Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-20-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Bom168
1. The plaintiffs -- Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited, the manufacturers of Tata diesel vehicles, have filed the present suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,67,835/-being the arrears of monthly hire instalments in respect of three vehicles given under hire purchase agreements to the 1st defendants-Bharat Mining Corporation Limited with interest on the arrears of monthly hire charges at the rate of 1 per cent per mensem from 1st May 1974, till payment. The 2nd defendant was a guarantor. The 2nd defendant has, according to the plaintiffs, guaranteed the payment of the amounts due under the hire purchase agreements. The 3rd defendant is the Manager appointed under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. The 4th defendants-the Coal India Limited is incorporated under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, and its previous name was the Coal Mines Authority Limited.2. According to the plaintiffs, by three separate and identical hire purchase agreements in writing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-20-1979
Reported in : AIR1979SC898; 1979CriLJ773; (1979)3SCC431; [1979]3SCR254
Fazal Ali, J.1. These two appeals by certificate are directed against a common order of the Madras High Court dated 10th May, 1977 dismissing the applications filed before the High Court by the appellant for quashing the order of the Special Judge, Madras dated 4th January, 1977 refusing to discharge the appellant under Section 239 of the CrPC (hereinafter referred to as the Code).2. The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. However, in order to understand the points in issue, it may be necessary to give a resume of the important stages through which the case has passed and the constitutional points argued before us.3. The appellant, M. Karunanidhi, was a former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and was the petitioner before the High Court in the applications filed by him before the High Court. On 15.6.1976 a D.O. letter was written by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-04-1979
Reported in : AIR1979SC1725; [1979]118ITR461(SC); (1979)4SCC121; [1979]3SCR1133
1. A nascent Chapter (Chapter XIXA) in the Income Tax Act, 1961, enacted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, whose beneficiaries are ordinarily those whose tax liability is astronomical and criminal culpability perilous, falls for decoding by this Court in this appeal by the C.I.T. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta, against an adverse order made by the Settlement Commission. Functionally speaking, this Chapter, engrafted in partial implementation of the Wanchoo Committee Report, provides for settlement of huge tax disputes and immunity from criminal proceedings by a Commission to be constituted by the Central Government when approached without objection from the Tax Department. It is based on the debatable policy, fraught with dubious potentialities in the context of Third World conditions of political peculium and bureaucratic abetment, that composition and collection of public revenue from tycoons is better than prosecution of their tax-related crime and litigati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-20-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Ori79; 48(1979)CLT333
R.N. Misra, J.1. Petitioner is a sitting Councillor of the Cuttack Municipality. Challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is to Government order dated 23rd of June, 1979 (Annexure-4), purported to have been made in exercise of powers under Section 398 (1) of the Orissa Municipal Act of 1950, cancelling a resolution of the Municipal Council of Cuttack dated 2nd of April, 1979,2. Election was held on 31st of January, 1979, for the 28 seats of Councillors and the Chairman of the Council. Petitioner was elected from Ward No. 2 while 27 others were elected from the different wards. Opposite Party No. 3 was elected as Chairman of the Municipality by direct franchise under the amended provisions of the Act. The Council assumed office with effect from 23rd of February, 1979. At the Meeting of the Council held on 2nd of April, 1979, one of the items in the Agenda was to authorise the Chairman to sanction expenditure up to Rs. 50,000/- at a time for the smooth working ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-17-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Ori122
Ray, C.J. 1. This batch of writ petitions have been consolidated for hearing as common questions of law are involved. These petitioners are motor bus (stage carriage and contract carriage) operators in the districts of Puri, Ganjam and Cuttack in the State of Orissa. Opposite Party No. 1, O. R. T. Company. Berhampur, Ganjam, purporting to be a State Transport Undertaking published nine draft schemes in the Orissa Gazette of 81st Dec., 1977 for nationalising passenger transport service over nine different routes lying wholly or partly in the three districts of Puri, Ganjam and Cuttack indicated in detail in those draft schemes, as required under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Objections or representations to the draft schemes were invited intimating the intending objectors that they shall file their objections under Section 68-D of the Act before the Minister-in-charge of Transport through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-09-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Raj27
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J. 1. The State of Rajasthan us well as the Superintending Engineer, R. P. S. Jawahar Sagar Dams, Chambal Project, Rawatbhata have filed this revision application under Section 115 C. P. C. and Section 18(3) of the Land Aquisition Act, against the order dated 22-7-76 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Chambal Project Kota in case No. 20493/1973 refusing to make a reference against award dated 25-10-75 in that case.2. After integration of the States in Rajasthan, some important irrigation schemes were taken up and dams were constructed for providing irrigation to the vast areas of uncultivated land. In the Kota area taking benefit of the Chambal river a barrage was constructed at Kota which was known as 'Kota barrage'. It is common ground between the parties that this barrage was inaugurated in the year 1959-60 by the then Prime Minister Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru.3. The dispute between the parties relates to the acquisition of the land of the then ruler of Kota, Mahara...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-23-1979
Reported in : ILR1980Delhi102
V.D. Misra, J.(1) Common, questions of law have been raised in Criminal Writ Nos. 48, 52, 58, 59 of 1978, and 3 of 1979. This judgment will govern all the petitions. (2) The petitioner in Criminal Writ No. 48 has been served with a notice under section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (Act No. 34 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North District, informing the petitioner of the allegations against him and calling upon him to show cause why he should not be externed under section 47 of the Act from the limits of the Union territory of Delhi for a period of two years. The petitioner in Criminal Writ No. 52 of 1978 has been served with a notice under section 50 by the Deputy ..Commissioner of Police, Crime Prevention, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be externed under section, 48 of the Act from the limits of the Union territory of Delhi for a period of two years. Petitioners in other petitions have been externe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-29-1979
Reported in : (1980)21GLR633
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated in the year 1958 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. After setting up its plant, the petitioner company went into production in December 1962. By 1972 it had about 2000 employees on its pay-roll. At the material time, the respondent was employed in the textile department of the rayon division of the petitioner Company on a monthly salary of Rs. 225/-.2. The case of the petitioner Company is that during the initial years after commencement of production it made no profit; and, that therefore, no demand for bonus was made by the workmen for the first few years. During the account years 1963-64 to 1966-67 no profit having been made, the petitioner Company was not even otherwise liable to pay bonus to its employees in view of the relevant provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereafter referred to as 'The Bonus Act'). The question of bonus was for the first time raised by Baroda Rayon Mazdoor Union for the year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-13-1979
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas456(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi249
Sachar, J.(1) Is the Central Government under a legal obligation to give a hearing to the undertaking before making a reference under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (to be called the Act) to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (to be called the Commission) for an enquiry and report is one of the main questions that calls for decision in these three Writ Petitions namely C.W. 782/74, C.W. 547/74 and C.W. 1309/73, which were heard together. Another question of law that arises relates to the scope and extent of power of the Central Government and the Commission respectively and the areas that are carved out to each of them which reference is made under section 31 of the Act. The main restions of law being common to all the petitions will bo disposed of by this order. There were certain special facts relating to each petition which were argued by their counsel in their respective petitions and we shall deal with tho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-02-1979
B.C. Basak, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against certain actions taken by the respondent No. 3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-company') in respect of recruitment of certain persons2. The facts of this case, so far as they are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case, are as follows:The respondent No. 2, General Insurance Corporation of India, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Corporation) was formed as a Government company in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act pursuant to Section 9 of the General Insurance Business Nationalisation Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ('the said Act') . The respondent-Corporation was formed for the superintending, controlling and carrying on the business of general insurance. The respondent-company was incorporated under the appropriate Companies Act and before the said Act came into force was carrying on the business of...
Tag this Judgment!