Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(4)LHSC2281; 2009AIRSCW4267; AIR2009SC2840; 2009(4)ALT33(SC); 2009(4)AWC3467(SC); 2010(1)BomCR556; JT2009(8)SC146; (2009)5MLJ1203(SC); 2009(II)OLR(SC)121; (2009)155PLR473; RLW2009(4)SC3070; 2009(7)SCAL:2009AIRSCW4267:2009(4)LHSC2281
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. Leave granted.2. The wife, who is the appellant before this Court, filed this appeal seeking to impugn the judgment and order dated 5.6.2008 passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay, which in a detailed judgment, was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated 5.12.2007 passed by the Family Court, Mumbai, in which the Family Court, dissolved the marriage between the appellant and the respondent by a decree of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the said Act').3. Admittedly, the parties are Hindu and governed by the provisions of the said Act and they were married on 5.3.1993 at Mumbai following the Hindu Vedic rites. Marriage was also registered. After marriage, the parties resided together in Flat No. 601, 2nd Floor, Dinath Court, Sir Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai. Two sons were born to them, one on 1.2.1995 and the other one on 3.4.1997. A few years after that, serious differences and inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009BusLR478; 2009(1)CTC32; LC2009(2)36
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Both the petitioners in this writ petition are registered societies under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and they are providing support to people living with HIV/AIDS (herein after referred to as 'PLHIV'). The petitioners try to lend support to PLHIV in critical areas such as access to medicine and treatment and also for removal of discrimination facing PLHIV in Indian society. Members of the petitioner organizations are citizens of India.2. F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, the 4th respondent herein, is a pharmaceutical company registered in Switzerland having its office at 124, Grenzacherstrasse CH 4200, Basle, Switzerland. It filed a Patent Application titled '-(2-Amino-1, 6-Dihydro-6-oxopurin- 9-yl)-methoxy-1,3-propanediol Derivative', which was allocated No. 959/MAS/1995, for a patent relating to Valganciclovir, which is a drug used to treat CMC retinitis. The 4th respondent's Patent Application No. 959/MAS/1995 was filed on 27.07.1995, and the 2nd res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008AP101; 2008(3)ALD168; 2008(2)ALT484
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside notice dated 26.09.2005 issued by respondent No. 2, whereunder the respondents invoked the provisions of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short, 'the 1951 Act') for recovery of Rs. 35,79,228/- from the petitioners.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company of which petitioner No. 2, represented by two GPA holders, namely, Satish Kumar Agarwal and Vimal Kumar Agarwal, is the Managing Director. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited, respondent No. 1 (for short, 'the Corporation') extended equity of Rs. 2.75 lakhs and invested preference share capital of 0.75 lakhs in petitioner No. 1 company. It also sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 3.50 lakhs. The amounts towards the equity and preference share capital were released during the years 1967-69 and a sum of Rs. 3,30,733=59 ps towards term loan was released during the period from 19.04.1969 to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC949; (1964)66BOMLR714; 1964CriLJ44; [1964]5SCR1064
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 30, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in (Nagpur Bench) in Criminal Application No. 197 of 1963. A.S. Bobde, O.C. Mathur, J.B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants. M.C. Setalvad, H.R. khanna and R.H. Dhebar, for the respondent. December 16, 1963. The Judgment of B.P. Sinha, C.J., K. Subba Rao, and J.C. Shah JJ. was delivered by Shah J. The dissenting Opinion of M. Hidayatullah and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ. was delivered by Ayyangar J. SHAH J.-A police report was lodged in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Akola, against the appellants and fifty-five others on charges for offences punishable under ss. 406, 408, 409, 120-B and 477-A Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer furnished the accused persons with copies of documents which are required by s. 173(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be furnished. At the commencement of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1996)ACC617; 1996ACJ1044; AIR1996SC2627; 1997(1)BLJR247; [1998]91CompCas526(SC); (1997)2GLR1093; JT1996(5)SC728; (1996)114PLR311; 1996(5)SCALE388; (1996)5SCC21; [1996]Su
ORDERN.P. Singh, J.1. Leave granted.2. An accident look place on 8th June 1980 at Panaji between a bus bearing No. DLP-5843 and scooter bearing No. GDC-9713, as a result whereof one Dr. P. Ramachandra Reddy who was driving the scooter fell down and succumbed to the injuries, the same day. A claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claiming compensation. The appellant is the owner of the bus which had been insured by respondent No. 3, the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurance Company').3. According to the claimants, the respondent No. 4, Rajinder Pal Singh who was the cleaner/conductor of the bus was driving the bus at the relevant time when the accident took place resulting into the death of Dr. P. Ramachandra Reddy, on account of his rash and negligent driving. The claim for compensation was resisted by the appellant (owner of the vehicle) contending that when the accident too...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(3)ARBLR378(SC); 2007(4)AWC3998(SC); 2007BusLR88(SC); (2008)1CompLJ136(SC); JT2007(11)SC73; 2007(10)SCALE577; (2007)8SCC466; 2007(2)LC1057(SC)
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. Both these appeals arise out of the order dated 24.8.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati at Guwahati in Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2002. Therefore they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are that the respondent, Daelim Industrial Company (hereinafter to be referred to as 'DIC' ) is a company incorporated in Seoul, Korea having its registered office there. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, Daelim Engineering Company Limited (DEC) got merged with Daelim Industrial Company Limited (DIC), and therefore DEC ceased to exist. For our convenience we will take up DIC for all practical purpose. The appellant, Numaligarh Refinery Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as 'NRL') is a Government of India undertaking incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Guwahati, in the State of Assam. NRL thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(6)ALT39; 2008(1)AWC318(SC); 2007(5)CTC460; II(2007)DMC755SC; JT2007(12)SC424; (2008)1SCC180
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Pursuant to the order dated 23.7.2006, the matter was placed for our consideration. By judgment dated 14.2.2006 reported as Smt. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar : AIR2006SC1158 , it was directed that all marriages shall be compulsorily registered. In the said order, it was inter alia noticed as follows:It has been pointed out that compulsory registration of marriage would be a step in the right direction for the prevention of child marriage still prevalent in many parts of the country. In the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') List II (the Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule provides in Entries 5 and 30 as follows:5. Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption; wills; intestacy and succession; joint family and partition; all matters in respect of which parties in judicial proceedings were immediately before the commencement of this Constitution subject to their personal law.30. Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths.'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC809; 2008(2)ALD1(SC); 2008(56)BLJR181; (2008)1CALLT69(SC); (2008)1CompLJ1(SC); 2008(1)JKJ41[SC]; LC2008(1)56; (2008)1MLJ361(SC); 2008(36)PTC1(SC); 2007(14)SCALE1; 2008AIRSCW49; AIR2008SC809; 2008(1)SCC1; 2008(1)LH(SC)179; 2008(2)ICC206; 2008(4)KCCRSN237
1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi involving the analogous question and are, therefore, decided together by this judgment. 2. Appellant No. 1 Eastern Book Company is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of publishing law books. Appellant No. 2 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated and existing under the Companies Act, 1956. The said appellants are involved in the printing and publishing of various books relating to the field of law. One of the well-known publications of appellant No. 1 Eastern Book Company is the law report Supreme Court Cases (hereinafter called SCC ). The appellant publishes all reportable judgments along with non-reportable judgments of the Supreme Court of India. Yet another category included in SCC is short judgments, orders, practice directions and record of proceedings. The law report S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC739; 2008(1)AWC133(SC); [2008(116)FLR167]; (2008)ILLJ661SC; (2008)1SCC391; 2007AIRSCW7892; 2008(1)SCC391; 2008(3)KCCR1721
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the Special Appeal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the Special appeal was to the judgment of a learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed upholding the decision of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (in short the 'Commissioner'). It was held that Section 16(1)(d) of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was omitted from the statute by Act No.10 of 1998 with retrospective effect i.e. from 22.9.1997. In other words, it was held that the infancy protection shall not be available to the appellant factory after 22.9.1997. 2. The factual scenario lies into a very narrow compass. Appellant started production on 1.9.1995 and according to it, it was entitled to benefit under Section 16(1)(d) of the Act from that day. From August, 1998 appellant started to comply...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR170]
R. Basant, J.1. Does Section 1(5) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') apply to an establishment which gets covered only under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act? Does the fall in employment strength below SO or even below 20 take it out of coverage under the Act ipso facto? These questions come up for decision in this case.2. The common petitioners in all these Crl. MCs are facing prosecutions under the Act. The allegation is that there has been failure to comply with the statutory obligations regarding filing of returns and payment of contributions. The petitioners, who are the establishment a co-operative society and its secretary, have come to this Court with the contention that on the relevant dates, the statute is not applicable to the petitioners in as much as employment strength of the petitioners had fallen below 50 (and even below 20) which is the number fixed under Section 16(1)(a) of the said Act.3. It is ad...
Tag this Judgment!