SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
24th November, 1953
M. PATANJALI SASTRI, CJI., MAHAJAN, S.R. DAS, GHULAM HASAN AND JAGANNADHA DAS, JJ.
The State of W.B., Appellant
Versus
Serajuddin Batley, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1951.
Advocates appeared
Shri S. M. Bose, Advocate-General of West Bengal and Shri N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (Shri B. Sen, Advocate, with them) instructed by Shri P. K. Bose, Agent, for Appellant; Shri R. Choudhary and Shri B. Choudhary, Advocates, instructed by Shri A. N. Mitter, Agent, for Respondent; Shri C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (Shri G. N. Joshi, and Shri Porus A. Mehta, Advocates, with him), instructed by Shri G. H. Rajadhyaksha, Agent, for Intervener.
Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities Order (1947), Art. 9-Meaning of "financial obligations" -Liability to pay rent under a lease.
Held: (1) It could not have been the intention of the framers of Art. 9 to combine the expression other financial obligations only to claims for injunction or specific performance of a contract or the like. The expression, if construed ejusdem generis, implies an obligation in the nature of an obligation in respect of loans and guarantees incurred or undertaken by the State.
(2) It is however not necessary or desirable to attempt to an exhaustive definition of the expression. The court will have to consider in each case whether a particular obligation which may be the subject matter of discussion falls within the expression "financial obligations" within the meaning of Art. 9. The liability to pay rent under a lease certainly does not come within that expression.
Judgment
S. R. DAS, J.: This is an appeal by special leave by the State of West Bengal from the judgment and decree passed on the 9th March 1950 by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court affirming the judgment and decree pronounced by Sinha, J., on the 4th August 1949 in exercise of the ordinary original Civil Jurisdiction of that Court. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether on a proper interpretation of Articles 8 and 9 of the Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947, the appellant can be held liable for payment of rent and taxes for a period prior to the 15th August 1947 in respect of a premises which has been taken on lease by the undivided Province of Bengal.
2. The relevant facts are shortly these. By an indenture of lease dated the 22nd February 1947 the respondent demised to the Governor of the undivided Province of Bengal the first, second and third floors of premises No. 73, Dharmtolla Street in the town of Calcutta for a term of three years commencing from the 1st day of February 1947 yielding and paying unto the lessor therefor during the said term a monthly rent of Rs. 1,800/- only clear of all deductions by equal monthly payment on the 5th day of each and every month for the month immediately preceding and also the sum of Rs. 150/- per quarter towards payment of occupier s share of municipal taxes. By the lease the lessee covenanted that he would, during the said term, use the demised premises only for a hostel for the students of the Campbell Medical School and shall not at any time during the said term use the demised premises or any part thereof for any other purpose whatsoever. The lessee further agreed to pay the costs of and incidental to the lease.
On the 15th August 1947 the partition of India took place and amongst other things, two new provinces came into existence, namely, West Bengal and East Bengal in place of the old Province of Bengal. The Province of West Bengal formed part of the Dominion of India and is now the State of West Bengal in the Union of India while the Province of East Bengal became and is still a part of the Dominion of Pakistan. The Indian Independence Act, 1947, by Section 9 empowered the Governor-General, amongst other things, to make such provision as appeared to him to be necessary or expedient for dividing between the new provinces to be constituted under that Act the powers rights, properties, duties and liabilities of the provinces which under that Act were to cease to exist. In exercise of that power the Governor-General promulgated an Order called the Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the said Order, to deal with the powers, rights, property, duties and liabilities of the respective Governments of West Bengal and East Bengal. Article 8 (2) of that Order, which is material for the purposes of this appeal, was in the following terms:
"Any contracts made on behalf of the Province of Bengal before the appointed day shall, as from that day-
(a) if the contract is for purposes which as from that day are exclusively purposes of the Province of West Bengal, be deemed to have been made on behalf of the Province instead of the Province of Bengal; and
(b) in any other case be deemed to have been made on behalf of the Province of East Bengal instead of the Province of Bengal; and all rights and liabilities which have accrued or may accrue under any such contract shall, to the extent to which they would have been rights or liabilities of the Province of Bengal, be rights or liabilities of the Province of West Bengal or the Province of East Bengal, as the case may be."
Clause (6) of Article 8 provided that the provisions of that Article would have effect subject to the provisions of Article 9 of that Order. The relevant portion of Article 9 was as follows :
"9. All liabilities in respect of such loans, guarantee and other financial obligations of the Governor-General in Council or of a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.