Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1821; [1962]32CompCas699(SC); [1963]1SCR253
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. These three appeals are by special leave. Appeal No. 7 of 1961 is by R.K. Dalmia. Appeal No. 8 of 1961 is by R. P. Gurha. Appeal No. 9 of 1961 is byG. L. Chokhani and Vishnu Prasad. All the appellants were convicted of theoffence under section 120B read with section 409 I.P.C., and all of them,except Vishnu Prasad, were also convicted of certain offences arising out ofthe overt acts committed by them. Dalmia and Chokhani were convicted undersection 409 I.P.C. Chokhani were convicted under section 477A read with section110, I.P.C. Gurha was convicted under section 477A I.P.C. 2. To appreciate the case against the appellants, we may first stategenerally the facts leading to the case. Bharat Insurance Company wasincorporated in 1896. In 1936 Dalmia purchased certain shares of the companyand became a Director and Chairman of the company. He resigned from theseoffices in 1942 and was succeeded by his brother J. Dalmia. The head office ofthe Bharat Insurance Company was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 10(1974)DLT46
Prakash Narain, J.(1) The petitioner claims itself to be a registered pertnership carrying on business in the Union Territoly of Delhi In 1965 applied for the issue of a license for manufacture of cartridges used as amunition in shot guns A license bear' Ing No. 2/IX/1965 was issued to the petitioner for the manufacture of 5000 gun cartridges at a time. This license was in Form Ix given in the . Arms Act, 1959 lt was renewed from time to time up to December 31,1971. ltis alleged by the petitioner that acting upon this license granted to it investment was made for purchasing necessary machinery and installing a factory in Bhogal, New Delhi. The production of cartridges was undertaken by the petitioner right up to February, 1972. During all this period the concerned authorities regularly inspected (he (Arrexure) and September 2, 1972 (Annexure and also making a declaration that the license issued to the petitioner originally in 1965 was a valid license to enable them to continue the manu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT(Cri)310; 1993CriLJ2331; ILR1993KAR1430; 1992(2)KarLJ190
ORDER1. Since the question of law and facts involved in both these petitions are common, both the petitions are clubbed and a common order is passed. 2. These two petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bellary, in C.C. No. 227 of 1985 on I. As. Nos. 13 and 14 dated 26-5-1989 wherein he rejected I.A. No. 13 filed by the D.S.P., C.B.I., seeking for permission to make further investigation and to stay the proceedings and I.A. No. 14 filed by the D.S.P., C.B.I., requesting the Court to drop the proceedings and to discharge the accused and to hand over the documents produced in the case to him for further investigation. 2A. For the sake of convenience, in these petitions the parties are referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. Before the trial Court the accused were (1), G. Lakshman, (2) G. Raghunath, (3) G. Jagannath, (4) R. N. Laxman, (5) Srinivasulu, (6) Yadunandan Prasad Dangwal and (7) Hardeep Singh and the complainant was the State of Karn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1990]69CompCas233(Bom)
G.H.Guttal J.1. The applicants are the shareholders of Apsara Cinema Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 2 hereinafter referred to as the company. For the sake of convenience, the applicants are referred to as petitioners. Petitioner No.2, Balchand Choraria, is the constituted attorney of petitioner No. 1. Respondents Nos. 2 to 16 are also shareholders. The two sets of shareholders represent rival groups. company Application No. 136 of 1988 of s1988 are also addressed to VIP Enterprises and REK Exhibitors respectively because certain reliefs affecting their contracts of exhibition of movie films in Apsara Cinema are sought. In these judge's summonses taken out under section 402 of the Companies Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the applicants seek an order that the agreements dated March 20, 1987, and February 12, 1987, with VIP Enterprises and REK Exhibitors be set aside and an administrator for the company be appointed.2. The facts out of which these applications arise are, briefly, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC87; (2002)8SCC237
Acts/Rules/Orders: Constitution of India - Articles 69, 69(2), 75, 79, 83, 85, 85(1), 85(2), 87, 88, 94, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 107(5), 109, 110, 111, 123, 143, 143(1), 145(1), 147, 153, 159, 163, 164, 168, 169, 164(2), 164(4), 170, 171, 172, 172(1), 174, 174(1), 174(2), 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 196, 196(5), 197, 197(2), 198, 202, 209, 213, 289, 290, 324 to 329, 352, 355, 356, 356(1), 360 and 368; Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 14, 15, 15(2) and 73; Government of India Act, 1915 - Sections 63, 63D, 63D(1), 72B, 72B(1), 204(1) and 213; Government of India (Amendment) Act, 1919 - Sections 8, 8(1), 21 and 21(1); Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 18, 18(4), 19, 19(1), 19(2), 60, 61(3), 62, 62(1) and 62(2); Representation of People Act, 1918 - Section 21(3); Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, 2000; Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 - Section 8; Government of U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1976Delhi753
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) An Act to establish a Press Council for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the Press and oF maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India was enacted by Parliament, being Press Council Act 1965 (Act 34 of 1965), (hereinafter called the 'Act'). In furtherance or its object the Press Council is empowered to help newspapers and news agencies to maintain their independence. The Jurisdiction of the Press Council was invoked by two complaints under sections 12(2) (a) and (e) of the Act. What is the meaning and scope of the terms 'Freedom of Press', Independence of Newspapers' and the Independence of the Editor of a Newspaper' is one of the interesting questions which goes to the 'out of the jurisdiction of the Press Council that has arisen in this case. (2) On November 4, 1974. respondent 27, Shri D. R. Mankekar, addressed a complaint to the Press Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Press Council') under section 12(2)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1976Delhi192
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Cr. Writs 133/75 and 134/75 also. The detenu involved in this petition (Dali Chand Vohra) as well as those in the other two petitions (Shyam Bihari Lal Sharma and Shri Kishan Sharma) arc partners of a firm known a,s Delhi Rajkot Enamel Works. The facts being the same it will be sufficient to state them in Cr. Writ 116 of 1975 alone.(2) An order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Delhi under section 3(l)(c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the MISA) on certain grounds, which he noticed later on 22-10-1974, which was quashed on 11-12-1974 by a Division Bench consisting of M.R.A. Ansari and V. D. Misra, JJ. The detenu was arrested for the second time .and detained under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA) on 6-3-1975 on the same facts : the same was quashed by the same Division B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR36
L. Mohapatra, J.1. This application under Section 482. Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 23.7.1998 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 739/1994 framing charge for commission of offence under Section 9-B of the Indian Explosives Act as well as under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.5.1994 from the house of the petitioner one gupti, one gun, one small knife, three numbers of parsuram farsa, two numbers of tenta, two iron rods, one sword, some live bombs, white powder, red powder, fishing net, etc. were recovered and seized. Pursuant to such-seizure, the aforesaid G. R. Case was registered for commission of offence under Section 9-B of the Indian Explosives Act as well as under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. On 5.5.1997 when the matter was taken up for framing of charge, an application was filed by the petitioner to discharge him on the ground that no offence is made out even the seizure of the artic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3549; 2005(3)ARBLR243(SC); 123(2005)DLT188(SC); [2006(108)FLR222]; JT2005(8)SC279; (2005)7SCC472; 2006(1)SLJ153(SC)
Arijit Pasyat, J. 1. Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court holding that the Delhi School Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') while hearing appeal of a dismissed employee of the appellant-school preferred under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (in short the 'Act') was not required to refer the appeal to an arbitrator on an application being filed before it by the management of the school under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 'Arbitration Act') is under challenge in this appeal.2. Factual position is almost undisputed and it is unnecessary to set out the details. In a nutshell the same is as follows:Managing Committee of an un-aided minority institution is the appellant. The respondent No. 1 - Vijay Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee') was working as an Assistant Teacher in the school known as Montfort Senior Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as the 'School'). Disciplinary action was taken ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3637; 2003(5)ALD105(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)200; 2003(3)BLJR1921; [2003]116CompCas654(SC); 2003(6)SCALE150; (2003)11SCC706; 2003(2)LC1316(SC)
Dharmadhikari J.1. The appellant claims to be in occupation as tenant of premises described as Shop No. 828 in Parekh Market, Opera House, Bombay. M/s Nikhil Diamonds [Respondent No. 4 herein] admittedly owns amongst others the said premises in the market.2. The three Banks [respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 herein] filed Suit No. 607 of 1995 in High Court of Bombay on its Original Side for recovery of loans advanced by them to respondent No. 4 and its partners [respondents No. 5 to 11].3. The Banks as plaintiffs in the said Suit sought appointment of Court Receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) for safe custody and proper management of the properties of the defendants. The Single Judge of the High Court rejected the prayer. In appeal the division bench of the Bombay High Court its Order dated 03.11.1995, accepted the prayer of the Banks and appointed a Court Receiver on the properties which include the premises in question.4. M/...
Tag this Judgment!