Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-07-1986
Reported in : AIR1986SC2123; 1986LabIC1944; (1986)IILLJ139SC; 1986(1)SCALE1300; (1986)3SCC338; [1986]2SCR1044; 1986(2)LC293(SC)
K.N. Singh, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court purporting to do so on behalf of 700 workmen claiming relief for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare that Natundihi Pahariabera Colliery has vested in the Central Government and in the alternative directing the Union of India to take over the colliery under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 and treat the petitioner and other workmen as workmen of the Central Government and to work the colliery by employing the workmen and to pay them arrears of their wages with effect from April, 1980.2. Subodhchandra Mondal, respondent No. 4 obtained a composite lease for mining coal and fire clay and other minerals for a period of 30 years in respect of an area of 344.44 acres comprising Natundihi Paharlabera Colliery from the Government of West Bengal. According to the petitioner Subodhchandra Mondal after obtaining permissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-06-1986
Reported in : 1986(2)BomCR315
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others against the order passed by the Principal Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and setting aside the eviction order passed against him by the competent authority. It is an admitted position that the respondent Qureshi was an employee of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking. He had signed an agreement of leave and license and had agreed to abide by the occupancy rules. He retired from service of the Undertaking on attaining the age of superannuating. The competent authority, therefore, called upon him to vacate the premises allotted to him since the leave and licence agreement stood revoked on the retirement. Since no reply was received from him a show cause notice was served on him to show cause within 14 days as to why the eviction order should not be made against him. The respondent was also given a re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-31-1986
Reported in : AIR1986Bom321
ORDERPendse, J.1. This petition involves an important question relating to Constitutional validity of Sections 21 and 22 read with Section 2(r) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')--in its application to an Undertaking connected with the publication of Newspaper. The petitioners challenge the validity of these provisions on the ground of violation of fundamental rights conferred under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.The petitioner No. 1 is a joint stock company governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at The Times of India Building, Bombay, while respondent No. 2 is a shareholder and Executive Director of petitioner No. 1. The 'Times of India' is published by petitioner No. 1 from New Delhi, Bombay and Ahmedabad and Hindi Newspaper 'Nav Bharat Times' is published from New Delhi and Bombay. Jansevak Karyalaya Limited of 8 Camac Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-13-1986
Reported in : AIR1986SC1466; (1986)88BOMLR205; 1986MhLJ1009(SC); 1986(1)SCALE404; (1986)2SCC516; [1986]1SCR707; 1986(1)LC715(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment dated November 8, 1983 in Writ Petition No. 4192 of 1981 by which the High Court declared Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (4) of Section 44 of the Maharashtra Housing and Development Act, 1976 (Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 1977) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as void and gave certain ancillary directions.2. One Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan was the owner of a piece of land measuring 3.98.60 hectares bearing Survey No. 28 at village Bhushi in Maval taluka of Pune district having purchased it under the sale deed dated January 18, 1966. The said land is, however, situated within the municipal limits of Lonavala town. Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan died on May 18, 1976 leaving behind him his widow, respondent No. l, and children, respondents Nos. 2 to 5 as his heirs. On August 1, 1978 the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the authority' established under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-20-1986
Reported in : AIR1987SC877; 1987CriLJ793; JT1986(1)SC832; 1986(2)SCALE1099; (1987)1SCC288; [1987]1SCR702
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 1982 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.81 of the Patna High Court in Crl. Revision No. 874/81. Dr. L.M. Singhvi, S.K. Sinha, S.K. Verma, A.M. Singhvi, S. Singh, C. Mukhopadhya and R. Tyagi for the Appellants. Dr. Y.S. Chitale, F.S. Nanman, S.N. Kacker, Rajinder Singh, D. Goburdhan, D. Chandrachud, L.R. Singh, Gopal Singh, M.P. Jha, R.K. Jain, Ranjit Kumar and B.P. Singh for the Respondents. The following Judgments were delivered: BHAGWATI, CJ. This case has had a chequered history and it is necessary to state the facts in some detail in order to appreciate the questions which arise for determination before us. The principal actor in the drama in this case is Dr. Jagannath Misra, one time Chief Minister of the State of Bihar. The main controversy around-which all questions revolve is whether the prosecution launched against Dr. Jagannath Misra at a time when he was not in power has been rightly allowed to be withdrawn by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-08-1986
Reported in : AIR1986SC2130; 1986(34)BLJR609; 1986(2)Crimes678(SC); 1986(1)SCALE1037; (1986)3SCC141; [1986]2SCR1128
S. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal by special leave against an order of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a petition filed under Section 439(2) of the CrPC (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') calls for a critical examination of the scope and effect of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code. Several High Courts have rendered decisions construing differently the terms of the proviso but a need for the examination of the terms of the proviso by this Court had not arisen till now.2. The circumstances which form the prefactory for this appeal can be summarised as under. 3. The hamlet of Madigawada in Village Karamchedu in Andhra Pradesh was the scene of a horrendous riot on the morning of July 17, 1985. The riot culminated in a toll of human lives and huge destruction of property. Five persons were left dead, twenty others were victims of injuries of varying degrees, properties were looted and hutments were damaged or destroyed. 4. In connection with the macabre ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-03-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Kant18; ILR1986KAR1446
Venkatesh, J.1. The appellant Abdul Khader has preferred this appeal against the order dated 31-10-1985 of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 10090 of 1984.2. In the petition filed by him under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Abdul Khader had challenged the order dated 21-51984 of the Land Tribunal, Sedam, Gulbarga District (No. REV/LRY/74-75/392) declaring him as a surplus holder and directing him to surrender 32 acres, 37 guntas of land. The Tribunal had passed that order under S. 67 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. (the Act) on a declaration made by Abdul. Khader before it in form No. 11, under S. 66 of the Act.3. Petitioner Abdul Khader's case before the learned single Judge was that he was not a surplus holder, was not liable to surrender any extent of land and that the Tribunal had committed an error in declaring him as such.4. In the declaration he had filed in the Tribunal, the petitioner had stated 'the lands declared by him are joint family lands which are sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-05-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Raj83; 1987(1)WLN272
Dave, J.1. This larger Bench has been constituted by the orders of the Chief Justice, dt. July 3, 1986, to answer a question referred to larger Bench by our brother Hon'ble G. K. Sharma, J. vide his order of reference, dated May 28, 1986 wherein he has framed the following question :'Whether the judgment given in absence of the appellant or his counsel but the case decided on merits, can be re-called by the Court in its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C.'2. The petitioner, Habu, had filed a revision petition in this Court in the year 1978 challenging his conviction and sentence. This revision-petition was admitted on Oct. 25, 1978, and was ordered to be heard in due course on May 26, 1979. Thereafter it came up for hearing on Jan. 11, 1985 before Hon'ble Sharma, J. The accused petitioner who was on bail neither appeared in person npr his counsel was present and Hon'ble Sharma, J. after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor dismissed the revision-petition on merits. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-31-1986
Reported in : 1986(2)BomCR63; (1986)88BOMLR620; (1986)58CTR(Bom)1; [1986]162ITR331(Bom)
S.C. Pratap, J.1. The short question for which, as I understand, there is no precedent of this court-arising for determination in this article 226 petition is :'Can, in the matter of an assessee's completed and concluded assessment, a summons under section 131(1) of the Income-tax Act (for short, 'the Act') be issued against him without there being in existence before the officer issuing the same a pending proceeding ?'2. Facts are but few and simple. The first petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of general merchants, exporters and importers of agriculture and other products. The second petitioner is a partner of the first petitioner-firm. The first petitioner (hereafter 'the assessee') is assessed to income-tax, the financial/accounting year in that behalf being the Samvat year.3. The assessee submitted its income-tax returns for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. Of these, for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, assessment orders were passed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-06-1986
Reported in : AIR1986SC1571; (1986)3CompLJ1(SC); 1986LabIC1312; (1986)IILLJ171SC; 1986(1)SCALE799; (1986)3SCC156; [1986]2SCR278; 1986(2)SLJ320(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. These Appeals by Special Leave granted by this Court raise two questions of considerable importance to Government companies and their employees including their officers. These questions are: 1) Whether a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, is 'the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? 2) Whether an unconscionable term in a contract of employment is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as being opposed to public policy and, when such a term is contained in a contract of employment entered into with a Government company, is also void as infringing Article 14 of the Constitution in case a Government company is 'the State' under Article 12 of the Constitution? 2. Although the record of these Appeals is voluminous, the salient facts lie within a narrow compass. The First Appellant in both these Appeals, namely, the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to in sh...
Tag this Judgment!