THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SHAIKH SERAJUDDIN BATLEY. UNION OF INDIA : INTERVENER
Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 378; 1953 INSC 77
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI , MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, GHULAM HASAN, B. JAGANNADHADAS
Judgment date:
Case summary
1953 INSC 77. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1953-11-24. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SHAIKH SERAJUDDIN BATLEY. UNION OF INDIA : INTERVENER. Read the...
Judgment text
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i954j of Calcutta, then the mere circumstance that by grant of licence at different tariff rates to holders of different taxis and different classes of vehicles some of the exist-ing licence holders are affected cannot bring the case under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. For the reasons given above this appeal has no merits and we accordingly dismiss it with costs. Appeal disrnissed. Agent for the appellant : Sulcurnar Ghose. Agent for respondents Nos. 1 & 2: P. K. Bose. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SHAIKH SERAJUDDIN BATLEY. UNION OF INDIA : INTERVENER [PATANJALI SASTRI c. J. , MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, S. R. DAS, GHULAM HASAN and JAGANNADHADAS JJ. ] Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947, Arts. 8(2), 9-Rent payable by Province of Bengal before 15th A·ugiist, 1947-Pitrpose of lease exclusive purpose of West Bengal -Liability of West Be,ngal-" Financial obligations," interprCtation of-Object of Art. 9.
The liability to pay rent under a lease does not come within 11 the expression financial obligations" in article 9 of the Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947. The Province of Bengal took certain premises'on lease on the 6th February, 1947, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 1,800 and the purposes for which the lease was entered into were, after 15th August, 194 7, exclusively purposes of the Province of \Vest Bengal : Held, that the liability to pay rent was not a "financial obliga-gation" contemplated by article 9 and the Government of West Bengal was liable under article 8(2)(a) of the abovesaid order to pay the rent which had accrued up to the 15th August, 194 7. Province of 1'Vest Ben. gal v. Midnapnr Zemindari Go. , Ltit. (54 O. W. N. 677), Sree Sree Iswar Madan Gopal Jia v. Province of West Bengal (54 0. W. N. 807) and The State of P. nnjab v. L. 111ohanlal Bhayana (A. I. R. 1951 Punj. 382) referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1951. Appeal by special leave granted by the. Supreme Coutt of India by its. Order dated 14th December, • S. C. R. SUPR~M:ll] COURT REPORTS 379 1950, from the Judgment and Decree dated the 9th March, 195? , of the High Cour~ of Ju. dicature at Cal- 7. 'he cutta (Harries C. J. and BannerJee J. ) m Appeal from Original Decree No. 162 of 1949 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 4th August, 1949, of the said High Court (Sinha J. ) in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in Suit No. 1502 of 1948. S. M. ·Bose, Advocate-General of West Bengal, and N. C. Chatterjee (B. Sen, with thein) for the appellant. R. Choudkury. and B. Choudhury for the respondent. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (G. N. Joshi and Porus A. Mehta, with him) for the Union of India. 1953. November 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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 peyiod priQr to the 15th August, 1947, in respect of a premises which had been taken on lease by the undivided Province of Bengal. The relevant facts are shortly these. By an inden-ture 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, Dharmatolla 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 payments on the 5th day of each and 380 SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S [ir/54] every month for the month immediately preceding and also the sum of Rs. 150 per quarter towards pay- "' f · ' h f . . 1 B h ment o occupier s s are o mumc1pa taxes. y t e 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.
Oil 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 nqw 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 lndian Independence Act, 1947, by section9empower-ed 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 that ·Province instead of the Province of Bengal; aqd x • (b) in any other case be deemed to have been · made on be~alf of the Province of East Bengal instead The of the Provmce 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 liabi- Jities 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 a. s follows : "9.
All liabilities in respect of such loans, guar-antee and other financial obligations of the Governor- Genera] in Council or of a Province as are outstanding immediately before the appointed day shall as from that day- - (a) ..................................................... . (b) in the case of liabilities of the Province of Bengal, be liabilities of the Province of East Bengal. " On the 8th May, 1948, the respondent filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court against the appellant claim-ing Rs. 21,600 as arrears of rent at Rs. 1,800 per month from February, 1947, to January, 1948, Rs. 600 as occupier's share of municipal tax for the same period and Rs. 523-9-3 being the costs of and inciden· tal to the lease, aggregating to Rs. 22, 723-9-3. During the pendency of this suit the appellant paid Rs.
9,250 being the arrears of rent and taxes from the 15th August, 1947, but denied liability for the arrears of rent or taxes for any period prior to that date or for the costs of the ]ease: The case The court will have to con. sider 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 article 9. Whatever liabilities may or may not come within that expression we are clearly of opinion, in agreement with the High Court, that the liability to pay rent under a lease certainly does not come within that expression. (1) 54. C. W. N. 677; 85 C. L. J. 202; A. I. R. 1950 Cal. 159, (:! ) 54 C. W. N. 807.. (3) A. I. R. 1951 Punjab 3~2, ? i .. The result, therefore, is that we affirm the decision West of the High Court and dismiss this appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellant: P. K. Bose. Agent for the respondent: A. N. Mitter. Agent for ~he intervener: G. H.
Ra,jadhyak8ha. RA. TA KULKARNI AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF BOMBAY. [PATANJALI SASTRI C. J. , MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ. ] Constitution of India, arts. 19(1)(a. ) and (c}-Bombay Indu;-trial Relations Act, 1946, ss. 3(32), 12, 13-Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, ss. 24, 27-Strike pending appeal- Illega,lity-Olassification of 'Union as "representative" and ''qual? :. fled'' according to percentage of inernbership-Infringenient of fu. nda. rnenta,l right to frcedoni of speech and to forni a,ssociations. A strike during the pendency of an appeal would be an illegal strike under ss. 24 and 25 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, even though the appeal io not a valid or competent one. The Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, provided that a union may be registered as a" representative union" if it had a membership of not less than 15 per cent.
of the total number of employees employed in any industry in any local area and if a union had a membership of less than rn per cent and not less than 5 per cent. it can be registered only as 'qualified union'' : Held, that the above provisions did not infringe the fundamen- . tal right of the workers to freedom of speech and expression and to form associations or unions ·mder article 19(1)(a) and (c) of the Constitution. The classification of unions as" representative" and "qualified" according to the percentage of membership and giving the right to unions with a membership of not less than 15 per cent. alone to represent the workers was a reason~ble· classification and did not infringe the rule of equality before the law. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Cases Nos. 87, 88 and 89 of 1951. Appeals under article 132(1) of ~he Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order d1J;ted 8th January, 1951, of the High Court of •
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.