Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-03-1987
Reported in : AIR1987SC1428; JT1987(1)SC599; 1987(1)SCALE481; (1987)2SCC124; [1987]2SCR484; 1987(1)LC729(SC)
V. Khalid, J.1. The coal mines were nationalised by the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, (for short 'the Act'). Under this Act, the mines vested in the Government with effect from 1st May, 1972. The Act contains a schedule showing the various mines which come under the nationalisation scheme. The mines involved in this appeal are shown as serial Nos. 112 to 116 in the First Schedule to the Act. The Schedule, in addition shows, the location of the mines, name and address of the owners of the mines and the amount of compensation. The owners' name in the fourth column of the mines involved in the appeal is shown as East India Coal Company Limited, the appellant before us and the total compensation as Rs. 93,23,500.2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were carrying on the business as raising contractors and selling agents of coking coal of working coal mines. According to them, Messrs Jardine Handerson Limited, who were the managing agents of the appellant-company, appointed them as co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-29-1987
Reported in : (1987)89BOMLR571; (1989)ILLJ356Bom
Pendse, J.1. Fariyaz Hotels Private Limited are a Private Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and one of its Directors is Hosang Bamanshaw Mistry. The Company owns a hotel known as 'Fariyaz Hotels' situate at 25, Off Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Bombay and the hotel consists of a restaurant and two bars. About 175 persons are employed in the hotel, and in the kitchen which is situate on the First Floor of the Hotel, about 41 persons are working. On August 13, 1970, the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation informed the Company that the kitchen attached to the hotel and the restaurant stood covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with effect from July 1, 1970 and the Company should furnish the requisite information in the prescribed form. Certain correspondence transpired between the Company and the Regional Director, the Company asserting that the kitc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-27-1987
Reported in : ILR1987KAR1617
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In all these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner is The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bangalore-(hereinafter referred to as the 'BOARD'). Respondent-1 in each one of these petitions is a different person who has obtained permission to convert agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes viz., for construction of buildings. Respondents 2 to 5 are common to all these petitions. They are : The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short the 'Tribunal') The State of Karnataka and the D.L.F. Universals Ltd., New Delhi.2. The petitioner has sought for a declaration that the provisions contained in Sub-section (5) of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 12/1964) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In addition to this, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-09-1987
Reported in : 1988(3)BomCR581a; (1987)89BOMLR485
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company') publishes the newspapers 'The Times of India' and 'Nav Bharat Times'. In 1983, company called Jansevak Karyalaya Ltd. (Jansevak) entered into negotiations with the company for printing and publishing editions of The Times of India and Nav Bharat Times from a press to be established at Lucknow. Three agreements dated June 4, 1983, July 30, 1983 and October 1, 1983 were entered into. In pursuance of the agreement, necessary applications were made under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. On October 17, 1983, the first edition of the The Times of India and Nav Bharat Times were issued from Lucknow. The City Magistrate at Lucknow commenced proceedings under the Press and Registration of Books Act it regard to complaints received that the provisions of that Act had been contravened. These proceedings were stayed in a writ petition filed by Jansevak in the High Court at Calcutta. The stay order wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-24-1987
Reported in : AIR1988AP77
Jagannadha Rao, J.1. All these cases arise under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act 21 of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They raise questions concerning the rights of protected tenants and the statutory conferment of ownership rights on them under S. 38-E of the Act. In Chinnaboini Narsaiah v. Tahslidar, Mahaboobabad, Warangal District, (1979) I Andh WR (HC) 23 a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Madhava Reddy, J. (as he then was) and Narsinga Rao J. had occasion to deal with S. 38-E and connected provisions of the Act. After the said judgment, the Legislature amended the Act by the Amending Act 2 of 1979. Subsequent to the said amendment to the Act, the same questions were again raised before another Division Bench of this Court in Chennaiah v. State of A. P. : AIR1983AP34 consisting of K. Ramachandra Rao, J. (as he then was) and Sriramulu, J. In the order of reference now made to the Full Bench, it is pointed out by the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jun-05-1987
Reported in : AIR1988P& H1
D.S. Tewatta, J.1. Petitioner Shri J. K. Dhir, who at the relevant time happened to be Superintending Engineer, Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal Project (for short 'SYL Canal Project'), petitioner Shri A. K. Ummat, who at the relevant time happened to be Chief Engineer (Co-ordination) of the SYL Canal Project and petitioner Shri D. P. Singla, who retired as Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) on 30th April, 1986, and at the relevant time was associated with 'SYL Canal Project' asExecutive Engineer and was later on (on being promoted on 9th June, 1982),as Superintending Engineer (Administration) Accounts SYL Canal Project at Chandigarh, have through separate writ petitions (C. W:P. No. 6298 of 1986, C.W.P. No. 6558 of 1986 and C.W.P. No. 6308 of 1986, respectively) have impugned the validity of the initiation of the departmental inquiry and. its continuation at the instance of the Vigilance Department of the Punjab Government on the ground of its incompetency an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-01-1987
Reported in : AIR1987P& H263
S.P. Goyal, J. 1. These three petitions (Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3065, 3268 and 3435 of 1986), which are based on identical facts and involve common questions of law, have been filed for quashing the notices dated June 13, 1986, a copy of one of which is attached as Annexure P-6, issued to the petitioners by respondent 6, the Speaker of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, requiring them to show cause as to why they be not disqualified from the membership of the Punjab Legislative Assembly in terms of Art. 191(2) read with paras 2 and 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and his order dated July 4, 1986 (Annexure P-8) rejecting the application (Annexure P-7) of Capt. Amrinder Singh, M.L.A., wherein he claimed to be recognised as the leader of the 27 M.L.As. who were stated to have formed a separate legislative party because of the alleged split in the Shiromani Akali Dal. The attack is two prone. First, that the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985 is ultra vires of the powers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-27-1987
Reported in : AIR1989Kant1
ORDER1. In all these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner is the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'). The Respondent1 in each one of these petitions is a different person who has obtained permission to convert agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes viz., for construction of buildings. Respondents 2 to 5 are common to all these petitions. They are: The Special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short the 'Tribunal') The State of Karnataka and he D.L.F. Universals Ltd., New Delhi.2. The petitioner has sought for a declaration that the provisions contained in sub-sec. (5) of S. 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 964 (Karnataka Act 12 of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Act') are of Art 14 of the Constitution. In addition to t is, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders produced as Annexures-A to Y, in W.P. 19919 to 19954/82...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-09-1987
Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles - 482 U.S. 304 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987) First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, California No. 85-1199 Argued January 14, 1987 Decided June 9, 1987 482 U.S. 304 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT Syllabus In 1957, appellant church purchased land on which it operated a campground, known as "Lutherglen," as a retreat center and a recreational area for handicapped children. The land is located in a canyon along the banks of a creek that is the natural drainage channel for a watershed area. In 1978, a flood destroyed Lutherglen's buildings. In response to the flood, appellee Los Angeles County, in 1979, adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the construction or reconstruction of any building or structure in an interim flood protection area that included the land on which Lutherglen had stood. Sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : May-15-1987
Reported in : (1987)23ITD115(Delhi)
1. These are 12 appeals by the assessee M/s. Iraqi Airways against three sets of orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), one relating to the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, second relating to 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1979-80 and third relating to 1980-81 and 1981-82. The issues involved in all these appeals are common and, therefore, all the appeals have been heard together and common arguments have been addressed to us by both the parties.2. We may produce the grounds taken which are common for all the years :- 1. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law in holding that the assessee which was a Sovereign State was a 'person' within the meaning of Section 2(31) of the Act hence liable to taxation under the Act." 2. "That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law in holding that the proceedings initiated Under Section 139(2)/148 of the Act were valid in spite of the fact that no notice under these se...
Tag this Judgment!