Court : Supreme Court of India
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. The appellant was the Chief Minister of the State of Punjab during the 12th term of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. The appellant was duly elected as a member of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha for its 13th term.2. The Punjab Vidhan Sabha on 10-9-2008 passed a resolution which directed the expulsion of the appellant for the remainder of the 13th term of the same Vidhan Sabha. This resolution was passed after considering a report submitted by a Special Committee of the Vidhan Sabha (Respondent No. 1) on 3-9-2008 which recorded findings that the appellant along with some other persons (petitioners in the connected matters) had engaged in criminal misconduct. The Special Committee had itself been constituted on 18-12- 2007 in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Vidhan Sabha. It had been given the task of inquiring into allegations of misconduct that related back to the appellant's tenure as the Chief Minister of the State of Punjab during the 12th term of the Punjab Vidhan ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend their age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in terms of the Government Order dated 28.7.2008. They have further sought for a declaration that the amendment to Rule 18(2) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules dated 17.9.2008 is illegal and contrary to Government Order dated 28.7.2008 and to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of amended Rule 18(2) w.e.f. 17.7.2008 as per the Government Order dated 28.7.2008.2. The petitioners are the officers and employees of different Cooperative Societies in the Stale of Karnataka. The Co-operative Societies had adopted the age of retirement of its employees on par with the employees of the State Government. The State Government took a policy decision to extend the age of retirement of its employees from 58 to 60 years with effect from 17.7.2008 as per the notification dated 28.7.2008. The sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR1905; (2009)223CTR(Bom)441; [2009]318ITR252(Bom); [2009]180TAXMAN494(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit on the following questions:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in approving the Order of the CIT(A) in allowing Respondent to exclude export profits for the purpose of Section 115 JB at the figure other than that allowed under Section 80 HHC (1B)?2. Whether in law for the purpose of calculating book profit under Section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under Explanation 1 sub Clause (iv) the export profits to be excluded from the book profits would be the export profits allowed as a deduction under Section 80 HHC after restricting the deduction as per the provisions of Sub-section 1B of Section 80 HHC of the Act or the export profits calculated as per Sub-section 3 and 3A of Section 80 HHC before applying the restriction contained in Sub-section 1B of Section 80 HHC?2. A few facts may be set out:The Assessee company was assessed under Section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2001-2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(4)ALD303; 2008(3)ALT92
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and they are stated hereunder:The father of the petitioner was the owner of land admeasuring Ac.2.05 guntas comprised in Sy. No. 778/E of Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. He died on 11.04.1975. In the year 1971, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') requisitioned an extent of Ac.12.33 guntas in Sy. No. 778/AA etc., for construction of a bus depot and bus stand at Kamareddy town. This land included an extent of Ac.1.39 guntas belonging to the father of the petitioner. Draft notification dated 24.01.1972 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published in the Nizamabad District Gazette on 20.04.1972 and draft declaration was approved by the Government on 25.09.1972 and published in the District Gazette on 23.11.1972. The petitioner claims that possession of the land to the extent of Ac.11.15 guntas, including the land of his father was taken in No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1967; (1975)2SCC414; [1976]1SCR70
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The short but important question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether a State Electricity Board has power to enhance the rates for supply of electricity notwithstanding an agreement binding it to supply electricity at certain rates where it finds that the contractual rates are less than the cost of generation, distribution and supply of electricity and in the result there is loss to the State Electricity Board in its operations. In order to appreciate how the question arises, it is necessary to state a few facts giving rise of the appeal. 2. The petitioner is a limited liability company which carries on business of manufacturing aluminium. The manufacture of aluminium involves three processes, viz., mining of bauxite ore, dressing it and converting it into alumina and reduction of alumina into aluminium, The petitioner carried on bauxite mining at the quarries in Bihar and also set up its factory in Bihar for dressing Bauxite ore and converting i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008GLH(1)328; (2008)1GLR821
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Leave to amend to change the designation of petitioner No. 2 Chief District Health Officer, Gandhinagar District Panchayat, Gandhinagar.2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. HS Munshaw for the petitioners.3. Through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging ex parte award made by the labour Court, Kalol in Reference No. 435 of 1999 dated 29.1.2007 wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement with of the respondent workman on his original post with full back wages and costs of Rs. 1000.00. In the said reference, statement of claim was filed by the respondent on 18.1.2000. Date of termination as mentioned is 7th June, 1989. Date of joining is 1st June, 1988. In reference, the labour court had issued notice to the petitioner vide Exh. 3 which was served on the petitioner but no one had remained present on behalf of the petitioner before the labour court in response to the notice issued by the labour court and, thereafter,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1568; 2009CriLJ1332; JT2009(2)SC413; 2009(2)SCALE302; (2009)4SCC18; 2009(2)ShimLC83; 2009(2)LC651(SC); 2009AIRSCW1096; 2009(3)KCCRSN161
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376, 511, 363 and 366 as well as Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years and 7 years for the aforesaid offences alongwith fine with default stipulation.3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:On 18.7.1999, the victim (PW10) boarded the bus to Shimla from Solan. When the bus bearing registration No. HP-12-4113 reached near petrol pump (HIMFED) situated near Nav Bahar towards Chotta Shimla, all the passengers got down, except the prosecutrix and accused-appellant Arjun Singh. Accused Arjun Singh committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will and without her consent. The victim was kidnapped by the accused wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2078; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)360; (2002)3BOMLR604; 2002CriLJ2814; 2002(2)Crimes360(SC); I(2002)DMC780SC; JT2002(4)SC357; 2002MPLJ5(SC); RLW2002(4)SC542; 2002(4)SCALE44; (2
Banerjee, J. 1. Maintainability of a charge under Section 498(A) of theCode by reason of an order of acquittal under Section 306 of theCode, is the core question to be decided in the appeal against thejudgment of the High Court at Bombay. 2. Before, however, adverting to the factual score, it is to be noticed at this juncture that Section 498(A) has been engrafted onto the statute book by way of a separate Chapter in terms of the provisions of Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983). The above amendment stands incorporated by reason of present trend in the society and to meet the requirement of the society, the legislature thought it fit to incorporate a new Chapterbeing Chapter XXA in the statute book consisting of Section 498(A)in the Indian Penal Code. For convenience sake, Section 498(A) is set out herein below :- '498(A). Husband or relative of husband of a womansubjecting her to cruelty -- Whoever, being the husband or therelative of the husband of a woman, sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Two main questions arise for consideration - first, as to the meaning of the expression, `amount due from a buyer, together with the amount of interest' under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (for short, `1993 Act') and then, as to whether the Industry Facilitation Council (IFC) cannot go beyond the scope of interest on delayed payments upon the matter being referred to it by any party to dispute under Sub-section (2) of Section 6.3. M/s. Modern Industries, Rourkela (for short, `supplier') got an order from the Steel Authority of India Limited - Rourkela Steel Plant (for short, `buyer') on January 15, 1983 for manufacture of Right Manipulator Side Guard. The order value was Rs. 8.19 lakhs. Inter alia, the terms and conditions of the order were : (i) the job should be done exactly as specified in the drawings; (2) the alignment of bearing housings be made by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1999Kant404; ILR1999KAR478; 2000(1)KarLJ205
ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, J. 1. These two writ petitions are filed in the nature of public interest litigation by the Advocates of this Court assailing the Clauses 2 and 6 of the Note appended to cause list dated 5th January, 1998 and the notification dated 8-7-1997 (hereinafter called 'The impugned orders') issued by the Registrar (Judicial) of the Karnataka High Court, in pursuance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this High Court.2. The petitioners are the practising Advocates of this Court. It is contended that the impugned note and notification are contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, Rules and the Constitution of India and therefore is liable to be quashed.3. The Government Advocate contended that the impugned orders are legal and issued in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, Mysore High Court Act and Rules framed thereunder. There is no unconstitutionality, so the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 4. To ap...
Tag this Judgment!