Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963AP177
Kumarayta, J.1. These are three appeals arising out of three separatt suits. A. S. No. 89 of 1957 is from the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 12 of 1954 whereby the suit of the plaintiffs for delivery of suit A and B schedule properties with profits thereon has been dismissed against the defendant with costs. A. S. No, 558 of 1957 is from the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 62 of 1954 brought by the defendant (in O. S. No. 12 of 1954) for recovery or Rs. 2,300/- towards past profits from 1949 to 1953 at the suit schedule properties which suit also has been dismissed with costs. A. S. No. 157 of 1957 is from the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 63 of 1954 brought by the defendant (in O. S. No. 12 of 1954) for general parti-tion of the joint family properties of plaintiffs 1 to 4 and their father into five equal shares and allotment of one such share to Venkatacharyulu Ayyavarlu and his legal representative, defendant No. 5, directing, at the same time, that in such parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1957P& H173
Kapur, J.1. In these two cases (Civil Miscellaneous No. 194-C of 1935 and Supreme Court Appeal No. 2 of 1956) certain questions of law have been referred to a Full Bench by two different Division Benches. In Civil Miscellaneous No. 194-C of 1955 the following question has been referred--'When the High Court refuses to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, does the order of the High Court amount to a judgment or a final order within the meaning of Article 133 of the Constitution and does an appeal lie to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(a) or 133(1)(b) provided the subject-matter of the appeal is worth Rs. 20,000/- or more?'In the Supreme Court Appeal No. 2 of 1956 the two questions which have been referred are--(1) Whether an order passed by this Court de-clining to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution can be regarded as a judgment, decree or final order within the, meaning of Article 133? and(2) Whether the proceeding in which such an order is passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1443; (1977)2SCC820; [1977]3SCR206
Jaswant Singh, J.133(1)Whether in view of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, an existing and future right of music...composer, lyricist is capable of assignment and whether the producer of a cinematograph film can defeat the same by engaging the same person.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are : The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the IPRS'), the appellant before us, was incorporated in the State of Maharashtra on August 23 1969, as a company limited by guarantee, for the purpose of carrying on business in India of issuing or granting licences for performance in public of all existing and future Indian Musical works in which copyright subsists in India. The incorporation of the IPRS was in terms of Section 2(r) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was enacted after taking into consideration the Report of the (British) Copyright Committee, 1952, the suggestions of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1918; JT1994(2)SC215; 1994(2)SCALE37; (1994)3SCC1; [1994]2SCR644
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. On behalf of Kuldip Singh, J. and himself. Article 356 has a vital bearing on the democratic parliamentary form of government and the autonomy of the States under the federal Constitution that we have adopted. The interpretation of the Article has, therefore, once again engaged the attention of this Court in the background of the removal of the governments and the dissolution of the legislative assemblies in six States with which we are concerned here, on different occasions and in different situations by the exercise of power under the Article. The crucial question that falls for consideration in all these matters is whether the President has unfettered powers to issue Proclamation under Article 356(1) of the Constitution. The answer to this question depends upon the answers to the following questions: (a) Is the Proclamation amenable to judicial review? (b) If yes, what is the scope of the judicial review in this respect? and (c) What is the meaning of the expr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(7)SC608; 1995(1)KLT172(SC); 1994(5)SCALE1; 1995Supp(2)SCC187; [1994]Supp5SCR526
K. Ramaswamy, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.Ps. No. 10248, 9079, 13769/94 and S.L.P.No....(CC No. 25558/94). 2. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, by its common judgment dated December 10, 1993 in OP. No. 4637/89 and batch since upheld the constitutionality of Sections 57A and 57B inserted by the Abkari (Amendment) Act 21 of 1984 in the Amendment Act into the Abkari Act I of 1077 (for short 'the Act'), the correctness of that judgment is questioned in this appeal. 3. The facts lie in a short compass: 4. The appellants are licencees of arrack or Indian made foreign liquor retail shops or their employees. They have been charged for offences punishable under one or other Sub-sections.(1) to (3) of Section 57A for having mixed or permitted mixing or noxious substance with liquor or for having failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent such mixing or for being in possession of liquor in which such a noxious substance has been mixed with the knowledge that arrack or Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)9SCC181
Kuldip Singh and; S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.1. In this petition — in public interest — under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, various directions have been sought from this Court pertaining to Dahanu Taluka, State of Maharashtra, which has been declared by the Central Government as an ecologically-fragile area by the notification dated 20-6-1991.2. It is stated in the petition that Dahanu is a rich area in agricultural economy and is a source of supply of fodder, grass, rice, cereals, milk, poultry and fish to the people living in the region. It is known as “food bowl” of the region producing 37 thousand tons of chikoos per month, 1825 tons of guava, and 21.9 lakhs of coconuts. The fish catch in the area is stated to be more than 3.7 lakh tons of crabs, pomfret and other fishes and 17 thousand tons of prawns. It is further stated that Dahanu is the last surviving “green zone” between Bombay and Surat. 49% of its total area is under forest cover. 47 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT578
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. The appellants have filed these appeals assailing the judgment dated 22.7.2002 and order dated 24.7.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant Mange Lal has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, while the other two appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/498-A/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and to undergo three years imprisonment under Section 498-A/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. Since both the appeals had arisen out of the same judgment of the trial Court they were heard together and are now being disposed of by a common judgment.2. At the outset the facts of the case which led to the prosecution of the three appellants-accused need to be noticed. Sushila (the deceased) was married to PW-8 Ram S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1974)ILLJ1Guj
1. The Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, on 21st April, 1961, gave a notice of change desiring privilege, casual and sick leave with wages for the workers employed in the textile industry. The privilege leave asked for was with pay and allowances at the rate of one month for every month of service with a right to accumulate the same for three months. The sick leave asked for was at the rate of one month for each year of service subject to a maximum period of twelve months during the whole service. The casual leave asked for was 15 days with full pay and allowances in a calendar year. In addition, pay in lieu of privilege leave was also asked for under certain circumstances. As the mills did not agree and as conciliation proceedings failed, the reference, being Reference (IC) No. 103 of 1961, came to be made. In the said Reference the Ahmedabad Mill Owners' Association objected to the demand, amongst others, on certain preliminary legal grounds. Those objections were rejected by an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1984(15)ELT289(Mad)
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The above five writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been filed challenging the legality and validity of the orders of detention in the respective cases, passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act). 2. One of the main grounds raised in all these writ petitions on the strength of an observation made by a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Balasubrahmanyan, J. and M. N. Moorthy, J. in Kaiser Otmar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1981 MLW 158 : 1981 Cri LJ 208 is that the detenu should be deemed to have been arrested from the moment they were taken into custody by the Customs officials, even if it be under the guise of any enquiry or interrogation, and that their subsequent custody with the Customs Department without being produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours as envisaged in Article 22(2) of the Constitution of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff claims a declaration in this suit, that the letter dated 20th November, 1984, by the defendant (hereafter 'the impugned letter'; intimating about cancellation of a previous agreement between the parties, in respect of sale of a flat in Bombaynow Mumbai) is illegal and void, and that the agreement between the parties, dated 10th November, 1979 subsists and binds them.2. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement on 10.11.1979 with the defendant whereby a flat in the multi-storeyed building 'ADITYA' to be constructed at Chakla Village, Andheri (East), Bombay by the defendant was agreed to be delivered to him on construction, for which he had paid a sum of Rs. 5,499/- to the latter. The plaintiff contends that though a number of years elapsed, and he came to know that construction of the building had started, nothing was heard from the defendant. The plaintiff alleges that he changed his residence, and intimated this to the...
Tag this Judgment!