Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1896; (1980)ILLJ137SC; (1980)2SCC593; [1980]2SCR146
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1212, 2089 and 2237 of 1978. From the Judgment and order dated 15-6-1978 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1150 of 1976. Y.S. Chitale, J.C. Bhatt, A.K. Sen, J.M. Nanavati, D.C. Gandhi, A.G. Menses, K.J. John and K.K. Manchanda for the Appellants in C.A. 1212 and 2237/78 and RR. 1 in CA 2089. V.M. Tarkunde, Y.S. Chitale, P.H. Parekh and N.J. Mehta for the Appellant in CA 2089 and R. 1 in CA 1212. M.C. Bhandare and B. Datta for the Intervener in CA 1212 (Ahmedabad Nagar Employee Union). R.K. Garg, Vimal Dave and Miss Kailash Mehta for the Intervener Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha in CA 1212. The Judgment of V.R. Krishna Iyer, and D.A. Desai, JJ was delivered by Krishna Iyer, J.A.D. Koshal, J. gave a dissenting Opinion. KRISHNA IYER, J.-Every litigation has a moral and, these appeals have many, the foremost being that the economics of law is the essence of labour jurisprudence. The case in a nutshell- An affluent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC511; (2003)2GLR234; (2003)2GLR258; JT2002(10)SC55; (2003)2SCC111; 2003(1)LC80(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in special petitions.2. This batch of appeals arising out of common Judgment and Order of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in SCA Nos. 10108/94, 4427/92, 4733/92, 4847/92, 3537/95, 8882/99, 8888/99, 6461/96 and 6519/98 involving the question as regard to interpretation of Sections 20 and 21 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the 'Said Act'), were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The basic of the matter is not in dispute.4. The State of Gujarat in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 20 of the said Act reserved certain areas of which the respondents herein amongst others are the owners. 5. On or about 3.3.1986 a development plan was finally published in terms of the provisions of the said At, and the period of 10 years therefrom lapsed on 2.3.1996. A revised Development plan however came into being on 20th February, 1996....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj682; 2005(1)WLC548
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Thousands of teachers by way of instant bunch of Writ petitions, as mentioned in Schedule appended to each petition, have challenged the Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004 and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2004 providing for selection of Teachers Gr.III by the Public Service Commission and have prayed for restoring the autonomy to the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the matter of selection & appointment of primary school teachers. Petitioner-teachers have also prayed for restoration of the Notification dated 14.7.2003 providing to fill-up the posts of Teacher Gr.III to the extent of 75% from Para Teachers/Shiksha Sahyogi and 25% from the open market. It is further prayed that their services be regularized as Teacher Gr.III, who have been in continuous service for a considerable time as Para Teacher/Shiksha Sahyogi.BACKGROUND FACTS:2. The factual matrix in juxtaposition with the relevant rules may be set out...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1967]65ITR542(Bom)
Kotwal, C.J.1. The question referred for our decision is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,05,074 received by the applicant as compensation from the Government is taxable as income of the applicant or is a capital receipt in its hands ?' 2. The question arises with reference to the assessment year 1951-52, the account year being the Samvat year 2006, i.e., from October 22, 1949, to November 9, 1950. The facts, upon which the reference came to be made, are briefly as follows : The assessee is an unregistered firm by the name of Manna Ramji & Co. In the year 1944 they were doing business at Poona as timber merchants. For the purpose of their business they had six sheds in which they used to stock their timber and an office premises. It appears that the proprietor had a residential house in Poona. On May 19, 1944, during the last war, the Collector of Poona requisitioned the above premises for the purpose of godowns for storage of food gra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)IILLJ1Bom
1. By this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner union is challenging the legality of the Award dated November 9, 1977 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in a reference made by the Government of Maharashtra, under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The dispute referred for adjudications was between the respondent mills and five other associations and companies and their workers who were not allowed to resume duty. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are Private Limited Companies and form group with common directors and shareholders. The factories of this group of companies are situated at Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Bombay. The head offices of the companies are in Thakarsi House, Ballard Estate, Bombay. The companies have employed 700 workers in the factory, while the staff, both at Powai and the Head Offices consisted of about 170 workers. The dispute, which was referred for adjudication, was in respect of 57 employees...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)IILLJ804Bom
A.V. Savant, J. 1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Shri Rele for the Petitioner and Shri Singhvi for the first respondent.2. This is a petition by the employer M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. challenging the order dated January 5, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai allowing complaint (ULP) No. 855 of 1989. The complaint alleged unfair labour practice under item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short '1971 Act'), Item 9 reads as under:'Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.'The Industrial Court has recorded a finding that the employer had effected a change in the conditions of service applicable to the workmen and though the conditions of service related to items 1, 10 and 11 of the Fourth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, no notice of change as required by Section 9-A of the I.D. Act was given. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that after the lock-out was lift...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2009]94SCL55(Bom)
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. These Petitions are filed by the Transferor and Transferee company to obtain sanction of this Hon'ble Court to the scheme of amalgamation whereby the entire undertaking of the Transferor company Sequent Scientific Ltd. shall stand transferred and vested in or deemed to be transferred and vested in Transferee company (P.I. Drags) and form part of the business of the Transferee company and to obtain order under Section 394 of the Companies Act interalia for vesting the said undertaking of the Transferor company in the Transferee company without any further act or deed and for dissolution of the Transferor company without winding up.2. The Transferor company was originally incorporated on 16-8-2002 in the name and style of Strides Research and Specialty Chemicals Limited ('SRSCL'). However, after compliance of all necessary formalities under Section 21 of the Act, the name of the company was changed to Sequent Scientific Ltd. ('SSL') with effect from 18-9-2006. The T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(6)BomCR231
Gavai B.R., J.1. By way of Writ Petition No. 365/2009, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 3rd December 2008 passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in Appeal TRB No. 197/B/2008, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioners and confirming the Order dated 30th May 2008, passed by the Tahsildar, Dharangaon, in Aadivasi Case No. 1/2004.2. By way of Writ Petition No. 366/2009, . the petitioners have challenged the order dated 3rd December 2008, passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in Appeal TRB No. 198/B/2008, thereby dismissing the appeal filed . by the present petitioners and confirming the order dated 30th May 2008, passed by the Tahsildar, Dharangaon, in Aadivasi Case No. 1/2002.3. The facts, in nutshell, giving rise to the present petitions are as under:(i) S/Shri Kautik Narayan, Waman Narayan, Damu Narayan and Bhaidas Narayan Koli, who are predecessors in title of the present responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]94CompCas784(Kar)
1. In this petition, filed on behalf of some of the employees of Bharat Electronics Ltd., ('BEL' for short), the company incorporated under the Companies Act,' in the public sector, the petitioners question the procedure adopted by the Union of India in implementing the policy of disinvestment in public sector enterprises, in particular BEL.2. The Industrial Policy Statement of 1991 of the Government of India led to partial disinvestment in selected public sector undertakings. The relevant portion of the said policy statement dated July 24, 1991, is extracted below (see [1991] 71 ComC(St.) 126) :'31. After the initial exuberance of the public sector entering new areas of industrial and technical competence, a number of problems have begun to manifest themselves in many of the' public enterprises. Serious problems are observed in the insufficient growth in productivity, poor project management, over-manning, lack of continuous technological upgradation, and inadequate attention to R & D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1433
G. Patribasavana Goud, J.1. In WP. No. 1888 of 1997 filed by the Employees Union of the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., and in the connected Writ Petitions filed by others under Article 226 of the Constitution, constitutional validity of Section 2(9)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('Act' for short) as amended by Act 29 of 1989, and the validity of Rule 50 of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 ('Rules' for short), together with Rules 51 and 54 thereof, as amended by the Employees' State Insurance (Central)(Second Amendment) Rules, 1996 under Notification dated 23.12.1996, are questioned.2. While issuing Rule Nisi and passing a conditional order of stay, Learned Single Judge, by his order dated 4.2.1997, referred the said Writ Petition No. 1888 of 1997 and the connected Writ Petitions to the Division Bench. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation ('Corporation' for short) has also preferred Writ Appeal No. 1436 of 1997 as against the said conditiona...
Tag this Judgment!