Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(3)BomCR100
Bhimrao N. Naik, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which seeks to challenge the judgment and decree passed against the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.2. Few facts which are relevant for the purpose of this petition are as follows:3. One K.K. Bhattacharya the father of the present petitioners and the husband of original defendant - Smt. Usha Rani Devi, was admittedly the tenant of Block No. 1, Bhaskar Bhuvan, Plot No. 222, Sir Bhalchandra Road, Matunga, Bombay 19. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the landlords. K.K. Bhattacharya died on 21st December, 1966, leaving behind his wife Usha Rani Devi and the present petitioners and one deceased Geeta. It appears that at the time of the death of K.K. Bhattacharya all the petitioners including deceased Usha Rani Devi was residing in the suit house as the members of his family. It is not in dispute that the rent was paid by Usha Rani Devi and on some...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ22
ORDERA.R. Tiwari, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is running a mill-canteen at the premises of Binod Mills Co. Ltd, Ujjain for and on behalf of the said mill. The respondents assessed the petitioner for the period from 18-6-1980 to 18-6-1981 under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act as also consequential assessment under the Entry Tax Act. The aforesaid mill is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of cloth and is a registered dealer under the provisions of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act. The mill is paying sales tax as also the entry tax on the excisable transactions. Under Section 46 of the Factories Act, the mill is under obligation to provide and maintain canteen for the use of workers employed by it. The activity is, therefore, incidental and integral one. The mill entrusted this work to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1978Delhi785; 1978RLR537
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 6 of 1976 to 13 of 1976 have been filed on behalf of the Delhi Transport Corporation against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 6th November, 1975 passed in Civil Writs Nos: 1179/74, 1144/74, 1200/74, 1150/74, 1536/74, 1123/74, 1199/74 and 762/74 respectively, whereby the learned single Judge accepted the writ petitions and quashed the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners impugned in the aforesaid writ petitions.(2) By the same judgment, the learned single Judge also disposed of the other two writ petitions, namely, 1092 of 1974 and 1458 of 1974. Lpa 21 of 1976 has been filed by Bhim Singh against the- dismissal of his writ petition No. 1092 of 1974 and Lpa 23 of 1976 has been filed by Jagannath Prasad against the dismissal of his writ petition No. 1458 of 1974.(3) This judgment will dispose of the aforesaid ten Letters Patent Appeals.(4) It seems that disciplinary action was initiated against the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003(67)DRJ136
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short the LIC) is aggrieved by an order dated 23rd December, 1999 passed by the Chief Commissioner for Disabilities under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights andFull Participation) Act, 1995 (the Act) in Case No.93 of 1999. A letter filed by the LIC for review of this order was turned down by the Deputy Chief Commissioner on 9th March, 2000.2. Pursuant to an advertisement, Respondent No.2 submitted an application for the post of a Peon sometime in February-March, 1997. The application was accompanied by a certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad (and also signed by an Orthopedic surgeon and an eye specialist) to the effect that Respondent No.2 is a case of Chorea and that he is 45% disabled.3. Respondent No.2 was called by the LIC for a written test and an interview, both of which he passed. He was then put to a pre-recruitment medical examination in July, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2005)IILLJ610Mad; (2005)2MLJ119
D. Murugesan, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order in W.P.No.4157 of 1996 dated 29.4.2004. The question that frequently arises for consideration by Courts as to the right of an employee to seek for legal assistance through his lawyer to defend the case in the disciplinary proceedings is put in as an issue in this case for our consideration. We are not narrating the entire factual aspects leading to the filing of the writ petition, except the following few facts in view of the disposal of the writ appeal on the limited questions involved. 2. The respondent, while he was working as Deputy General Manager (Management Services), was issued with a charge memo on 12.4.91. After an enquiry, he was removed from service by an order dated 18.3.92. On a challenge to the said order, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of removal. The learned Judge has held that the enquiry is vitiated for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1995(1)CTC335
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. Pattammal (Petitioner) is the wife of the detenu S. Rajangam. The detenu, it is said, is a bootlegger. Apart from the ground case, as set out in the grounds of detention, the detenu had come to adverse notice in seven other cases. The District Magistrate and Collector, Nagai-Quaide-Milleth District, Nagapattinam (First respondent), in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 clamped upon the detenu the impugned order of detention in his proceedings COC No. 5/94 dated 30.1.1994 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health.2. Mr. K. Manivasakam, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would press into service a lone and sole ground viz., that the representation sent to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had not at all been considered and disposed of till upto date and in that view of the matter, the impugned order of is liable to be set aside.3. Mr. R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1997)2CALLT128(HC)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Contempt Rule issued by learned single Judge of this court. This appellant is the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Calcutta. Before issuing the Contempt Rule, the learned single Judge also issued a show cause notice. The circumstances under which the said notice to show cause before issuing Contempt Rule was issued as appears from the said notice is set out hereinunder :'This is to record that sometime back in the last part of February this year between 16.2.96 and 23.2.96, Shri Asit Kumar Dasgupta, a member of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service, posted as Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta while talking to me over phone at my chamber in a most objectionable, intemparate, annoying and insulting language criticised the move of the High Court and the order of the present Chief Justice calling for copies of Judgments delivered by him and few other members of the service for considering their eligibility for granting ext...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER His case relates to grant of medical reimbursement to the applicant, who had to take certain medical treatments, instead of Railway Hospital, at a private Hospital, on emergent situation. Certain dates in respect of his ailment and treatment would be essential to have a proper appreciation of the case. 20-07-2006: Applicant while functioning at Shoranur, suffered from severe chest pain. Referred to Railway Hospital at Palakkad. Though he was proceeding to Railway Hospital, as the situation was aggravated, he was to be admitted in a private Hospital at Valluvanad Hospital, Ottappalam where he was to be kept as inpatient till 26-07-2006. 26-07-2006: From Valluvanad Hospital, the applicant came to Shoranur Railway Hospital where he was inpatient till 29-07-2006. 31-07-2006: Applicant was referred by the Railway Doctors at Shoranur to Railway Hospital, Perambur, where specialized treatment is available. However, while moving to Perambur Hospital, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~S-2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:08. 11.2013 + W.P. (C) 7313/2000 PRITHVI SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen with Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocates. Versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The present proceeding challenges an order dated 24.10.1997 compulsorily retiring the petitioner, who was at the relevant time Head Constable in the CISF, posted at Madras Port Trust, Chennai.2. The brief facts are that the petitioner had joined the services of the CISF on 20.11.1971. At the relevant time, when he was working at Madras Port Trust, Chennai as a Head Constable, on account of incident involving scuffle between him and Constable S. Pandi with respect to some difference of opinion about the distribution of duties, the petitioner was issued with a chargesheet on 06.12.1996. Three W.P.(C)73...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Member: 1. This appeal received by transfer from Haryana State Commission, under the orders of Honble National Commission has been filed against order dated 13.3.2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul in Complaint Case No. 113 of 1994. The contextual facts in brief are as under. 2. As per averments appellant/complainant purchased a tractor manufactured by appellant No. 3/OP No. 3 M/s. Asian Kramer Tractor Limited, Banglore from the local dealer of the company namely M/s. Shiv Tractors Railway Road, Mohindergarh (Haryana) for Rs. 1,54,000 (appellant No.1/OP No. 1). The complainant has averred that the price of the tractor was Rs. 1,43,300 only. However he was charged Rs. 10,700 in excess of the price of the tractor and even some articles like an umbrella, a pully and a tape recorder promised as complimentary/gifts were not given. The case of the complainant is that he took the delivery of the tractor on 18.12.93 and after using the sam...
Tag this Judgment!