There was an obligation on the part of the owners of the trawler to pay the half a crown (to take that as one instance) in a certain event, which event was to be determined by the gross earnings of the vessel. In the test identification parade, PW8 identified Chintoo Singh (A- 5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) as the persons who took away ransom money from the carrier of his cycle. , expounded the ratio of the decision in the following words :- " The question is whether, having regard to the circumstances, that can be said in the present case.

It does not arise out of any contract to pay, though the claim is recognised as one based on social justice. In such a case only such of the offences mentioned in items Nos. Unless the Tribunal had at the back its mind the various probabilities which had been referred to by the Income-tax Officer as above it could not have come to the conclusion it did that the balance of Rs 1,41,000 comprising of the remaining 141 high denomination notes of Rs. (2) [1954] INSC 22; [1954] S.

1,50,000 in the shape of high denomination notes on January 12, 1946, when the Ordinance above mentioned was promulgated. Now what was the effect . The decision proceeded on the footing that the bonus in that case was not a share in profits but an additional sum for wages determined by the amount of the gross earnings. It seems that by the custom of this firm and by the understanding and arrangement between the parties, if the vessel made pound, 100 the skipper was entitled to pound 1, and in that particular case each member of the crew was entitled to half a crown.

The bonus we are dealing with here is not additional wage determined by the amount of profits; it is really part of the availiable surplus of profits distributed to labour for its contribution to the earnings. The scope and effect of the provisions of Art. 230 boat exceeded pound 125 the bonus was proportionately increased and so on, but it was not further increased if the gross earnings realised more than pound, 175.

The Government has however to mention in the notification making such a declaration, the period during which it shall have effect; in other words, the notification has to specify the period in which in the area declared a " disturbed area ", disturbance of the public peace and tranquillity had taken place. The area,so declared a " disturbed area " becomes a " disturbed area " within the meaning of the Act for that period only. 14 have been considered by this Supreme Court of India Lawyers; similar website, on several occasions, and the matter has been clarified beyond all doubt.

The challenge to the vires of the impugned provisions is based on the ground that they violate the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 2(b) empowers the Government to declare an area to be a disturbed area where " there was " extensive disturbance of the public peace and tranquillity in the past. 14 no doubt prohibits class legislation (1) [1952] INSC 1; [1952] S. I see no ground for holding that it was in any sense of the word a share of the gross earnings of the working of the vessel any more than the actual wages which were payable to the seamen could be treated as being a share of the gross earnings of the vessel, although the bonus as well as the wages would figure in the ship's accounts as against the receipts on the other side.

The equality before law which is guaranteed by Art. This is the kind of declaration of a " disturbed area " that we have in this case. If the vessel made more the skipper and crew were entitled to larger sums. " It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision does not apply here. 3, 4 and 6 of the Act but also the impugned Control Order. This conclusion 313 of the Tribunal could only be arrived at on the basis that the entries in the books of account in regard to the balance in Rokar and the balance in Almirah were correct and represented the true state of affairs, in spite of the interpolations and -subsequent insertions which had been made to bolster up the true case.

The evidence of PW8 amply corroborates the evidence of PW2 as to the complicity of Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) in the offence. When they reached New Gandak Bridge, accused-Sanjeet (A-2) got down from the cycle and went inside the hut on the left side of the road and PW8 followed him. 2006, PW8 wrapped the ransom amount in a plastic bag and kept it in a gunny bag under the carrier of his cycle and accompanied by Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A1), Sanjeet (A-2) and Sanjay (A-4), PW8 went to pay the ransom amount to the kidnappers.

2 and 4 of the Schedule as were committed in the specified area during the specified period come under the scope of the Act. 14 of the Constitution. The bonus was not, as it seems to me any part of the profits, nor was it a share in the gross earnings of the vessel. 1,000 each was not satisfactorily explained by the appellant. Section 3 of the Control Order in particular was (1) [1954] INSC 1; [1954] S. At that time, two persons came out of the hut and took away the money from the carrier of PW8s cycle.

This order was the Cotton Textile (Control of Movement) Order, 1948. The appellant had challenged not only ss.