Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC94; JT1994(5)SC488; 1994(3)SCALE935; (1994)6SCC241; [1994]Supp3SCR50
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants are Suchita and Madhuri, daughters of Laxman Pandurang Patil. Their grandfather was Panduranga Patil. Laxman Patil was admitted in the school in the year 1943. In his school admission register and his school and college certificates his caste was shown as 'Hindu-Koli'. Suchita had applied through her father, Laxman Patil to the Tahsildar, Andheri on November 30, 1989 for issuance of caste certificate as 'Mahadeo Koli' a Schedule Tribe. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bombay Sub-urban Dist. by his proceeding dated June 22, 1989 refused to issue caste certificate sought for by Ms. Suchita and informed her that she was not a Scheduled Tribe 'Mahadeo Koli'. She filed an appeal before the Addl. Commissioner, Konkan Division, Bombay. As she had applied for admission into the M.B.B.S. course and the time for her admission was running out, she filed Writ Petition No. 3516 of 1990 in the High Court to direct the Addl. Commissioner to dispose o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC2227
Saikia, J.1. This plaintiff's appeal by special leave is from the Appellate Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Judicature at, Bombay reversing those of the trial court and dismissing plaintiff's special suit.2. The appellant is a Limited Company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office situate at Ahmednagar within the State of Maharashtra. The appellant carries on business, inter alia, as manufacturers of Ayurvedic preparations including 'Asavas', 'Aristhas'. At all times material to this appeal, the appellant was manufacturing and selling an Ayurvedic product called 'Ashvagandhaarist' which is a medicinal preparation containing self-generated alcohol but not capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverage.3. Under the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', which came into force on 1st April, 1957, excise duties were levied on medicinal and toilet preparations specified i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Delhi in WP No. 6527/2008 filed by the appellant-Rajkumar Shivhare.3. A Writ Petition was filed challenging the order dated 17.7.2008 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, Janpath, New Delhi, (hereinafter `the Tribunal'), on various grounds with which this Court is not concerned. By that order, the Tribunal refused to dispense with the pre-deposit of penalty by the appellant and the concluding portion of that order is:.Therefore, the application for dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty is dismissed and rejected but the appellant is permitted to deposit full amount of penalty within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the appeal will be dismissed on this ground alone. The appeal is fixed for hearing on 4th September, 2008. 4. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:The appellant, along with another person, were issued a notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1989)ILLJ446Bom
1. The neat question of law that arises for consideration in this group of criminal revision applications is, whether employees of nationalised banks are 'public servants' within the meaning of clause 12(b) of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Brief facts giving rise to these revision applications are as under :-In special case Nos. 44 and 50 of 1978 accused No. 1, L. D. Kanchan, who was working as Branch Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, Byculla Branch, Bombay was prosecuted in the Court of the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, Bombay, along with others, by the Central Bureau of Investigation, on the allegations that in the months of April to July, 1977 he entered into criminal conspiracy with others for committing offences of cheating the Indian Overseas Bank by allowing the other accused persons to open bank accounts in the names of fictitious firms and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, forged promissory notes and bogus purchase bills and allowed them to obtain large amounts...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR212; (2008)110BOMLR3055
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellants are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original defendants. For the sake of convenience of the parties, they shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.2. The plaintiffs have challenged an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15th January, 2008 in Chamber Summons No. 1689 of 2007. By the said order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the Chamber Summons which is taken out by the defendants seeking liberty to lead evidence and to place on record all documents referred to in the affidavit of documents which was filed by the defendants. Grievance of the plaintiffs is that after they had led their evidence, the defendants had specifically informed the Court that they did not wish to lead any evidence. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that after having taken a stand not to lead evidence, it was not open for the defendants to subsequently file application seeking permission of the court to lead evidence. In o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)BomCR465; [2008(117)FLR803]; (2008)ILLJ1085Bom; 2008(2)MhLj598
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award of Labour Court rejecting his demand for reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. The Reference was dismissed on 19.5.1995.2. The petitioner was employed with Respondent No. 2 as a Technician for more than a year. It is the petitioner's case that when he was appointed by Respondent No. 2, his signatures were obtained on blank letterheads of Respondent No. 2 and on blank vouchers and papers. According to the petitioner, his services were terminated w.e.f. 31.12.1987. He, therefore, raised an industrial dispute and obtained a Reference for adjudication by the Labour Court. The dispute referred was one between the Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner and was registered as Reference (IDA) No. 10 of 1988. The workman filed his statement of claim contending that his services had been terminated illegally and in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. It was al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR2589; 2009(6)KarLJ205
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 27(2) and (3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter far short referred to as the Act') as well as the procedure followed by the District and State Consumer Forum in issuing arrest warrants against them. Therefore, all these Writ Petitions axe taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. However, for proper appreciation of the rival contentions, the facts pleaded in W.P. No. 700/2008 and the statement of objections filed in W.P. No. 18465/ 2006 by the Union of India which was adopted by them as the statement of objections in all the Writ Petitions, is set out as under.2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm. It is in the business of land development and construction. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the land owners for development of land bearing Sy. No. 4848 and 2878 at 6th Main, V.V. Puram, Devaraja Moha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2008]143CompCas161(AP)
V.V.S. Rao, J.1. This company petition filed by M/s. SJK Steel Plant Limited under Sections 100, 391 and 392 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act, for brevity), seeks sanction of the Court to the Scheme of Compromise/Arrangement proposed by the petitioner with their shareholders.On 16th March 1993, the petitioner company was incorporated as Sujana Metal India Limited, as per Certificate of Incorporation. Thereafter, the name of petitioner company was changed as Tadipatri Metal India Limited, which was again changed as SJK Steel Corporation Limited, and again as SJK Steel Plant Limited (the present name of the company). The present authorized share capital of the petitioner is at Rs. 1000,00,00,000/- (Thousand crore only) divided into 50,00,00,000 (fifty crores) equity shares of Rs. 10/- each and 5,00,00,000 preference shares of Rs. 100/- each. These are issued, subscribed and paid-up to the extent indicated in the petition. The main objects of the petitioner company are to produce, manu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE302
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. This matter has come up before us upon reference having been made by a Two-Judge Bench vide order dated 04.11.2009 upon noticing an inconsistency in the views expressed by this Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Balwan : AIR 1999 SC 3333 on one hand and in the cases of State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh and Ors. (2007) 13 SCC 606; and State of Haryana v. Bhup Singh : AIR 2009 SC 1252, on the other hand. The inconsistency, which was pointed out in the said order was noticed by taking into account the para 5 of the judgment in Balwan (supra) which is as follows:.However, in order to see that a life convict does not lose any benefit available under the remission scheme which has to be regarded as the guideline, it would be just and proper to direct the State Government to treat the date on which his case is/was required to be put up before the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution as the relevant date with referen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC304; (1978)4SCC214; [1979]1SCR765; 1978(10)LC776(SC)
Fazal Ali, J.1. These appeals have been brought by certificate of fitness granted by the Bombay High Court against the order of the High Court in S.C.A. No. 2149 of 1968 dated 12th March, 1969. By an order dated 12-7-1970 this Court directed the four appeals to be consolidated because the points involved were the same. The appeals have been filed by the Municipal Corporation for the City of Poona (hereinafter called the Corporation) against whom a writ filed before the Bombay High Court was allowed and the orders demanding the octroi duty from the respondents were quashed.2. The facts of the case insofar as they are pertinent to the decision of the points in issue lie within a very narrow compass. The entire case turns upon the interpretation of some of the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) and certain notifications issued thereunder. It appears that under Section 127(1) of the Act the Corporation has got the power to impose...
Tag this Judgment!