Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-26-1981
Reported in : AIR1982SC697; (1982)2CompLJ793(SC); 1981(3)SCALE1775; (1982)1SCC125; [1982]2SCR1
..... are used for the purposes of and are covered by coal mines. basing himself on that consideration the attorney general argues:(1) by virtue of the declaration contained in section 2 of mines and minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957, the legislative field covered by entry 23, list ii passed on the parliament by virtue of entry 54, list i.(2) the parliament enacted the coal mines nationalisation act, 1973 for acquisition of coal mines with a view to reorganising and reconstructing such coal mines so as to ensure the rational, coordinated and scientific development and utilisation of coal resources as best to subserve the common good.(3) under section 5 of the nationalisation act, the acquired properties were vested ..... and the right to levy that tax. they provide:notwithstanding anything contained in this chapter, as and from the financial year 1976-77, there shall be charged, levied and paid for each financial year a tax on the lands or buildings or both ... at the rate specified in the table below:nothing further is required to be done by the municipality or the municipal corporation in order to impose the property tax and therefore the procedure preliminary to the imposition of other taxes which is prescribed by sections 129 and 133 of the two acts, can have no application to the imposition of the property tax. apart from this the position .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-23-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Ker156
Sukumaran, J. 1. These three writ petitions were referred to a Full Bench for hearing and disposal, in view of the importance of the questions concerning certain provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (Act 19 of 1976), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The writ petition O. P. No, 2080 of 1980 was also heard along with these petitions, but it was felt that that case can be dealt with and disposed of separately, in view of the special factual features in that case. Accordingly, O- P, No. 2080 of 1980 is being disposed of by a separate Judgment.2. Of the three petitions, two--O. P. Nos. 4987 and 4990 -- are by the same petitioner, Messrs. R.K.V. Motors and Timbers (P.) Ltd. O. P. No. 4290 has been filed by A. Chokkanathan. Before referring to the questions of law and dealing with them, the brief factual details at these cases may be adverted to.3. In O. P, No. 4987 of 1976 the petitioner had been operating a 1949 model vehicle, which due to its obviously obsolescen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-26-1981
Reported in : AIR1982P& H228
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. 1. Whether a Society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, which in essence is an instrumentality or agency of the State, would become amenable to the writ jurisdiction under the provisions of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, is the meaningful question which has necessitated this reference to the Full Bench. Inevitably at issue in this context is the necessary elaboration or qualification of the ratio of the earlier Full Bench case in Ajmer Singh v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, AIR 1961 Punj & Har 107.2. The facts deserve notice only in so far as they are relevant to the pristine issue aforesaid. The Punjab State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Std. respondent No. 3 (hereinafter called 'the Mortgage Bank') is an Apex Society, which on the petitioner's own showing is registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Pritam Singh Gill, the writ petitioner was originally appointed as a Legal Assistant in the Mortgage...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-15-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Raj139
ORDER1. A number of writ petitions have been filed challenging the validity of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (Act No. 11 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Arguments hare been heard in the above two writ petitions. The above two writ petitions raise some common questions, so I think it convenient to dispose them of by this order.2. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 481 of 1980 filed by Sanwalram, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar by his order dated July 23, 1971 (Ex. 1) decided his ceiling case holding that he has no land in the excess of the ceiling area. The petitioner Sanwalram's case was decided under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Ceiling Law') and the proceedings were also taken against the petitioner Sanwalram under the Act and the Authorised Officer (Ceiling) Raisinghnagar by his order, dated July 11, 1975 (Exhibit 2) dropped the proceedings of ceiling ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-12-1981
Reported in : AIR1981P& H237
S.P. Goyal, J. 1. The following question of law was referred by me in R. S. As. Nos. 1821 and 1822 of 1978 to a larger Bench as the correctness of several decisions of this Court was challenged on the basis of a number of supreme Court cases.'Whether the decision of Rent Controller under the rent control laws or a Revenue Court under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act upon the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties operates as res judicial and is not open to challenge in a subsequent suit or in other collateral proceedings between the parties?2. The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the appellants filed a suit in the Court of Assistant Collector First Grade Ballabhgarh for the ejectment of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal need which was decreed on October 29, 1976. Instead of filing any appeal against that judgment, the respondent brought the present suit for declaration that he was in possession of the land i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-30-1981
Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These writ petitions filed in different High Courts and transferred to this Court under Article 139 of the Constitution raise issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary and they have been argued at great length before us. The arguments have occupied as many as thirty five days and they have ranged over a large number of issues comprising every imaginable aspect of the judicial institution, Voluminous written submissions have been filed before us which reflect the enormous industry and vast erudition of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and a large number of authorities, Indian as well as foreign, have been brought to our attention. We must acknowledge with gratitude our indebtedness to the learned Counsel for the great assistance they have rendered to us in the delicate and difficult task of adjudicating upon highly sensitive issues arising in these writ petitions. We find, and this is not unusual in cases of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-13-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC818; (1982)1CompLJ309(SC); 1981(1)SCALE90; (1981)1SCC664; [1981]2SCR533
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1629, 1857 & 2087 of 1979. From the Judgment and Order dated 1-5-1979 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 408 of 1978. F. S. Nariman, S. D. Parekh, A. D. Mehta, Lalit Bhasin, Vinay Bhasin and Vineet Kumar for the Appellants in C.A. No. 1629 and for R. 1 in C.A. No. 2087/79. V. N. Tarkunde, S. Ganesh, K. Vasudev and T.V.S.N. Chari for the Appellants in CA 1857/79. Soli J. Sorabjee, Solicitor General and Girish Chandra for Appellants in CA 2087 and for Respondent (UOI) in CA 1629/79. Soli J. Sorabjee, Solicitor General, S. Ganesh Vasdev and T.V.S.N. Chari for Respondent No. 2 in CA 1629. T. V. S. N. Chari for Respondent No. 4 in CA 2087 Suresh Parik and S. Swarup for Respondent No. 3 in CA 2087. F. S. Nariman, B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi for Respondent-Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. in CA No. 1857 and 2087/79. C. M. Chopra for Intervenor. The Judgment of R. S. Sarkaria and D. A. Desai, JJ. was delivered by Sarkaria, J. O. Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-07-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC1047; (1981)22CTR(SC)157; [1981]129ITR295(SC); 1981(1)SCALE949; (1981)2SCC693; [1981]3SCR387; 1981(13)LC873(SC)
1. This appeal by certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution arises out of a writ petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Calcutta. The appellants are partners of a firm of Solicitors known as M/s. Orr Dignam & Co. having its office at Calcutta. The appellants acted as the Solicitors of a German Corporation known as Ferbwerke Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft Vormals Meister Lucius & Bruning (a Corporation organised under the law of Federal Republic of Germany) (hereinafter referred to as 'the German Corporation' ) in two suits filed on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court-one Suit No. 511 of 1962 filed by the Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. against German Corporation and another Suit No. 1124 of 1962 filed by the German Corporation against the Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. on the alleged infringement of a patent. The appellants were instructed by a firm of Solicitors in London namely...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-28-1981
Reported in : AIR1982SC710; 1982CriLJ340; 1981(4)SCALE1904; (1982)1SCC271; [1982]2SCR272
Chandrachud, C.J.1. This is a group of Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the National Security Ordinance, 2 of 1980, and certain provisions of the National Security Act, 65 of 1980, which replaced the Ordinance. Writ Petition No. 5724 of 1980 is by Shri A.K. Roy, a Marxist member of the Parliament, who was detained under the Ordinance by an order passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, on the ground that he was indulging in activities which were prejudicial to public order. Ten members of the Parliament, one an Independent and the others belonging to various political parties in opposition applied for permission to intervene in the Writ Petition on the ground that since the Ordinance-making power of the President is destructive of the system of Parliamentary democracy, it is necessary to define the scope of that power. We allowed the intervention. So did we allow the applications for intervention by the People's Union of Civil Liberties...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-29-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC2059; (1981)22GLR1208; (1981)4SCC660; [1982]1SCR860; 1982(14)LC127(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. These appeals raise a question of some importance from the point of Insurance Companies which insure motor vehicles against third party risks and more so, from the point of view of the general public which, by reason of the increasing hazards of indisciplined and fast moving traffic, is driven in despair to lodge claims for injuries suffered in motor vehicle accidents. In case of air accidents, the injured and the dependents of the deceased receive, without contest, fairly large sums by way of compensation from the Air Corporations. We have still to awaken to the need to evolve a reasonably comparable method for compensating those who receive injuries or die in road or train accidents. The victims of road accidents or their dependents are driven to wage a long and unequal battle against the Insurance Companies, which deny their liability on every conceivable ground and indulge in an ingenious variety of factual disputations from 'who was driving the vehicle' to...
Tag this Judgment!