith and without negligence."
7. Policy Considerations for Banks Regarding Fraudulent Activities by Employees:
The judgment criticized the banks for not taking immediate action against fraudulent employees and for dragging customers into unnecessary litigation. "We think that banks are public institutions... they owe a duty of fairness to their customers." The court suggested that banks should admit liability when convinced of the justice of a claim and take prompt action against erring employees. This issue was recommended for consideration by the Department of Banking, Ministry of Finance, and the Reserve Bank of India.
Conclusion:
The appeal by the Punjab National Bank was dismissed with costs, and the court emphasized the need for banks to adopt fair practices and avoid unnecessary litigation. "With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed with costs."
-
1977 (8) TMI 181
Issues:
1. Abatement of appeal due to death of a party.
2. Application for setting aside abatement.
3. Interpretation of application for substitution as application for setting aside abatement.
4. Consideration of delay in filing application for setting aside abatement.
5. Legal justification for treating application as under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Analysis:
1. The defendant filed a First Appeal in the High Court, but one of the respondents, Banwari Lal, passed away during the appeal process, leading to the issue of abatement of the appeal against the deceased party.
2. The defendant filed an application for substitution of Banwari Lal with his widow. However, the court initially dismissed the application as time-barred, leading to the abatement of the appeal against the deceased respondent.
3. The defendant argued that the application for substitution should be considered as an application for setting aside the abatement, relying on a previous court decision. The court below distinguished the previous decision, leading to the abatement of the entire appeal.
4. The defendant further contended that the application for substitution implied a prayer for setting aside the abatement. The court agreed that the previous decision should have been followed, and the application should be treated as one for setting aside the abatement.
5. The defendant also argued that a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not necessary to condone the delay in setting aside the abatement. The court agreed, citing previous court decisions supporting this view, and allowed the revision, setting aside the order of the court below.
6. The High Court allowed the revision, stating that the application for substitution was made within a reasonable time, and the delay in setting aside the abatement did not need to be condoned. The case was remanded to the appropriate court for further consideration, with each party bearing their own costs.
-
1977 (8) TMI 180
Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with the court's order for payment of arrears.
2. Delay in implementation of the court's directive.
3. Evaluation of "wilful disobedience" under the Contempt of Courts Act.
4. Consideration of the apology tendered by the respondents.
5. Assessment of the government's measures to ensure compliance with judicial orders.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Non-compliance with the court's order for payment of arrears:
The court had issued a peremptory order on February 13, 1976, directing the respondents to pay the petitioners the arrears of their special pay within three months. The writ was served on the State Government on March 8, 1976, and the certified copy of the judgment was provided on May 13, 1976. Despite these directives, the payment was not made by the stipulated deadline of May 12, 1976. The petitioners made several attempts through letters dated July 22, 1976, November 11, 1976, and February 9, 1977, to remind the respondents of their obligations, but these communications were either ignored or inadequately addressed.
2. Delay in implementation of the court's directive:
The affidavit submitted by the second respondent on August 25, 1977, outlined the timeline and reasons for the delay. The affidavit mentioned that the first step towards implementation was taken only on May 20, 1976, after the expiration of the court's deadline. The Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records were requested to work out the amounts payable, which took an extended period. The Financial Adviser gave clearance on December 24, 1976, and a government resolution was issued on January 13, 1977. However, the petitioners complained that even by August 26, 1977, not all had received the authorization slips or full payments.
3. Evaluation of "wilful disobedience" under the Contempt of Courts Act:
The court examined whether the delay constituted "wilful disobedience" under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which requires establishing "wilful disobedience" to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other processes of a Court. The court noted that the disregard for the order was evident from the facts: the peremptory order was made in the presence of the government advocate, no stay order or extension was sought, and the first step towards compliance was taken only after the deadline had expired. The court considered whether the disregard was accidental or bona fide or arose from gross neglect or reckless disregard.
4. Consideration of the apology tendered by the respondents:
The second respondent tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology for the delay. The court acknowledged this apology and noted that after the contempt petition was filed, the second respondent took all possible steps to implement the court's order with the necessary expedition. The court also considered the departmental instructions issued by the government to ensure the faithful implementation of court decisions.
5. Assessment of the government's measures to ensure compliance with judicial orders:
The court highlighted the need for the government to set up effective machinery for the quick implementation of lawful orders passed in judicial proceedings. The court referred to a recent case (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 319 of 1977) where it had pointed out the need for timely compliance with court orders and emphasized that a government ruled by laws must carry out lawful orders faithfully and honestly.
Conclusion:
The court accepted the unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by the second respondent and discharged the rule. However, it directed the respondents to pay the costs of the petition to the petitioners, emphasizing the need for the government to ensure timely and faithful implementation of judicial orders to avoid similar issues in the future.
-
1977 (8) TMI 179
Issues:
1. Bias of a Tribunal member due to a close relationship with a party.
2. Violation of procedural requirements during spot inspection and local enquiries by the Tribunal.
Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged the order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights on the third respondent under S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The petitioners alleged bias on the part of a Tribunal member, Shri K. R. Honnappa, who is a cousin of the third respondent. The petitioners contended that the participation of Honnappa, who is biased in favor of the third respondent, has vitiated the proceedings. The Tribunal order did not bear Honnappa's signature, but the petitioners claimed that he had actively participated in the proceedings. The court held that when a Tribunal member is closely related to a party, it constitutes bias and violates the rules of natural justice, necessitating a fair hearing. The court concluded that the proceedings were vitiated due to the bias, and ordered a fresh adjudication excluding Honnappa from participation.
2. The Tribunal's order mentioned spot inspection and inquiries with adjacent landowners, relying on their statements without affording the interested parties an opportunity to cross-examine. This procedure was found to be in violation of the prescribed rules under R. 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules and S. 34 and 36 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Section 34 mandates the officer conducting an inquiry to record the summary of evidence in his own hand, while Section 36 requires hearings to be public with due notice to parties. The court held that conducting inspections and local inquiries without proper notice and cross-examination opportunity for interested parties is illegal and vitiates the proceedings. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and directed a fresh adjudication by the Tribunal in accordance with the law, allowing all parties a reasonable opportunity to present fresh evidence and be heard.
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the previous order, and directed a fresh adjudication by the Tribunal excluding the biased member. The court emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements to ensure a fair and just outcome in land-related disputes under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
-
1977 (8) TMI 178
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Municipal Committee under Section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, to amend the assessment lists of previous years.
2. Interpretation of Sections 66 and 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, regarding the amendment of assessment lists.
3. Applicability of the principle of reasonable time in the exercise of the power to amend assessment lists.
4. The effect of amendments made under Section 67 on the assessment lists of previous years.
5. Comparison of Section 67 with Section 68A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, and Section 82(3) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Municipal Committee under Section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, to amend the assessment lists of previous years:
The primary issue was whether the Municipal Committee had the jurisdiction under Section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, to amend the assessment lists of previous years. The High Court had held that the Municipal Committee did not have such jurisdiction, as the assessment lists settled under Section 66 could only operate prospectively for the financial year next following and not for any previous year. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that the Municipal Committee has the undoubted power under Section 67 to amend an assessment list "at any time." This power is not limited by the consideration that the list has already become final by authentication.
2. Interpretation of Sections 66 and 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, regarding the amendment of assessment lists:
The Supreme Court emphasized that Sections 66 and 67 must be read together as integral parts of a scheme for the preparation, assessment, and amendment of assessment lists. Section 66 deals with the finalization of the assessment list after objections have been heard, while Section 67 provides for the amendment of the list "at any time" to correct errors or omissions. The Court held that the expression "at any time" in Section 67 should be given its full force and effect, allowing the Municipal Committee to amend an assessment list even after it has come into force.
3. Applicability of the principle of reasonable time in the exercise of the power to amend assessment lists:
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the power to amend an assessment list under Section 67 should be exercised within a reasonable time, even though the statute uses the expression "at any time." However, the concept of reasonableness did not arise in this case, as it was not raised in the High Court. The Court noted that the Municipal Committee's power to amend an assessment list is not constrained by the finalization of the list and can be exercised even after the expiry of the year for which the list is to remain in force.
4. The effect of amendments made under Section 67 on the assessment lists of previous years:
The Supreme Court clarified that an amendment made under Section 67 to an assessment list becomes effective for the year for which the list itself was effective. For example, if a list finalized on March 25, 1970, is amended in August 1973, the amendment becomes effective for the year April 1, 1970, to March 31, 1971. The Court rejected the High Court's view that the amended list operates only prospectively for the financial year next following the amendment.
5. Comparison of Section 67 with Section 68A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, and Section 82(3) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925:
The Supreme Court compared Section 67 with Section 68A, which was introduced by Act 8 of 1974. Section 68A deals with the erroneous valuation or assessment of properties and provides that amendments made under it have no retrospective operation. The Court noted that the absence of words of limitation in Section 67, as compared to Section 68A, indicates that amendments under Section 67 can have a wider operation. The Court also discussed Section 82(3) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, but found no parallel between it and Section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The writ petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed. The appellant, the New Delhi Municipal Committee, was entitled to recover its costs from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Court held that the Municipal Committee has the power to amend assessment lists under Section 67 "at any time," and such amendments can be effective for previous years, subject to the principle of reasonableness.
-
1977 (8) TMI 177
Issues Involved
1. Jurisdiction of the City Civil Court to execute a foreign decree.
2. Interpretation of Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
3. Definition of "District Court" under Section 2(4) of the CPC.
4. Applicability of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948.
5. Precedents from other High Courts regarding similar jurisdictional issues.
Detailed Analysis
1. Jurisdiction of the City Civil Court to Execute a Foreign Decree
The primary issue is whether the City Civil Court at Bombay has the jurisdiction to execute a decree from the Supreme Court of Aden. The initial order by the City Civil Court making the notice under Order 21, Rule 22 of the CPC absolute was reviewed and set aside on the grounds that only the High Court on its Original Side could execute the decree. This decision was challenged by the plaintiff.
2. Interpretation of Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)
Section 44A(1) of the CPC states: "Where a certified copy of a decree of any of the superior Courts of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in India as if it had been passed by the District Court." The Supreme Court of Aden is recognized as a superior court of a reciprocating territory. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of "District Court" in this context.
3. Definition of "District Court" under Section 2(4) of the CPC
Section 2(4) of the CPC defines "District" as the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, which includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court. The City Civil Court was initially not considered the "District Court" by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, who contended that the High Court on its Original Side was the principal court of original civil jurisdiction.
4. Applicability of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948
The Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, was examined to determine its impact on the jurisdictional issue. Section 3 of the Act establishes the Bombay City Civil Court with jurisdiction over civil suits not exceeding Rs. 10,000, later extended to Rs. 25,000 by a notification dated 20th January 1950. Section 12 of the Act explicitly ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters cognizable by the City Civil Court, except under specific conditions.
The combined effect of Sections 3, 4, and 12 of the Act, along with the 1950 notification, is that the Bombay City Civil Court is the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for suits and proceedings of a civil nature not exceeding Rs. 25,000 in value. Therefore, in respect of such matters, the City Civil Court is considered the "District Court" for executing decrees under Section 44A of the CPC.
5. Precedents from Other High Courts
The judgment references a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Maheshwar Swain v. Bidyut Probha Art Press, AIR 1971 Cal 455, which held that the City Civil Court could be considered the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for certain suits. This supports the view that the City Civil Court can be the "District Court" under Section 44A of the CPC.
Another referenced case is from the Madras High Court, Sheik Ali v. Sheik Mohamad, AIR 1967 Mad 45, which focused on the interpretation of "as if it had been passed by the District Court" in Section 44A of the CPC. However, this case was deemed not relevant as it did not address the specific jurisdictional conflict present in the current case.
Conclusion
The appeal was allowed, and the order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dated 6th April 1976, which set aside his earlier order, was itself set aside. The original order dated 17th February 1976, making the notice under Order 21, Rule 22 of the CPC absolute, was restored. The City Civil Court was held to be the "District Court" within the meaning of Section 44A of the CPC, thereby having the jurisdiction to execute the decree in question. The appeal was allowed with costs in both courts.
-
1977 (8) TMI 176
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the names "Cibatul" and "Simatul" are deceptively similar.
2. Whether the plaintiff-company has a legal right to prevent the defendant-company from using the name "Simatul".
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Deceptive Similarity of Names
The court examined whether the names "Cibatul" and "Simatul" were so similar that they could cause confusion among the public and consumers. The plaintiff-company argued that "Simatul" was deceptively similar to "Cibatul" and likely to mislead people into believing that the companies were connected. The trial court accepted oral evidence from several dealers who testified that customers were indeed confused by the similarity.
The court emphasized that it must reach its own conclusion on the matter, considering the hypothetical average person with imperfect recollection. The visual and phonetic similarities between the names were significant:
- Both names consist of seven letters.
- Both names share the common component "Atul."
- Phonetically, "Ci" and "Si" are pronounced identically.
- An average person with imperfect recollection would likely confuse the two names.
The court found the differences pointed out by the defendant to be minor and insufficient to prevent confusion. The court concluded that the names were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers and the public.
Issue 2: Legal Right to Prevent Use of Name
The court then considered whether the plaintiff-company had the legal right to prevent the defendant-company from using the name "Simatul." The court reviewed several precedents, including cases from English courts and the Bombay High Court, which established that a company could seek an injunction to prevent another company from using a name that was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion.
The court noted that the plaintiff-company had acquired considerable reputation and goodwill in the chemical manufacturing industry. The defendant-company's use of a similar name was seen as an attempt to capitalize on this goodwill. The court found that the defendant-company's choice of name was not accidental but deliberate and intended to create confusion.
The court issued a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant-company from using the name "Simatul" or any similar name in the manufacture or sale of chemicals and dyes. The court granted the defendant-company six months to change its name to comply with the injunction, ensuring that the business could continue operating during this period.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the trial court's findings that the names "Cibatul" and "Simatul" were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion. The plaintiff-company was entitled to an injunction preventing the defendant-company from using the name "Simatul" in connection with the manufacture or sale of chemicals and dyes. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the court refused to grant a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court.
-
1977 (8) TMI 175
Issues involved:
The issue involves the interpretation of section 5(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act and the Wealth-tax Rules regarding the deduction of exempted assets held by a firm in which the assessee is a partner in computing his net wealth.
Summary:
The assessee, a partner in three firms, claimed a deduction of Rs. 91,400 in respect of exempted assets held by one of the firms in which he was a partner. The Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) did not accept this computation and applied a different method, resulting in a lower exemption amount of Rs. 16,500. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the assessment, stating that the exemption of assets was available only to the assessee in whose name the assets were held. However, the Wealth-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 91,400, stating that the exemption could be available in the hands of the assessee, irrespective of whether the assets were held in his name or as his share in the firm.
The Tribunal highlighted that a firm is not an assessable entity under the Act and that the valuation of a partner's interest in a firm should be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's argument that double exemption would be available to the assessee, emphasizing that the same benefit cannot be extended twice under the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the deduction of Rs. 91,400 in respect of the exempted assets held by the firm was justified in computing the assessee's net wealth.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction of Rs. 91,400 in respect of the exempted assets held by the firm in which the assessee was a partner in computing his net wealth. The assessee was awarded costs of the reference, with a hearing fee assessed at Rs. 100.
-
1977 (8) TMI 174
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1969.
2. Interpretation of Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
3. Maintainability of suits and insolvency proceedings against guarantors of relief undertakings.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1969:
The primary issue in these appeals is the interpretation of Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1969. The section allows the government to suspend the operation of certain contracts involving relief undertakings. The appellants argued that this suspension should extend to sureties who guaranteed debts of the relief undertakings, meaning that no action could be taken against the guarantor during the suspension period. This interpretation was supported by referencing Supreme Court decisions which emphasized that statutory words should be given their plain meaning unless they are ambiguous.
However, the court found that the suspension of the contract of the principal debtor (relief undertaking) does not extend to the guarantor's obligations. The court cited the Supreme Court decision in Inderjit v. B. K. Bhatt, which clarified that the immunity provided to relief undertakings does not extend to individual obligations of directors or officers. The court also referenced the Bombay High Court decision in Ramachandra v. Shapurji, which distinguished between contracts of guarantee and indemnity, emphasizing that a contract of guarantee involves separate agreements between the creditor and the guarantor, and the principal debtor and the surety.
Ultimately, the court concluded that Section 4(b) does not suspend the obligations of guarantors, and actions against them can proceed independently of the suspension of the principal debtor's contracts.
2. Interpretation of Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872:
Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act states that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless otherwise provided by the contract. The court interpreted "co-extensive" to relate only to the quantum of the principal debt. The court referenced a Full Bench decision in Subramania v. Narayanaswami, which established that a surety's liability is not extinguished by the principal debtor's debt becoming unenforceable due to subsequent events, such as bankruptcy or statute of limitations.
The court noted that the liability of the guarantor arises from an independent contract and remains unaffected by the suspension of the principal debtor's obligations under the Act. The court emphasized that the suspension under Section 4(b) is temporary and does not extinguish the principal debt, as indicated by Section 7 of the Act, which excludes the suspension period from the limitation period for enforcing any right or liability.
3. Maintainability of Suits and Insolvency Proceedings Against Guarantors:
The court addressed the maintainability of suits and insolvency proceedings against guarantors of relief undertakings. In O.S.A. 49 of 1975, the court held that the suit against the guarantors was maintainable, but the suit against the relief undertaking was not, due to the notification under Section 3 of the Act. The court clarified that the dismissal of the suit against the relief undertaking was based on the current state of affairs and did not preclude future action if the ban is lifted.
In O.S.A. 68 of 1976, the court upheld the decision that insolvency proceedings against the guarantor were maintainable. The court reasoned that if a suit against the guarantor is permissible, so are proceedings to adjudge the guarantor as insolvent. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the action to adjudge the surety as insolvent is not an action for recovery of the debt, and thus Section 4(b) does not apply.
Conclusion:
The court allowed O.S.A. 49 of 1975 to the extent that the suit against the guarantors shall proceed, while dismissing the suit against the relief undertaking. O.S.A. 68 of 1976 was dismissed, affirming the maintainability of insolvency proceedings against the guarantor. The court clarified that the dismissal of the suit against the relief undertaking was due to the current notification and does not prevent future action if the notification is lifted. The court also upheld the original judgment regarding costs.
-
1977 (8) TMI 173
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and enforceability of the agreement dated 4th December 1970.
2. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.
3. Applicability of the arbitration clause.
4. Discretion of the court in granting a stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
5. The involvement of a party not bound by the arbitration agreement.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity and Enforceability of the Agreement:
The plaintiff, Jardine Handerson Ltd., alleged that the agreement dated 4th December 1970 was brought about by fraudulent misrepresentations and collusion among the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that the agreement was void or voidable at their option due to the fraudulent inducement and misrepresentation by the defendants. The plaintiff sought rescission of the agreement and a declaration that it was void or voidable.
2. Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation:
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, particularly Mukul Chandra Chakraborty, fraudulently induced the company to enter into the agreement by misrepresenting the need for an independent agent. The agreement was purportedly a scheme to defraud the plaintiff and wrongfully obtain large sums of money as commission. The plaintiff further alleged that the partnership firm, General Enterprises, was not genuine and that the services were rendered by Mukul Chandra Chakraborty himself, who was a whole-time employee of the plaintiff.
3. Applicability of the Arbitration Clause:
The defendants sought a stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, arguing that the dispute was arbitrable under the arbitration clause in the agreement. The court, however, noted that the allegations in the plaint questioned the very formation and existence of the contract, making the dispute non-arbitrable. The court referenced several legal principles and precedents, including the observations of Lord Denning and Diplock, L.J., to conclude that allegations making a contract void ab initio are not subject to arbitration.
4. Discretion of the Court in Granting a Stay:
The court exercised its discretion against staying the suit. It considered the nature of the allegations, which involved serious charges of fraud that required a public trial. The court emphasized that the presence of fraud allegations and the need for a public forum to address such claims were significant factors against granting a stay.
5. Involvement of a Party Not Bound by the Arbitration Agreement:
The court noted that Mukul Chandra Chakraborty, a central figure in the allegations, was not a party to the arbitration agreement. As such, he could not be compelled to participate in arbitration proceedings. The court held that proceeding without him would be improper, akin to staging "Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark."
Conclusion:
The court refused the application for stay, emphasizing that the nature of the allegations made the contract non-existent and non-arbitrable. The court further held that it would not be appropriate to try the validity of the contract in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The involvement of a party not bound by the arbitration agreement and the serious nature of the fraud allegations were significant factors in the court's decision to dismiss the application for stay. The costs of the application were to be costs in the suit.
-
1977 (8) TMI 172
Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, specifically Clause (e) u/s 5(1), and the application of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
Summary:
1. The accused, a public servant, was investigated for possession of property disproportionate to known income. He was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Act but acquitted by the High Court due to lack of evidence post the amendment in 1964. The State appealed against the acquittal under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, which was the only issue before the Supreme Court.
2. The Supreme Court analyzed the legislative intent behind the 1964 amendment, which introduced Clause (e) to Section 5(1) of the Act. The Court clarified that possession of disproportionate assets before the amendment could not be considered an offense under Clause (e) u/s 5(1). This interpretation was crucial in light of Article 20(1) of the Constitution, protecting individuals from retrospective application of laws.
3. The Court emphasized that the new offense under Clause (e) did not exist at the time of the accused's possession of assets, thus entitling him to the protection of Article 20(1). Despite the presumption under Section 5(3) being available for other clauses, the accused's acquittal for those offenses rendered the appeal under Clause (e) invalid.
4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the accused was rightfully protected by Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The appeal against his acquittal under Section 5(1)(e) was dismissed.
-
1977 (8) TMI 171
Issues:
1. Appeal by the State for enhancement of sentence.
2. Validity of the appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 377(3) of Cr. PC.
3. Whether the sentence requires enhancement.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The accused was convicted under Section 135(ii) read with Section 135-A of the Customs Act for possessing silver bars meant for illegal export. The accused, a poor broker, pleaded guilty, and the Magistrate sentenced him to pay a fine of &8377; 3000 or undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment. The State filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence, arguing that the accused's involvement in smuggling activities warranted a stricter penalty.
Issue 2:
The State contended that the appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State Government was improper under Section 377(3) of Cr. PC. The argument centered around whether the Customs Act constituted a separate investigative agency empowered to handle offenses independently of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court examined the provisions of the Customs Act and concluded that the Act primarily aimed at enforcing customs regulations and preventing duty evasion, rather than investigating crimes. Therefore, the State's appeal was deemed validly filed.
Issue 3:
Regarding the question of enhancing the sentence, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the offense but noted that the accused had already spent over two months in custody. Despite considering a potential sentence of six months, the court decided not to enhance the penalty due to the time already served by the accused. The judgment dismissed the State's appeal for sentence enhancement based on these considerations.
In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the State's appeal for enhancing the sentence imposed on the accused under the Customs Act. The court found the sentence of a fine of &8377; 3000 appropriate, considering the circumstances of the case and the time the accused had already spent in custody. The judgment clarified the validity of the appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 377(3) of Cr. PC, emphasizing the enforcement nature of the Customs Act and its distinction from a separate investigative agency for criminal offenses.
-
1977 (8) TMI 170
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and Appeal Process
2. Evaluation of Evidence and Witnesses
3. Non-examination of Independent Witnesses
4. Age and Background of the Appellants
5. Sequence of Events and Alleged Assault
6. Defense Claims and Prosecution's Response
7. First Information Report (FIR) Timing and Integrity
8. General Diary Interpolation
9. Medical Evidence and Injuries
10. Presence of Blood and Scene of Occurrence
11. Weapon Recovery and Ballistic Evidence
12. High Court's Reversal of Acquittal
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction and Appeal Process
The appeal is under the Enlargement of Supreme Court Jurisdiction Act read with Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973. The appellants obtained a certificate from the High Court of Allahabad, granting them the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.
2. Evaluation of Evidence and Witnesses
The appellants were acquitted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, due to insufficient evidence. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, finding the prosecution's case amply proved. The Supreme Court noted that the complainant and witnesses bore serious animus against the appellants, which was not disputed by the prosecution.
3. Non-examination of Independent Witnesses
The High Court overlooked the Sessions Judge's finding that the prosecution failed to examine two independent witnesses, Bhikari and Shambhu, who were named in the FIR as eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge's adverse inference against the prosecution for this non-examination was justified.
4. Age and Background of the Appellants
Bir Singh and Hukum Singh were both 14 years old at the time of the incident. Bir Singh was studying in the 8th Class, and his father, Ram Narain Singh, was employed in the Police Department and possessed a rifle, while his elder brother had a licensed gun.
5. Sequence of Events and Alleged Assault
The incident occurred on 9th November 1967, involving an altercation over digging earth. Bir Singh, Hukum Singh, and Ram Dularey Singh allegedly returned armed and attacked Bans Gopal and P.W. Sughar. The Supreme Court noted inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative and the failure to recover weapons.
6. Defense Claims and Prosecution's Response
The defense claimed false implication due to enmity. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution did not attempt to exclude the possibility of the licensed weapons being used by the appellants. The Investigating Officer's failure to search for these weapons was highlighted.
7. First Information Report (FIR) Timing and Integrity
The Sessions Judge doubted the FIR's timing, suggesting it was lodged on 10th November 1967, not 9th November 1967. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's speculative reasoning and reliance on additional evidence from Ejaz Hussain, which was deemed unreliable.
8. General Diary Interpolation
The Sessions Judge found serious interpolation in the general diary, suggesting an attempt to falsely implicate Ram Dularey Singh. The High Court's dismissal of this as a clerical error was not accepted by the Supreme Court, which upheld the Sessions Judge's adverse inference against the prosecution.
9. Medical Evidence and Injuries
The medical evidence did not align with the prosecution's account of P.W. Sughar's injuries. The Supreme Court noted the absence of explanations for certain injuries and inconsistencies in witness statements.
10. Presence of Blood and Scene of Occurrence
The lack of blood marks at the alleged scene of the assault on P.W. Sughar raised doubts about the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court found this significant in questioning the authenticity of the occurrence as described by the prosecution.
11. Weapon Recovery and Ballistic Evidence
The prosecution failed to prove the weapon used in the crime. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of examining Ram Narain Singh's and Vidya Vinod Singh's weapons, which was not done, casting further doubt on the prosecution's case.
12. High Court's Reversal of Acquittal
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal, as the Sessions Judge's view was reasonably possible based on the evidence and circumstances.
Conclusion:
The appeal is allowed, and the appellants are acquitted of all charges. The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith.
-
1977 (8) TMI 169
Issues Involved:
1. Criminal culpability of a juvenile.
2. Degree of culpability and quantum of punishment.
3. Application of Section 83 IPC regarding juvenile offenders.
4. Sentencing guidelines and the rehabilitative approach.
5. The need for legislative and administrative reforms in juvenile justice.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Criminal Culpability of a Juvenile:
The appeal centers around the criminal culpability of a 12-year-old boy involved in a homicide case. The appellant, along with his elder brothers, was initially convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC but later had his conviction reduced to Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC by the High Court. The appellant's tender age was a significant factor in the court's consideration, leading to a reduced sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years.
2. Degree of Culpability and Quantum of Punishment:
The court examined the appellant's participatory role, noting that while his elder brothers inflicted fatal stabs, the appellant caused superficial cuts. The court emphasized that the appellant's actions, though less severe, still contributed to the aggression. The court stated, "This mix-up of degree of culpability and quantum of punishment is unscientific," and highlighted the need to first establish guilt under the Penal Code before determining the appropriate punishment.
3. Application of Section 83 IPC Regarding Juvenile Offenders:
The court discussed the presumption of innocence for children under 14 years, as per Section 83 IPC, which states that an act is not an offense if done by a child above seven and under twelve who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding. The court noted the absence of evidence regarding the appellant's maturity and understanding, stating, "No evidence as to whether he was under twelve, as conditioned by s. 83 IPC is adduced."
4. Sentencing Guidelines and the Rehabilitative Approach:
The court emphasized the importance of a humane and rehabilitative approach to sentencing juveniles. It highlighted the need for correctional methods that focus on making an offender a non-offender. The court stated, "The ultimate desideratum of most sentences is 'to make an offender a non-offender.'" The court also discussed the potential benefits of Transcendental Meditation (TM) and other rehabilitative practices in prison settings.
5. The Need for Legislative and Administrative Reforms in Juvenile Justice:
The court criticized the lack of legislative and administrative measures for juvenile justice in Bihar, noting the absence of a Children Act and the failure to implement existing laws effectively. The court stated, "The compassion of the penal law for juvenescents cannot be reduced to jejunity by forensic indifference." The court called for the establishment of Children's Courts and the implementation of correctional and rehabilitative measures for young offenders.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the court upholding the conviction under Section 326 IPC and emphasizing the need for a rehabilitative approach to juvenile justice. The court's observations highlight the importance of legislative and administrative reforms to ensure humane and effective treatment of juvenile offenders.
-
1977 (8) TMI 168
Issues Involved:
1. Default in payment of rent leading to eviction applications.
2. Dismissal of eviction applications by lower authorities.
3. Financial Commissioner's decision on the eviction petitions.
4. High Court's dismissal of the Civil Writ Petition.
5. Limitation and procedural requirements for filing a Letters Patent Appeal.
6. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
7. Nature of Rule 3, Chapter 2-C of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Default in Payment of Rent Leading to Eviction Applications:
The appellant filed two applications for eviction of the respondents due to their default in paying rent. A compromise was reached on March 31, 1969, stipulating that the respondents should pay a sum of Rs. 11,872 by March 31, 1959, and the balance in six-monthly installments of Rs. 1,000 each. The respondents defaulted on future installments, prompting the appellant to file two applications on April 2, 1962, for their ejectment on the grounds of non-payment of rent without sufficient cause.
2. Dismissal of Eviction Applications by Lower Authorities:
The Assistant Collector initially dismissed these applications, a decision upheld by the Collector on appeal. The appellant then filed revision applications to the Commissioner.
3. Financial Commissioner's Decision on the Eviction Petitions:
The Commissioner recommended setting aside the lower orders and passing a decree for ejectment, which the Financial Commissioner accepted on November 26, 1965, for the area of 76 Kanals. This order became final. However, for the 117 Kanals, the Financial Commissioner deemed the ejectment petition infructuous as the land was acquired by the Amritsar Improvement Trust, which had taken possession of it, rendering the respondents no longer tenants.
4. High Court's Dismissal of the Civil Writ Petition:
The appellant challenged the Financial Commissioner's decision in a Civil Writ Petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. An appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent to a Division Bench was filed within 30 days, but the respondents objected, claiming the appeal was barred by limitation due to non-compliance with procedural rules (three sets of documents were not filed).
5. Limitation and Procedural Requirements for Filing a Letters Patent Appeal:
The Division Bench referred seven questions to a Full Bench, focusing mainly on whether an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is incomplete without the requisite three spare copies of the paper-book. The Full Bench held that non-compliance with Rule 3 of Chapter 2-C means the appeal is not deemed filed until it is complete in all respects and accepted for registration by the Registry.
6. Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The Division Bench, upon considering the Full Bench's judgment, held that the appellant failed to make a case for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
7. Nature of Rule 3, Chapter 2-C of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules:
The Supreme Court, referencing the case of State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari, held that Rule 3, though mandatory in language, is directory in nature. Substantial compliance is sufficient, and the failure to file two additional sets of documents is a mere irregularity that can be condoned. The appeal was presented within the prescribed period of limitation, and the irregularity was cured within a reasonable time.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in treating the appeal as barred by limitation. The appeal was presented within the period of limitation, and the irregularity in filing the required documents was cured within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, noting that the parties had reached a settlement. The respondents could withdraw the sum of Rs. 25,734/- along with accrued interest, and the appellant agreed not to recover any arrears of rent from the respondents. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1977 (8) TMI 167
Issues involved: Determination of the extent to which Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 is controlled by Section 53 of the same Act in the context of the title of a property transfer by the insolvent before being declared insolvent.
Comprehensive Details:
1. The case involved a deed of gift executed by Pyarelal Gupta in favor of his wife, which was challenged as void and inoperative by the receiver appointed after Pyarelal was declared insolvent. The Insolvency Court upheld the challenge, but the High Court overturned this decision based on the interpretation of Section 53 of the Act, which restricts the Insolvency Court's jurisdiction over transfers made more than two years before insolvency proceedings.
2. The High Court held that Section 53 limits the Insolvency Court's authority to determine the validity of transfers made beyond two years before insolvency proceedings, despite the broad powers granted by Section 4 of the Act to decide questions of title. This led to a legal dispute regarding the scope and application of these provisions.
3. The appellant argued that the High Court misinterpreted the law, emphasizing the historical context of the Act and the distinction between void and voidable transfers. The appellant contended that Section 53 should not restrict the Insolvency Court's jurisdiction over transfers challenged as sham or fictitious.
4. Section 4 of the Act grants the Insolvency Court extensive powers to decide questions of title or priority in insolvency cases, subject to other provisions of the Act. The appellant's position was supported by a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court, which affirmed the Insolvency Court's authority to examine transfers made more than two years before adjudication.
5. The interpretation of Section 53 was crucial in determining the jurisdiction of the Insolvency Court over transfers, distinguishing between void and voidable transactions. The Court clarified that only voidable transfers fall within the purview of Section 53, while void transfers, such as nominal or sham transactions, remain subject to the broader powers of the Insolvency Court under Section 4.
6. The Court referenced previous decisions from various High Courts, highlighting the consensus on the Insolvency Court's jurisdiction to determine the validity of transfers challenged as fictitious or nominal. The disagreement with the Oudh Chief Court's interpretation underscored the importance of distinguishing between void and voidable transactions in insolvency proceedings.
7. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's judgment, and remitted the case for a fresh disposal based on the correct interpretation of Sections 4 and 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.
-
1977 (8) TMI 166
Issues involved:
1. Whether the profits from the sale of shares were liable to be taxed as profits and gains of business or as capital gains.
2. Determination of the nature of the assessee's activities concerning the purchase and sale of shares.
3. The relevance and admissibility of additional evidence.
4. The impact of the assessee's past conduct and treatment of shares on the current assessment.
5. The application of legal principles and tests to ascertain the nature of the income.
Issue-wise detailed analysis:
1. Taxation of Profits from Sale of Shares:
The primary issue was whether the profits from the sale of shares should be taxed as business profits or as capital gains. The assessee, a registered partnership firm engaged in money-lending, acquired shares over time and sold them in the assessment year 1970-71, realizing significant profits. The Income-tax Officer treated the profits as business income, while the Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered them as capital gains. The Tribunal ultimately held that the profits were business income, leading to the present reference to the High Court.
2. Nature of the Assessee's Activities:
The Tribunal found that the assessee had acquired shares over a period of 22 years, starting from S.Y. 2003. The acquisitions included bonus shares, right shares, and occasional purchases. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had treated its shareholding as stock-in-trade in the past and had declared the income from the sale of shares as business income. However, the High Court observed that the Tribunal failed to find essential facts and apply relevant tests to determine whether the assessee's activities constituted a business of dealing in shares or an investment.
3. Relevance and Admissibility of Additional Evidence:
The assessee produced an agreement before the Tribunal to support its contention that the sale of Jubilee Mills' shares was part of a transaction to transfer management. The Tribunal refused to consider the agreement, stating it was not part of the record and was not produced before the lower authorities. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in not admitting the additional evidence, emphasizing that the Tribunal has wide powers to admit such evidence if it is necessary to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.
4. Impact of Past Conduct and Treatment of Shares:
The Tribunal heavily relied on the assessee's past conduct of treating shares as stock-in-trade and declaring income from their sale as business income. The High Court noted that the Tribunal misdirected itself by invoking the principle of estoppel and failing to consider the assessee's explanation for its past conduct. The High Court emphasized that past treatment is relevant but not conclusive and that the Tribunal should have considered the explanation offered by the assessee.
5. Application of Legal Principles and Tests:
The High Court highlighted several legal principles and tests to determine the nature of the income, including the intention at the time of acquisition, the purpose of subsequent sales, the treatment of shares in the books of account, the volume and frequency of transactions, and the authorization in the partnership deed. The Tribunal failed to apply these tests properly and did not find essential facts, leading to an incomplete assessment of the nature of the income.
Conclusion:
The High Court declined to answer the question referred to it due to the lack of essential findings and proper application of legal principles by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was directed to adjust its decision under Section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act in light of the High Court's observations. The High Court did not express any opinion on the main controversy and left it to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter.
-
1977 (8) TMI 165
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959.
2. Whether the Act discriminates between occupants of public premises and those of private property.
3. Whether the Act infringes the right to property.
4. Whether the procedure laid down in Section 5 of the Act infringes rules of natural justice.
5. Validity of the notice under Section 4 of the Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959:
The appellants challenged the validity of the Act, arguing that it discriminated between occupants of public premises and those of private property, thereby infringing their right to equality before the law and equal protection under Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the Act substituted the remedy of the Government of eviction as a landlord under the ordinary law, implying that the Government could only resort to the remedy under the Act and not by way of a suit for eviction. The High Court concluded that there was a valid classification between the occupiers of public premises and those of private property, and that the Act was substitutive and not supplemental, thus negating the discrimination claim. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Act did not impliedly repeal the Government's right to sue for eviction under the ordinary law and that the Act provided an additional remedy. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its conclusion about implied repeal.
2. Whether the Act discriminates between occupants of public premises and those of private property:
The appellants contended that the Act discriminated between occupants of public premises and those of private property and also among the former inter se. The High Court found that the Act provided a speedier remedy for eviction from public premises, which was justified due to the public interest in keeping such properties free from encroachment. The Supreme Court agreed that the classification between public and private premises was based on an intelligible differentia and had a rational relation to the object of the Act. However, the Supreme Court found that Section 5 of the Act allowed for discrimination among occupants of public premises inter se, as it conferred unguided discretion to the Collector to choose between two remedies, thus violating Article 14. Consequently, Section 5 was declared void.
3. Whether the Act infringes the right to property:
The appellants argued that the Act infringed their right to property. The High Court rejected this contention, and the Supreme Court did not address this issue in detail as the appellants abandoned the attack based on Article 19(1)(f). The Supreme Court noted that being unauthorized occupants, the appellants had no right to property in the premises.
4. Whether the procedure laid down in Section 5 of the Act infringes rules of natural justice:
The appellants contended that the procedure in Section 5 of the Act infringed rules of natural justice. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that the procedure provided a reasonable opportunity for the occupant to be heard. The Supreme Court, however, found that Section 5 conferred unguided discretion to the Collector, which could lead to arbitrary decisions, thus violating the right to equality under Article 14. Therefore, Section 5 was declared void.
5. Validity of the notice under Section 4 of the Act:
The appellants argued that the notice under Section 4 was invalid as it did not give ten clear days as required by Section 4(2)(b) of the Act. The High Court rejected this contention, and the Supreme Court did not specifically address this issue in its judgment.
Separate Judgments:
- The majority opinion delivered by Shelat, J., with Subba Rao, C.J., Shelat, and Vaidialingam, JJ., agreeing, allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and declared Section 5 of the Act void.
- The dissenting opinion by Bachawat, J., with Hidayatullah, J., agreeing, upheld the validity of the Act, including Section 5, and would have dismissed the appeal with costs. Bachawat, J., argued that the Act provided a summary procedure for eviction in the public interest and did not violate Article 14.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, by majority opinion, allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and declared Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959, void for violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The writ petition filed by the appellants was made absolute with costs.
-
1977 (8) TMI 164
The judgment upheld the order of the Assistant Collector in a case involving related persons selling goods to each other. The appeal was rejected.
........
|
9911796707
