LexMANOHAR LAL versus THE STATE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
671
alienation made by the father within the period laid
down in Article 125 of the Indian Limitation Act and
it is only on the alienation being set aside that he is
entitled to recover possession of the property. The
High Court, in our opinion, was perfectly right in
holding that the decision in Banwarilal v. Mahesh(1)
which related to a suit instituted by a son against an
:alienee of the father under the Mitakshara law does
not apply to the facts of the present case.
It is true
that as regards defendants 2 and 3 the decree
is
a
conditional decree and the plaintiff cannot recover
possession unless he pays a certain amount of money to
the extent of which the widow's estate has been held
to be benefitted, but the High Court has very properly
allowed interest upon this amount to the alienee while
making the latter liable for the mesne profits.
The result is that, in our opinion, the decision of the
High Court cannot be assailed on either of these two
points and the appeal therefore fails and is dismissed
with cost5.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellants : M. S. K. Aiyangar.
Agent for the respondents : M. S. K. Sastri.
MANOHARLAL~THESTATE
{SHJU HARJLAL KANIA C. J., SAIYm FAZAL Au,
MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR
and VIVIAN BosE JJ.]
Puniab Trade Employees Act, 1940, ss. 2-A (i) and (i), 7 (1), 16,
-fh?fkuper without employees -
Sale by son on close day-
L1abil1ty of shop'fr..eeper-'-Scope of s. 2-A (i) and (i).
Section 7 sub-s. (1) of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940.
as a~ended in 1943, provided that "save
as
otherwise . provided
by this Act, every shop shall . remain closed on a dose day." Sub-
scctiort (2) (i) stated that "The choice of a close day. shall rest
with the owner or octupier of a shop ...... and shall be intimated
1951
Mummartddi
Nagi Rtddi
and Others
v.
Pitti Durairaja
Naidu
and Others.
Mukherjea J.
1951
May 23.
1951
Manohar Lal
v.
The Stale.
Bose j.
672
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1951]
to the prescribed authority." Clauses (i) and (j) of s. 2-A provid-
ed that nothing in the Act. shall apply to persons employed in a
managerial capacity and the members of the family
of the
employer.
The appellant owned a shop, and on a close day the
appellant's son sold an article from the shop, and the appellant
was convicted under s. 16 of tht Act.
It was contended on his
behalf that s. 7 of the Act was ultra 11ire1 as it did not fall under
any. of the items in either the Provincial or the Concurrent
Legislat:ve List of the Government of India Act, 1935, and that
in any event as he did not employ any labour and was also
the
manager of the shop he cannot be convicted .in view of · the
provisions of clauses (i) and (j) of s. 2-A of the Act.
Held,. hy the Full Court-(i) that the Provincial Government
could under item No. 27 in List II regulate the hours, place, date
and manner of sale of any commodity and s. 7 of the Act was
not ultra vires; the matter could, also be brought under item 27
in list III "welfare of labour; conditions of labour;"
(ii) clause (j) of s. 2-A did not protect the appellant because the
conviction was not for the sale by the son but for the appeltant
having kept the shop open on a close day;
(iii) the appellant was not entitled to be exempted under
cL (i) of s. 2-A even though he was himself the manager of the
shop, because bis capacity and liability as an owner · must be kept
distinct. from that of a manager for the purposes of the Ila.
Cl\IMINAL
APPELLATE
JtWSD1cnoN:
Criminal
Appeal No. 11 of 1950.
Appeal under Art. 134 ( l) ( c) of the COnstitucion of
India against the Judgment and Order dated the 10th
Apri1, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Simla
in Criminal Revision No. 449 of 1949. The facts of
the case appear in the judgment.
Kundan Lal Arora for the appellant.
S. N. Chopra for the respondent.
1951. May 23. The Judgment of the Coon wa
delivered by
BosE J.-This is a criminal appeal against .a convic-
tion under section 16 of the Punjab 'frade Employees
Act, 1940, as amended in 1943, read with section 7(1).
The appellant is a shopkeeper who owns and runs a
shop in the Cantonment Area oe Ferozepore. He has
no "employees" within the meaning of the Act but is
assisted by his son in running the shop. The: shop is
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT. REPORTS
673
divided into two sections.
In one, articles of haber-
dashery are sold; in the other, articlesExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.