Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-31-1989
Reported in : AIR1989SC1531; JT1989(3)SC170; 1989(1)SCALE852; 1989Supp(1)SCC628; [1989]2SCR283; 1989(2)LC218(SC)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal by certificates under Article 133(1) of the Constitution is from a decision of the Patna High Court which revered the decree in the suit filed by the appellants for declaration of title and confirmation of possession.2. In the court of the Subordinate Judge, the First Court at Dhanbad, the plaintiff/appellants instituted a suit in respect of Schedule B of the plaint for a declaration of their homestead right thereto and for confirmation of possession or in the alternative recovery of possession. The suit property consists of 30 bighas, 18, kattar and 11 chhataks being part of plot Nos. 59 and 70 in village Dhansar. The plaintiffs' claim was based on a registered indenture of lease dated December 9, 1949 by which it is said that the possession in the zamindari right of Kali Prasad was settled to Ruplal Aggarwal, further of plaintiff No. 1 and grand-father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiffs' claim that they have become the owners of the lease...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-19-1989
Reported in : AIR1989SC1728; (1989)3CompLJ80(SC); JT1989(3)SC125; 1989(2)SCALE54; (1989)3SCC411; [1989]3SCR455; 1989(2)LC479(SC)
Kuldip Singh, J. 1. The coal resources in the country have been brought under State ownership and control by the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called 'the Coking Act') and the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Coal Act'). These Acts completely divest the ownership rights in the mines from the owners to the Central Government. The Acts provide for payment of specified amount to each of the owners in lieu of take-over. Out of the said amount the claims of the creditors of the owner and other liabilities against him are to be satisfied and the balance, if any, is to be paid to the owner. The Acts further provide for accrual of interest on the payable amount for the procedural-period. Section 18(5) of the Coal Act and Section 21(5) of the Coking Act provide that the interest accruing on the amount shall ensureto the benefit of the owners of coal mines.2. The short question for consideration in these appeals is whether the amount of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-19-1989
Reported in : (1995)IIILLJ769Kant
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. These two petitions are disposed off by this common order since the question of law involved is one and the same.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition 2040/1984, which is a public limited company, was supplying electricity to the city of Belgaum till 1974 when by virtue of Section 4 of the Karnataka Electricity Supply Undertakings ( Acquisition) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act) the undertaking of the petitioner company stood transferred to and vested in the Government. As a consequence thereof under Section 11 of the Acquisition Act the employees under the petitioner company, employed before the vesting date became, as from that date, the employees of the Government and thereafter when the undertaking was handed over to the second respondent -Electricity Board those employees continued to be such on the same terms and conditions and with same rights and privileges in the matter of conditions of service. The proviso to that section also pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-13-1989
Reported in : AIR1990SC123; (1989)3SCC709; 1989(2)LC712(SC)
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. I agree with Brother Venkatachaliah, that the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner in sup port of the challenge to the impugned legislations must fail and the writ petitions must be dismissed. I would, however, like to express my views only on one aspect of the matter, which is common to this case as well as the writ petition No. 458/72, civil appeal No 4113/85 and writ petition No. 5(N)/74, i.e. the scope of judicial review of legislation where there is declaration in the legislation under Article 31C of the Constitution.2. In these writ petitions we are concerned with two legislations, namely, the Indian Electricity (Assam Amendment Act, 1973, (Assam Act IX of 1973), and the Tinsukhia & Dibrugarh Electric Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1973 (Act X of 1973). The main point which is significant in these writ petitions, is the extent and scope of judicial review of legislation where there is declaration under Article 31C of the Constitutio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-29-1989
Reported in : AIR1990SC1889; JT1989(4)SC186; 1989(2)SCALE891; 1989Supp(2)SCC504
Kania, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgments in two Election Petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning the election of respondent No. 1 as a Member of Parliament from Srikakulam No. Parliamentary Constituency in the 8th General Election to the House of the People. The points raised in these appeals are common and so are the relevant facts; and, hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. We propose to take note of only the few facts which are necessary for the appreciation of the controversy before us.2. The polling date for the said election along with other parliamentary elections in the State of Andhra Pradesh was December 27, 1984 but in Srikakulam No. 1 Parliamentary Constituency the polling was countermanded and the date of polling was later fixed on January 28, 1985. In both the Election Petitions the election of respondent No. 1 was questioned mainly on the ground that Shri N.T. Rama Rao, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh as well as th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-24-1989
Reported in : AIR1990SC334; JT1989(3)SC188; (1989)IILLJ506SC; 1989(2)SCALE107; (1989)4SCC187; [1989]3SCR488; 1990(1)LC40(SC); (1990)3UPLBEC1604
M.M. Dutt, J.1. These Writ Petitions and Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed by the employees of the Supreme Court praying for their pay hike. Two events, which will be stated presently, seem to have inspired the employees of the Supreme Court to approach the Court by filing Writ Petitions. The first of the two events is the report of a Committee of Five Judges of this Court consisting of Mr Justice P.M. Bhagwati (as he then was) as the Chairman, Mr. Justice V.D. Tulzapurkar, Mr Justice D.A. Desai, Mr. Justice R.S. Pathak (as he then was) and Mr. Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali. The second event, which is the most important one, is the judgments of the Delhi High Court passed in writ proceedings instituted by its employees.2. The Five-Judge Committee in its report stated, inter alia, that no attempt had been made to provide a separate and distinct identity to the ministerial staff belonging to the Registry of the Supreme Court. According to the Committee the borrowed designation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-08-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR39
ORDERK.A. Swami, J 1. RELIEFS: .These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking various reliefs. The reliefs sought for in W.P.Nos. 8546 to 8548/88 also cover the reliefs sought for in W.P.No. 15377/88. Therefore, the reliefs sought for in W.P.No. 15377/88 are not specifically stated. Further in a public interest petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the reliefs can be moulded according to the findings arrived at. The objection as to absence of a specific prayer in a public interest petition as in a private interest litigation does nor assume any importance. The reliefs sought for in W.P.Nos. 8546 to 8548/88 as follows:'Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue:a) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take action for forfeiture of the land for contravention of Section 79 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act;b) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to acquire the land for the purpose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-04-1989
Reported in : 1990(27)ECC228; 1990(49)ELT22(P& H)
A.P. Chowdhri, J.1. This judgment will dispose of 17 writ petitions Nos. 6993, 6994, 6992 of 1986, 18, 130, 131, 132, 173, 174, 272, 404, 5252, 1041, 1042, 5977 and 5493 of 1987 and 2703 of 1988. While the main question of the impugned assessments stands settled, some ancillary matters regarding interpretation of certain orders remain to be dealt with. As the material facts in all these writ petitions are substantially identical, it will suffice to refer to the facts in CWP No. 6599 of 1986 as being fairly representative of typical facts and circumstances leading to the filing of these petitions.2. In order to appreciate the questions involved, it is necessary to state the background as under :-3. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are manufacturers of steel ingots, steel billets, steel bars, rounds and rods and steel flats etc. The aforesaid products are manufactured by them by primarily using waste and scrap of steel commonly known as 'Bazar Scrap'. A scheme was introduced i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jul-03-1989
County of Allegheny v. ACLU - 492 U.S. 573 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter No. 87-2050 Argued February 22, 1989 Decided July 3, 1989 * 492 U.S. 573 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus This litigation concerns the constitutionality of two recurring holiday displays located on public property in downtown Pittsburgh. The first, a creche depicting the Christian nativity scene, was placed on the Grand Staircase of the Allegheny County Courthouse, which is the "main," "most beautiful," and "most public" part of the courthouse. The creche was donated by the Holy Name Society, a Roman Catholic group, and bore a sign to that effect. Its manger had at its crest an angel bearing a banner proclaiming "Gloria in Excelsis Deo," meaning "Glory to God in the Highest." The second of the holiday displays in question was an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-26-1989
BFI, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. - 492 U.S. 257 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court BFI, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (1989) Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. No. 88-556 Argued April 18, 1989 Decided June 26, 1989 492 U.S. 257 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondents Joseph Kelly and Kelco Disposal, Inc., filed suit against petitioners (collectively BFI) in Federal District Court, charging BFI with antitrust violations and with interfering with Kelco's contractual relations in violation of Vermont tort law. A jury found BFI liable on both counts, and awarded Kelco, in addition to $51,146 in compensatory damages, $6 million in punitive damages on the state law claim. Denying BFI's post-trial motions, the District Court upheld the jury's punitive damages award. The Court of Appeals affirmed as to both liability and damages, holding that, even if the Eighth Amendment were applicable, the...
Tag this Judgment!