Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2504; 2000(2)ALD(Cri)417; 2000CriLJ3939; 2000(71)ECC468; JT2000(8)SC374; 2000(5)SCALE387; (2000)7SCC463; [2000]Supp2SCR67; 2000(2)LC1431(SC)
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. All these appeals have been filed by the State of Maharashtra assailing the correctness of the decision of the Full Bench of Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur, answering the question referred to, in favour of the detenue and against the State. The question that had been referred to the Full Bench for being answered is, whether in case of an order of detention by an officer under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Boot-leggers, Drugs Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as 'Maharashtra Act'), non-communication to the detenue that he has a right of making a representation to the Detaining Authority constitutes an infraction of a valuable right of the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and as such, vitiates the order of detention. There is no dispute that in all these cases the order of detention had been passed not by the State Government under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IIAD(SC)20; AIR1998SC1233; [1999(82)FLR380]; (1998)2GLR1079; JT1998(1)SC604; (1998)ILLJ868SC; 1998(1)SCALE565; (1998)2SCC688; [1998]1SCR793
ORDERMrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The first respondent, Labour Law Practitioners' Association is an association of member practising in the Industrial and Labour Courts in the State of Maharashtra. The Association filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the appointment of respondents 2 and 3 who were Assistant Commissioners of Labour, as Judges of the Labour Court at Pune and Sholapur under a Notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated 8.3.1979. They also prayed that the provisions of the amended Section 9 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the amended Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act in so far as these provisions authorised the appointment of Assistant Commissioners of Labour as Judge of the Labour Court, were void and illegal and contrary to Article 234 of the Constitution. There was also a prayer in the writ petition for a direction to the State of Maharashtra to comply with the provisions of Article 234 of the Constitution in appointin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3567(SC); 2008(56)BLJR2023; [2008(118)FLR322]; JT2008(8)SC559; 2008(3)KLT33(SC); (2008)IIILLJ853SC; 2008(9)SCALE557; 2009(1)SLJ187(SC); 2008AIRSCW4279; 2008LABIC2621; 2008-III-LLJ-853; 2008(4)Supreme609
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. This appeal by the State of Kerala, arises out of the judgment and order dated 5th December, 2003, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P. No. 8947/03(M). By the impugned order, while allowing the writ petition of the respondents herein, directions have been issued that order at Exhibit P8 shall be modified so as to treat the writ petitioners at par with the District Judges in the matter of time scale as well as the selection grade and the needful should be done within three months from the date of the certified copy of the judgment.2. Facts, in brief leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:The respondents herein were the members of the Bar. In the year 1993, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were selected and appointed as Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals whereas respondent No. 3 was selected and appointed as Presiding Officer in the year 1996 in the State of Kerala. They continued to work as such. The claim of the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC796; (1981)1SCC561; [1981]2SCR398; 1981(13)LC68(SC)
Koshal J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment dated November 8, 1968 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay allowing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and declaring that Sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts are not in dispute and may be shortly stated. The respondent hails from Uttar Pradesh. In 1940 he obtained the degree of 'Ayurved Shastri' from the All India Adarsh Vidwat Parishad, Kanpur, On November 12, 1940 his name was listed by the Board of Indian Medicine, Uttar Pradesh, in the register of Vaids and Hakims. He practised as a Vaid in Agra thereafter upto 1955 when he migrated to Bhopal where he was registered as an Ayurvedic Doctor by the Medical Council of the Government of Bhopal under the Bhopal Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1935. He migrated to Bombay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008LC(SC)527; 2008(9)SCALE824; (2008)10SCC321
Altamas Kabir, J.1. As these three appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, they were taken up for final hearing together.2. The genesis of these three appeals is a petition filed by M/s BSES Limited on 23.7.2002 before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'MERC'), under Section 22(2)(e) and (n) of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ERC Act'), complaining of alleged encroachment by Tata Power Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'TPC') within its area of supply. In the said application M/s BSES, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:a) That Tata Power Company Limited be restrained from in any manner selling, supplying and distributing electricity to the consumers situated within the area of supply of BSES in contravention of the terms and conditions of their licenses and the policy of the Government of Maharashtra.b) That TPC be ordered to pay B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)761; AIR1997SC482; (1996)98BOMLR609; JT1996(8)SC16; (1997)1MLJ49(SC); 1996(6)SCALE379; (1996)11SCC501; [1996]Supp5SCR551
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated July 14, 1988 in Appeal No. 120 of 1988 of the Bombay High Court reversing the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and quashing the award passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') and the notification dated 6th September 1972 issued under Section 6 of the Act read with Section 126(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (for short, the 'MRTP Act') as inoperative. It was also held that the land in question could not be acquired under the Act. It was also further declared that all steps taken for taking possession and vesting of plot of land bearing CS No. 503, Dharavi Division, Bombay, in pursuance of the said award were illegal.2. A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings deserve to be noted at the outset. On 6th January 1967 a draft development plan for 'G' Ward of the Bombay Municipal Corporation was sanctioned by the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2599; 2007(6)ALLMR(SC)447; 2007(2)BLJR2218; JT2007(7)SC127; 2007(7)SCALE278; (2007)10SCC306
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P.2. Constitutionality and/ or applicability of the provisions of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (for short 'the Central Act') is in question herein.3. Before, however, embarking on the questions involved, we may at the outset notice that the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 11880 of 2006 arises out of a judgment and order dated 26.04.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Writ Petition No. 4619 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein in regard to the applicability of Section 30 of the Central Act was dismissed. In the said writ petition, the following prayers were made:(a) the declaration that the non-graduate Veterinary Practitioners who are registered under the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971 (for short to be referred as 'the State Veterinary Act') are eligible to practice Veterinary medicine in the same manner an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9999 OF2010PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING P. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS GROCERY MARKET & SHOPS BOARD & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.10000 OF2010SUPREME PETRO-CHEM LIMITED APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. These appeals involve an interpretation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the 1969 Act) read with the Grocery Markets or Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 1970 Scheme). The brief facts necessary for a decision in Civil Appeal No.10000 Of 2010 (Supreme Petro-Chem Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others) are that under Section 5 of the said 1969 Act, if any question arises whether any scheme applies to any class of unprotected workers, the matter shall be re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ30; 2007(1)KarLJ46; 2006(10)SCALE385; (2006)10SCC725
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding that the order of detention passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Police Commissioner, Hubli, Dharwad city, directing detention of one Shri Ramesh Madhusa Bhandage (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act'). The habeas corpus petition filed by the appellant who is brother-in-law of the detenu was dismissed by the High Court. 3. The order of detention was passed on 7.10.2005 under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act and the detenu was taken into custody that very day. Subsequently, the detenu was furnished with the grounds of detention dated 7.10.2005 which were also supplied to him that very day. The Detaining Authority submitted a report t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC843; [1968]2SCR492; [1968]21STC383(SC)
Bhargava, J.1. The Swastik Oil Mills Ltd., appellant, carries on business of manufacturing vegetable oils, soaps and other products and selling them in India as well as exporting them outside India. It was registered as a dealer under the various Sales Tax Acts in force in Bombay. The first of these Acts was the Bombay Sales Tax Act 5 of 1946, which was replaced by the Bombay Sales Tax Act 3 of 1953. The third and the latest Act now in force in Bombay is the Bombay Sales Tax Act 51 of 1959. The appellant was assessed to sales tax on its turnover for the periods from 1st April, 1948 to 31st March, 1950 and from 1st April, 1950 to 31st March, 1951 on the basis of Returns of turnover submitted by it. In these Returns, the appellant claimed exemption from tax in respect of the turnover representing the dispatches or transfer of goods from its Head Office Bombay, to its various Depots or Branches in other States in India, and also exemption in respect of sales which were alleged to have tak...
Tag this Judgment!