Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-31-1990
Reported in : 1991(1)BomCR160; (1990)92BOMLR492; (1993)IIILLJ277Bom
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J 1. Petitioner - The National Textile Corporation (South Maharashtra) Ltd.- is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. By virtue of the provisions of the Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, 1983, the management, inter alia, of Textile Mills known as Finlay Mills and the Gold Mohur Mills - Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein is vested in the petitioners. 2. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 P.J. Kapadia and Mrs. H.R. Chokshi were the employees of the two mills Respondent No. 4 and 5, who were employed in the retail cloth shop of these mills. The 2nd respondent was employed as a salesman and the 3rd respondent was employed as a sales-girl. On 8th May 1980 a charge-sheet was issued by the said mills to respondent No. 2. On 20.5.1980 a charge-sheet was issued to respondent No. 3. Both the charge- sheets were in respect of a cash memo dated 12.4.1980 prepared by the 3rd respondent at the instance of; the 2nd respondent. It seems that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-13-1990
Reported in : [1991(62)FLR601]; (1992)IILLJ111Bom
Sugla, J.1. The challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated September 23, 1986 passed by the Industrial Court and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Appeal (PGA) No. 50 of 1985.2. One Shri Gopal Laxman Martal (since deceased) was employed as a workman in the Textile Mill of the original Opponent No. 1 since April 1, 1944. He retired on April 1, 1983. His salary, at the time of retirement, was about Rs. 1150/- per month. As gratuity due to him was not paid by the Textile Mill, he filed application (P&A;) 253 of 1983 on June 6, 1983 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, Gratuity Act). On October 18, 1983, the management of the Textile Mills was taken over by the Central Government under Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983 (Act No. 40 of 1983), (for short the 'Taking Over Act'). On March 8, 1984 he made an application for taking the petitioner Corporation a p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-04-1990
Reported in : AIR1991SC101; (1991)1CompLJ1(SC); JT1990(3)SC725; 1991LabIC91; (1991)ILLJ395SC; 1991Supp(1)SCC600; [1990]Supp1SCR142; 1991(1)SLJ56(SC)
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, CJ.1. These civil appeals, special leave petitions and civil miscellaneous petitions deal with the question of constitutional validity of the right of the employer to terminate the services of permanent employees without holding any inquiry in certain circumstances by reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice. The facts involved in these matters are diverse but the central question involved in all these is one, i.e. whether the clauses permitting the employers or the authorities concerned to terminate the employment of the employees by giving reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice but without holding any inquiry, are constitutionally valid and, if not, what would be the consequences of termination by virtue of such clauses or powers, and further whether such powers and clauses could be so read with such conditions which would make such powers constitutionally and legally valid? In order to appreciate the question the factual matrix of these cases so far a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-27-1990
Reported in : AIR1990SC2072; JT1990(2)SC448; 1990(1)SCALE342; (1990)2SCC562; [1990]1SCR614
ORDERRanganath Misra, J.1. I have the benefit of reading the judgment prepared by my esteemed brethren Sawant and K. Ramaswamy, JJ. Brother Sawant has taken the view that Section 20 of the Karnataka Act has not become void with the enforcement of the ''Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while Brother K. Ramaswamy has come to the contrary conclusion. Agreeing with the conclusion of Sawant, J., I have not found it possible to concur with Ramaswamy, J. Since an interesting question has arisen and in looking to the two judgments I have found additional reasons to support the conclusion of Sawant, J., I proceed to indicate the same in my separate judgment.2. These applications under Article 32 of the Constitution by a group of disgruntled applicants for contract carriage permits call in question action of the concerned transport authorities in not entertaining their applications under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939) made provision for grant of contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-24-1990
Reported in : 1991(1)ALT315
Ramanujulu Naidu, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions filed for issue of writs of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce before this Court, respectively, (1) Anwar Ismail, s/o Ismail, (2) Dawood Mohammed, s/o Siddiqui, (3) Dawood, s/o Yusuf, (4) Ishaq, s/o Omar, (5) Baktar Ahmad Mujawar Khan, s/o Mujawar Khan, (6) Kasim Mohammed s/o Shaik Mohammed, (7) Abdullah Usman, s/o Usman, (8) Mossa, s/o Ibrahim, and (9) Rafi s/o Abdullah, presently undergoing detention as remanded prisoners in the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, hereinafter referred to, for the sake of convenience, as 'the detenus' and to set them at liberty, an important question of law as to the interpretation of Section 167(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequences that flow from contravention of or non-compliance with, the provisions of the said section arises for consideration.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the batch of writ petitions lie in a narrow compass and may briefly be stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-07-1990
Reported in : AIR1991SC855; [1992]74CompCas482(SC); JT1990(3)SC417; 1990(2)SCALE200; (1990)4SCC406; [1990]3SCR649
ORDER1. The common question which arises for consideration in these appeals, by special leave, and the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is, whether a person who was inducted as a tenant in premises, which are public premises for the purpose of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Public Premises Act'), and whose tenancy has expired or has been terminated, can be evicted from the said premises as being a person in unauthorised occupation of the premises under the provisions of the Public Premises Act and whether such a person can invoke the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Control Act'). In short, the question is, whether the provisions of the Public Premises Act would override the provisions of the Rent Control Act in relation to premises which fall within the ambit of both the enactments.2. Civil Appeals Nos. 2368 and 2369 of 1986 relate to the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-05-1990
Reported in : II(1990)DMC541
Sardar Ali Khan, J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the question of the right of a divorced woman to claim maintenance under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has . referred the matter for the Full Bench on certain questions arising about the right of such Muslim Divorced Woman to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') from her former husband even after the enforcement of the aforesaid Act. The Division Bench felt that the matter involves substantial questions of law of general importance having a far-reaching effect and therefore it should be placed before a Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the matter. The questions to be considered by the Full Bench are as follows :(1) Whether a divorced Muslim Woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code from her former husband even after passing of the Act o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-16-1990
Reported in : 1990CriLJ2685
Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ to set at liberty an alleged 20,000 (Congress-I) party members. 2. This writ petition is filed by seven petitioners the first, sixth and the seventh petitioners being M.L.As. and the other petitioners, being M.Ps. as a public interest litigation, on their own behalf and on behalf of 20,000 Congress (I) party members who have have arrested during the recent agitation to name a Railway Station after the late Sri Kamraj, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The petition singed by the said seven petitioners was treated as a writ of Habeas Corpus in view of the fact that all of them were under custody and the matter relates to thousands of persons who are under custody. The writ petition was admitted as a public interest litigation taking into consideration of the fact that the question involved in this writ petition is a matter of public importance and the question ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1990
FW/PBS v. City of Dallas - 493 U.S. 215 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court FW/PBS v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas Nos. 87-2012, 87-2051 and 88-49 Argued Oct. 4, 1989 Decided Jan. 8, 1990 493 U.S. 215 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent City of Dallas adopted a comprehensive ordinance regulating "sexually oriented businesses," which are defined to include "adult" arcades, bookstores, video stores, cabarets, motels, and theaters, as well as escort agencies, nude model studios, and sexual encounter centers. Among other things, the ordinance requires that such businesses be licensed, and includes civil disability provisions prohibiting certain individuals from obtaining licenses. Three groups of individuals and businesses involved in the adult entertainment industry filed separate suits challenging the ordinance on numerous grounds and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The District Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-27-1990
Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n - 497 U.S. 871 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation No. 89-640 Argued April 16, 1990 Decided June 27, 1990 497 U.S. 871 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus The National Wildlife Federation (hereinafter respondent) filed this action in the District Court against petitioners, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other federal parties, alleging that, in various respects, they had violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in the course of administering the BLM's "land withdrawal review program," and that the complained-of actions should be set aside because they were "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law" within the meaning of 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure...
Tag this Judgment!