Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Year: 1970 Page 14 of about 140 results (0.015 seconds)

Sep 03 1970 (HC)

In Re: Devakumar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-03-1970

Reported in : (1972)1MLJ200

b.s. somasundaram, j.1. the first two appellants are brothers. the other two appellants are their sisters. they were residing at no. 2, aheyapuram first street, kodambakkam, which is at a distance of 50 yards from the nehru nursery-school. the first two were prosecuted under section 3 (1) and the other two under section 7 (1) of the suppression of immoral traffic in women and girls' act. the prosecution arose in the following circumstances. p.w. 5, thiru pappa, the assistant commissioner-raw-special officer under the suppression of immoral traffic act had information that the appellants were running a brothel at their aforesaid residence. he made arrangements for a trap on the evening of 17th august, 1968. p.w. 4, a pawnbroker, residing in de mello's road, perambur barracks, was fixed as a decoy. m.o. 1 series (five 10 rupee currency notes) were entrusted to him with instructions to accompany the informant to the brothel house and to have sexual intercourse, after payment of the amount to one of the girls whom he might choose. p.w. 4 did it. the time was then 3 p.m. the informant introduced him to the first appellant, who was seated in a chair in the main hall. the latter demanded payment at the rate of rs. 50 per hour for intercourse with any one of the prostitutes who were in that house. p.w. 4 agreed and handed over the amount to him. the first appellant asked the second appellant to fetch the girls. the other two appellants were brought from a room to the hall. on being .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 01 1970 (SC)

M/S. Kodar Vs. State of KerakA. (Writ Petition No. 363 of 1969). India ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-01-1970

Reported in : (1974)3CTR(SC)217

mahtew, j. - the question raised in the civil appeals are substantially the same as those raised in the writ petition. we will deal with the civil appeals and our decision there will govern and dispose of the writ petition.2. the appellants filed writ petitions before the high court of madras challenging the validity of the tamil nadu additional sales tax act (act no. 14 of 1970), 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the act) on the ground that the state legislature has no competence to enact it, that provisions violated their fundamental rights under articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g) and article 14 of the constitution. the high court dismissed the writ petitions by a common judgment. these appeal are filed on the basis of a certificate from the high court.3. the material provisions of the act are as follows. section 2 (1) provides that the tax payable under the tamil nadu general sales tax act, 1952, shall, in the case of a dealer whose total turnover for a year exceeds 10 lakhs of rupees, be increased by a additional tax at the rate of 5 per cent of the tax payable by that dealer for that year and the provisions of the tamil nadu general sales tax act, 1959, shall apply in relation to the additional tax payable under the said act.4. sub-section (2) of sec. 2 says that notwithstanding anything contained in the tamil nadu general sales tax act, 1959, no dealer referred to in sub section (1) shall be entitled to collect the additional tax payable under the said sub-section.5. sub- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 1970 (HC)

Pijush Kanti Ghosh Vs. Sm. Maya Rani Chatterjee and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-24-1970

Reported in : AIR1971Cal229

amaresh roy, j. 1. this appeal is directed against an award made in motor accident claim case no. 17 of 1964 by the motor accident claims tribunal at howrah which is also the tribunal for calcutta and 24-parganas. the claim was preferred by maya rani chatterjee and her four minor children namely, mamata chatteriee, shanti dulal chatterjee, monoj dulal chatterjee and brojo dulal chatteriee along with another child described as baby which minors were represented by their guardian mother maya rani chatteriee. it was filed on 6th february, 1964 claiming compensation for the death of maya rani's husband gopal chandra chatteriee as a result of an accident on the road north of raja subodh mullick square in calcutta on 23rd june, 1963 at about 10 p.m. when the said gopal chandra chatteriee was alleged to have been violently knocked down and run over by a taxi cab no. wet-1422 driven by chandra sekhar misra who was an employee of the owner of the said taxi pijush kanti ghosh. 2. it was alleged that on 23rd june, 1963 at about 10 p.m. when gopal chandra was crossing that road from north to south the taxi car no. wet-1422 came from north to south along nirmal chandra street and took a turn along wellington square north at a high speed without blowing any horn and proceeded towards east. the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently and thereby knocked down gopal chandra causing severe injuries in his head and on his person. the said taxi then stopped near the place of occurrence and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 1970 (SC)

D.P. Mishra Vs. Kamal NaraIn Sharma and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-18-1970

Reported in : AIR1971SC856; (1970)3SCC558; [1971]3SCR257

j.c. shah, j.1. in compliance with our order dated march 13, 1970 the high court issued a notice to shukla. shukla submitted his reply contending, inter alia, that he did not publish or cause to be published the offending statements in the newspaper mahakoshal as alleged by sharma. in paragraph 1(ii) he submitted that:he learnt about their publication only after and during the pendency of the election petition for declaration of the election of shri d.p. mishra as void. the person in sole charge of the newspaper was shri vishnudatta mishra 'tarangi' whose name has been printed as the editor. the declaration under rule 8, form vi prescribed under the press and registration of books act (no. xxv of 1867) for the year 1963 shows that the said shri vishnudatta mishra 'tarangi' and not the opposite party (shukla) was the editor at the material time.... at the time of his appointment the said shri vishnudatta mishra 'tarangi' had insisted that there would be no interference by the opposite party (shukla) in the conduct of the newspaper.2. several witnesses were examined before the high court in support of the case that shukla was instrumental in publishing and distributing the offending statements annexures i, ii & iii in the daily newspaper mahakoshal of which shukla was the editor, printer and publisher. some witnesses who had been previously examined were recalled for examination. shukla and tarangi were also examined at the hearing.3. at the hearing of the appeal and in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 1970 (SC)

Joint Family of Mukund Das Raja Bhagwan Das and Sons Etc. Vs. the Stat ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-10-1970

Reported in : AIR1971SC449; (1970)2SCC766; [1971]2SCR136

grover, j.1. these appeals arise out of two different litigations although some of the parties, are the same. civil appeal no. 1138 of 1966 is directed against the judgment of the andhra pradesh high court dated february 8, 1963 in a revision petition. the other two cross appeals i.e. 1139 of 1966 and 1140 of 1966 arise out of the judgment dated february 1, 1963 passed by the same high court in a suit which had been filed by the state bank of hyderabad on the basis of a promissory note dated november 27, 1953 for recovery of rs. 70,000. we shall dispose of civil appeal no. 1138 of 1966 first. the hyderabad state bank had filed a suit in july 1956 against the joint family business known as mukund das raja bhagwandas & sons and the four sons of raja bhagwan das who had died, the sons having been impleaded as defendants 2 to 5. there was a sixth defendant also srikishen sookhdev malani. according to the claim of the bank defendants 2 to 5 were members of a joint undivided family, defendant no. 2 being the head karta and manager. on february 2, 1951 defendant no. 2 in his above capacity requested the bank to grant what is called a 'clean cash credit' limit of rs. 1,00,000 against the guarantee of defendant no. 6. defendant no. 2 was allowed to withdraw a sum of rs. 99,500 by three cheques from february 8, 1951 to february 12, 1951. after the confirmation of the cash credit limit by the committee of the board of directors of the bank on february 22, 1951, defendant no. 2 executed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 1970 (SC)

Narayanlal Bansilal Pittie. Vs. Tarabai Motilal (Dead) by Lrs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-15-1970

Reported in : (1970)3SCC293; 1971(III)LC70(SC)

j.c. shah, j.1. narayanlal bansilal pittie hereinafter called 'pittie' was the son-in-law of tarabai widow of motilal. tarabai carried on business in cotton, cotton-seed and cotton bales in the name and style of narayandas chunilal in bombay and also in jalna within the former state of hyderabad. tarabai instituted suit no. 7 of 1354 fasli in the court of the sadar adalat' aurangabad, against pittie for a decree for rs. 2,84,308/- alleging that she, pittie & one chogmal entered into a partnership to carry on business at jalna in cotton, cotton-seed and cotton bales for a period of five years samvat years 1982 to 1986, that her share in the profit and loss was six annas in a rupee, of pittie six annas, and of chogmal four annas; that the transactions of the partnership resulted in a profit of rs. 5,257-12-9 in the first year, and in a profit of rs. 27 047-13-6 in the second year, that in the next three years the partnership suffered heavy losses and after giving credit for the profits earned in the first years the total loss suffered by the partnership was rs. 2,08,960/-, that chogmal represented that he was unable to pay his share of loss amounting to rs. 52,000/-odd and it was mutually agreed that he should pay rs. 21,317-7-0 only and balance of the loss of rs. 1,87,642-9-0 should be borne in two equal shares by her and pittie, that on that account pittie was liable to pay rs. 93,827-4-6 with interest at the rate of 12 annas per mensem, that on kartik vad 15, samvat 1987 the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1970 (SC)

Bhimappa Basappa Bhu Sannavar Vs. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda and or ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-11-1970

Reported in : AIR1970SC1153; 1970CriLJ1132; (1970)1SCC665; [1971]1SCR1

m. hidayatullah, c.j.1. this is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the high court of mysore dated november 28, 1966 in misc. criminal petition no. 610 of 1966. by that order the high court held that the present appellant bhimappa had no locus-standi to invoke section 417(3) of the crpc and to ask for special leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. the appellant questions the correctness of the order.2. bhimappa (appellant) had a house at athni, taluka belgaum district. it stood in the name of his eldest son and his two other sons lived in one part of the house and the other part was let out to the first respondent laxman who ran a boarding house and also lived there with his wife and children and his mistress champevva, the second respondent. no rent was fixed but the sons of bhimappa used to have their meals with respondents nos. 1 and 2. bhimappa asked his tenant to vacate the house as he wanted to reside in it himself and his son yamanappa (p.w. 14) wanted space for a godown for 400 bags of groundnut purchased by him. the first respondent was asked to vacate a portion of the house but was reluctant.3. it is not necessary to give the details of what happened further. suffice it to say that the house was set on fire to cause loss to bhimappa. all efforts to save the house failed and it was burnt down. yamanappa then filed a report in the police station. the police arrested respondents nos. 1 and 2 and submitted a charge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1970 (SC)

Chaju Ram Vs. the State of Jammu and Kashmir

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-03-1970

Reported in : AIR1971SC263; 1971CriLJ281; (1970)1SCC536; [1970]3SCR872

hidayatullah cj.1. the petitioner chaju ram was detained under the orders of the district magistrate, jammu passed under section 3(2) read with section 5 of the jammu & kashmir preventive detention act, 1964 on march 30, 1969. the order was served on him the same day and on the original order, we find an endorsement by the station house officer to the effect that in compliance with the district magistrate's order, he arrested chaju at 6.30 p.m. and that the contents of the order were explained to him in urdu by reading over the same to him in token of which his thumb impression was obtained on the face of the order, beneath this endorsement, there is a thumb impression although it is not stated there whose thumb impression it is. in any event, this was in compliance with the direction given in the order itself that notice of the order should be given to sh. chaju by reading over the same to him.2. as required by section 8 of the act, grounds of the order of detention had to be disclosed to chaju. it is claimed that this was done on april 6, 1969 and that order has been produced before us. the grounds stated as follows :1. that shri chhaju s/o gura is (sic) conspiracy with some other leaders of democratic conference incited landless people of rspura tehsil to forcibly occupy the land comprised in nandpur mechanised farm, with the full knowledge that such action on their part was likely to lead to disturbances in a sensitive border area. 2. as a result of his activities some .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1970 (SC)

Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh and anr. Vs. Avinash Sharma

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-28-1970

Reported in : AIR1970SC1576; (1970)2SCC149; [1971]1SCR413

j.c. shah, j.1. the deputy commissioner, mahasu, apparently acting on the request of the air force authorities took possession on december 23, 1963, of an area of land in village galu chak. that area included 8-14-0 bighas belonging to the respondent. the record does not disclose the authority under which possession of the land was taken and delivered over to the air force. there was correspondence between the air force authorities and the state of himachal pradesh in regard to the land occupied by the air force and ultimately on march 31, 1964, a notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act. 1894, was published notifying that the area of land (including the land of the respondent) was likely to be needed by the state government for a public purpose. by a composite notification under section 6 & section 17(1) & (4) dated may 16, 1964, 'the state of himachal pradesh declared that the land was needed for a public purpose, that since it was required urgent, the enquiry under section 5-a of the act was dispensed with, and that possession of the land will be taken under section 17(1) of the act after the expiry of fifteen days from the publication of the notice under section 9(1) of the act. the collector of mahasu then served notices under section 9 of the land acquisition act in june 1964. on october 5, 1965, the government of himachal pradesh published an order cancelling the notification dated march 31, 1964, and may 16, 1964, for acquisition of land for a public .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1970 (HC)

Pannalal and anr. Vs. Ramnarayan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-30-1970

Reported in : AIR1971Raj294; 1970(3)WLN729

c.b. bhargava, j. 1. this is an appeal from the judgment and decree dated 16th august, 1963, of the senior civil judge. aimer, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the contract for sale of a house.2. briefly stated, the facts are that ram naravan, defendant no. 1. entered into an agreement in writing with the plaintiffs for the sale of his house bearing amc no. 24-412 situated in ramsani mohalla. aimer, and more par-ticularly described in para 1 of the plaint. this house has already been sold by defendant no. 1 to sheo sahai defendant no. 2 on 3rd december. 1957, with the condition of reconveying the house by sheo sahai within a period of six years on payment of rs. 6000/- by ramnaravan on the basis of a subsequent agreement dated 3-3-58. it was further stimulated between the plaintiffs and ramnaravan in the subsequent agreement dated 2nd june, 1961, that sheo sahai would either join as a vendor in the deed of sale to be executed in favour of the plaintiffs or that ramnaravan would first get the property transferred to himself from sheo sahai and then would transfer it to the plaintiffs under a registered sale-deed before 31st july 1961. it was also agreed that the vendors and the vendee shall bear the expenses for the stamps and registration of the sale-deed in equal proportion. plaintiff's case is that he paid rupees 468/- to defendant no. 1 on 9-6-61 for the purchase of stamps for the two sale-deeds one to be executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //