Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1996]85CompCas111(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The common order, which is appealed against was passed by Government J. in respect of the prayers for interim reliefs. The facts, which are the foundation for filing the present appeals are also closely interconnected with the reliefs sought for. The respondents in all the appeals are common. Hence, all the appeals were heard together. 2. The first appellant has instituted C. S. No. 1128 of 1994 seeking for a declaration that the notice issued by the first respondent calling for the 25th annual general meeting of the company on September 12, 1994, for the purpose of considering and passing items Nos. 10, 11 and 12 under the caption 'special business' in the agenda is illegal, void and unenforceable and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their offers, subordinate, etc., from considering and passing resolutions Nos. 10, 11 and 12 set out in the agenda in the notice for the 25th annual general meeting of the first defendant-company under the capti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10 of 2006 and 6711 of 2007. 1. The legal questions in this batch of criminal appeals relate to the involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques, namely narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases. This issue has received considerable attention since it involves tensions between the desirability of efficient investigation and the preservation of individual liberties. Ordinarily the judicial task is that of evaluating the rival contentions in order to arrive at a sound conclusion. However, the present case is not an ordinary dispute between private parties. It raises pertinent questions about the meaning and scope of fundamental rights which are available to all citizens. Therefore, we must examine the implications of permitting the use of the impugned techniques in a variety of settings.2. Objecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(1)ALLMR194; 1998(1)BomCR179
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Shri Govind Ragho Khairnar, the petitioner, by means of this writ petition challenges his suspension vide order dated 28-6-1994, the disciplinary proceedings including the report and findings of the Enquiry Officer, Resolution No. 259 dated 8-7-1996 passed by the respondent No. 1, the show cause notice for removal dated 30th July, 1996 and the Resolution dated 10-10-1996 passed by respondent No. 1 removing him from municipal service.2. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Municipal Commissioner and was confirmed with effect from 28-12-1988 in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, 'the Act'). It is the case of the petitioner that he is very upright officer and has absolutely clean and excellent record of municipal service. On account of his uprightness in working, the petitioner submits that he invited wrath of his superiors and some such politicians whose vested interests were hurt by the petitioner's honest and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom169; (1960)62BOMLR322
Raju, J.1. This is a first appeal by Plaintiff Ramaji whose suit for a declaration of title to three houses Nos. 190, 580 and 582, New Shukrawari, Nagpur, for possession and for mesne profits was dismissed by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Nagpur. The relevant lasts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:2. One Maroti son of Damaji died in 1920 leaving behind him his widow Sarubai and two daughters Jaibai and Vithabai. Plaintiff is the son of Jaibai. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the grandsons of Vithabai, their father Namdeo having predeceased them in 1943. Defendant No. 1 who died during the pendency of the suit was represented by his widow Defendant No. 1 (c) and his two minor sons Defendants Nos. 1 (a) and 1(b). , Defendants Nos. 3 to 15 are tenants in occupation of the houses in dispute. It is common ground that Maroti who died in 1920 owned three houses bearing Nos. 190, 579 and 582. The suit relates to two of these houses namely Nos. 190 and 582 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR604; 2008(2)BomCR780; [2009]147CompCas579(Bom); [2008]82SCL79(Bom)
J.N. Patel, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenges the decision of the Appellate Authority under Section 20 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, which dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 6th March, 1997 passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (S.E.B.I.) in the case of SESA Goa, which rejected the complaint lodged by the petitioner in the matter of acquisition of Sesa Goa Co. Ltd. by MITSUI & Co. of Japan through Finsider International Co. Ltd. It was the case of the petitioner that the said acquisition was in violation of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 1994') and in violation of the provisions of Clauses 40A and B of the Listing Agreement of the Stock Exchange. 3. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : I(2002)ACC32; 2002ACJ32; 2001(5)ALD522; 2001(5)ALT154
ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This is a writ petition taken up on the basis of a letter written by one Suit. Masaraboina Vijaya wife of Ailaiah, a resident of Indiranagar, Regional Hospital Area, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court alleging that she was infected with dreadful disease of AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) on account of the negligence on the part of the authorities of Maternity and Family Welfare Hospital, Godavarikhani, a hospital under the control of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., (SCCL), in conducting relevant precautionary blood tests before transfusion of blood of her brother (donor) into her body when she was operated for hysterectomy (Chronic Cervicitis) on 30-1-1998 at the hospital. She prays for an enquiry into matter and to take action against those responsible for causing the infectious disease and for a direction to the SCCL to provide sufficient financial assistance.2. The matter has been referred to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC771; (1978)2SCC1; [1978]2SCR537
Fazal Ali, J.1. These appeals by certificate granted by the High Court of Kerala involve a common question of law containing a challenge to the constitutionality of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1970 (Act II of 1970) (hereinafter referred to in short as the Act). The appellants have assailed particularly Section 20 of the Act which entitles the debtors to recover the properties sold to purchasers in execution of a decree passed in liquidating the debt owed by the agriculturists.2. As the five appeals involve common questions of law we propose to decide them by one common judgment.3. Section 20 of the Act was assailed before the High Court on three grounds, namely.1. That the Act was beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature and did not fall within entry 30 of the State List.; 2. That the provisions of Section 20 and the sub-sections thereof were violative of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as they sought to deprive the appellants of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC2371; 2004(3)ALD50(SC); 2004(4)ALT4(SC); II(2004)BC397(SC); [2004]120CompCas373(SC); (2004)2CompLJ209(SC); 2004(2)CTC759; 110(2004)DLT665(SC); 2004(74)DRJ227; (200
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.5013/2003, 9658/2003, 11089/2003, 11267/2003, 11268/2003, 15566/2003, 17465/2003 and special leave petition @ CC 10728 and SLP(C) No.6723/2003.2. By means of the above noted bunch of cases some of those having been transferred to this court, the validity of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002) (for short 'the Act') has been challenged. Some writ petitions were filed in different High Courts on promulgation of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second Ordinance), 2002. However, the Act 54 of 2002 was enacted and enforced, vires of which is in question, more particularly, the provisions as contained in Sections 13, 15, 17 and 34 of the Act. Besides others, we may, for the sake of convenience, refer to the averments made and documents filed in Transferred Case Nos.92-95 of 2002 - M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1690
A.N. Grover, J.1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were filed by Premier Automobiles Ltd., Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Standard Motor Products of India Ltd., manufacturers of Fiat, Ambassador and Standard motor cars respectively and two of the dealers of such cars. The petitioners challenged the fixation of fair price of the said three passenger cars by the Government of India by the Motor Car (Distribution and Sale) Control (Amendment) Order 1969 promulgated under Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951, hereinafter called the 'Order' and the 'Act' respectively. The ex-factory prices of the three cars were fixed as follows:Hindustan Ambassador : Rs. 15,316.00Fiat 1100-D : Rs. 14,325.00Standard Herald 4 Door : Rs. 14,003.002. These prices were inclusive of dealer's commission but did not include the excise duties, Central Sales tax and local taxes, if any, and transport charges. The manufacturers or dealers were prohibited from selling or o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)462; 1996(38)DRJ680
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Delhi Transport Corporation ( for short 'DTC') came into existence under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Periodically the Dtc disposed of worn out, unserviceable buses, motor- parts and other unserviceable and/or scrap material including electrical goods. During the assessment year 1975-76, the Sales Tax Officer by assessment order dated 30th March 1982 created an additional tax demand of Rs.l,64,049.00 holding that the sale of these items was made by Dtc in normal course of its business activities. The gross turnover for the sale of such items was about Rs.l7,07,117.00 . In the appeal filed by Dtc before the Tribunal the following two points were raised:- I)Whether the sale of the old and unserviceable items could be regarded as connected with or incidental or ancillary to any trade or commerce if at all carried on by the Dtc ? II)Whether the sale transactions by reason of their being voluminous pro-prick vigore would bring the Corporation within the de...
Tag this Judgment!