Court : Patna
Decided on : Mar-22-1999
R.A. Sharma, J.1. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Bihar Coal Mining Area Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act) and the rules framed thereunder, namely, the Bihar Mineral Area Development Authority (Land Use Tax) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The prayer seeking appropriate writ and/or order declaring Section 89 of the Bihar Coal Mining Area Development Authority Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by the Amendment Act as ultra vires is also there. Consequential and incidential relief seeking quashing of the demand notice, assessment order and the notice requiring filing of returns has also been claimed.2. As the controversy involved in all these writ petitions is the same, it is not necessary to State the facts of each of these petitions excepting the writ petition, C.W.J.C. No 783 of 1994(R) (Central Coal Field Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-12-1999
Reported in : 2000(1)AWC594
P.K. Jain, J.1. This secondappeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad dated 3.10.98 dismissing the first appeal of the appellants and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court in Suit NO. 309 of 1995.2. Plaintiff-respondent S.M. Chopra filed the aforesaid suit for the following substantial reliefs :(a) That by the decree of this Hon'ble Court it may be declared that the resignation of the plaintiff dated 11.3.92 being obtained by the defendants by force, under coercion and without the free consent and will of the plaintiff is illegal and voidable and is not binding on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is continuing in services of the defendants without any effect of the said resignation letter. (b) That by the decree of mandatory injunction, the defendants be directed to deposit all the dues of the plaintiff including the arrears of salary, emoluments and allowances as well as with the amount relating to the encashmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-07-1999
Reported in : AIR1999SC3923; [2000]99CompCas383(SC); JT1999(8)SC66; 1999(6)SCALE441; (1999)9SCC334; [1999]Supp3SCR461
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.The Facts:1. These three appeals raise three different questions relating to the construction and interpretation of Section 85 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 'new Act' for short) which contains repeal and saving provision of the three Acts, namely, the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the 'old Act' for short) the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (the 'Foreign Awards Act' for short).2. This Section 85 of the new Act we reproduce at the outset:85. Repeal and saving - (1) The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 (6 of 1937), the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) and the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (45 of 1961) are hereby repealed.(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, -(a) the provisions of the said enactments shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings which commenced before this Act came into force unless otherwise agreed by the parties but this Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-19-1999
Reported in : [2002]109CompCas18(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The notices of motion in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 seek to challenge the legality and validity of substantial acquisitions of shares by defendants Nos. 1 to 11 in defendant No. 12-company allegedly in violation of the provisions of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994, and pray for the annulment thereof, particularly in the context of the breaches of regulations 9 and 10 which require a public announcement of the intention to acquire substantial shares in certain circumstances. Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 on the other hand, dispute the right of third parties like the plaintiffs to challenge such acquisitions, the rights of plaintiffs claimed to be based in common law and/or statute and as to whether the voting rights flowing from such shares can be injuncted by filing a suit in the context of the relevant provisions of the Companies Act. Consequently, the questions pertaining to balance of convenience and appropriate orders to be passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-19-1999
Reported in : AIR1999SC2423; 1999(3)ALLMR(SC)701; JT1999(4)SC546; (1999)IILLJ600SC; 1999(4)SCALE109; (1999)6SCC275; [1999]3SCR907; 2000(2)SLJ144(SC); 1999(2)LC1201(SC)
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J. 1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties finally in this appeal. It is being disposed of by this judgment.3. The question involved in this appeal at the instance of the appellant-management pertains to the legality and validity of the discharge of the respondent-employee and also calls for the decision as to whether the said discharge order amounted to 'unfair labour practice' on the part of the management. A few relevant facts are required to be noted at the outset.Introductory facts:4. The respondent was working in the composing department of the appellant at Nagpur in Maharashtra State when his services were terminated. He was a foreman in the composing department of the appellant. The appellant is a company engaged in the publication of a Marathi daily named 'Lokmat'. The appellant has its registered office at Nagpur and Lokmat is being published therefrom. In the year 1976, the appellant-company decided to start publication of Jalgao...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-10-1999
Reported in : AIR1999SC3125; 1999(4)ARBLR502(SC); 1999(3)BLJR2191; JT1999(5)SC422; 1999(4)SCALE516; (1999)9SCC620; [1999]Supp1SCR146
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.2. These appeals and writ petitions mainly raise the question regarding the legality of the levy of market fee under the provisions of Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Market Act' for short). The grievance made by the appellants/writ petitioners pertained to the following commodities with which the respective proceedings are concerned.1. Sugarcane, Sugar and Molasses (briefly referred to as 'Sugar matters');2. Wheat products Atta, Maida, Suzi, Bran etc.;3. Vegetable Oil;4. Rice milling;5. Milk and milk products;6. Tea.It will, therefore, be appropriate to deal seriatim the grievances centering round the levy of market fee on transactions concerning the aforesaid commodities.GRIEVANCES IN CONNECTION WITH MARKET FEE CONCERNING SUGAR MATTERS3. So far as this group of matters is concerned, first two Civil Appeal Nos. 398 and 399 of 1977 arise out of certificates of fitness gra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-30-1999
Reported in : 1999(2)CTC364; (2000)ILLJ340Mad
ORDER1. Since the issues in all these writ petitions are inter-connected, they are disposed of by the following common order.2. In W.P.NO. 1979 of 1988, the petitioner, namely, Somasundaram Corporation (Private Limited), owners of Somasundaram Super Spinning Mills are challenging the constitutional validity of the Somasundaram Super Spinning Mills (Acquisition and Transfer) Act (The Tamil Nadu Act 81 of 1986) as invalid and ultra vires of the Constitution of India.3. East Ramnad District National Textile Workers Union (INTUC) have filed Writ Petition No. 13510 of 1994 challenging lay off Notice dated 1.6.1994 and the closure order dated 15.7.1994 parsed by the Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation, Coimbatore-18.4. Ramanathapuram District Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam has filed Writ Petition No. 20925 of 1994 seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in G.O.No. 287 (Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (C2) Department dated 14.10.1993 quash the same and f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : Aug-26-1999
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30-12-1998 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 4/97. 2. It appears that an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. 1993 (hereinafter called the said Act) was filed against the petitioner by respondent No. 1 which is Allahabad Bank, Bokaro Steel City Branch, Naya More, Bokaro, Bihar (hereinafter called the said Bank). In the said application the said Bank as an applicant has made out a case that the petitioner No. 1, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Bakaro, approached the said Bank through its Director for Cash credit Limit of rupees one lac for working capital and submitted its application for the same. The said Bank sanctioned the said cash credit limit of rupees one lac against the hypothecation of stocks and book debt payable on demand with Interest specifie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Aug-20-1999
J.N. Sarma, J. 1. These cases raise the question of legality, validity and constitutionality of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and other actions related to the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati constituted under the Act ('Tribunal' hereinafter). 2. In all 350 cases were filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati and out of such proceedings 211 writ petitions were filed before this court and stay was granted in those cases. There are some cases five in number arising out of cases filed by co-operative banks for recovery of their dues. The Debt Recovery Tribunal entertained them. The borrowers/ debtors have challenged this action on the ground that the Tribunal does not have the power to decide a suit filed by a co-operative bank, as the definition of 'bank' in the relevant Act does not cover a co-operative bank. These cases are separated from this bunch and they have been heard separately and separate judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-05-1999
Reported in : 2000CriLJ68
ORDERO.P. Garg, J. 1. A highly vexed question whether a revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was (for short the 'Code') lies before the High Court at Allahabad of its Bench at Lucknow is the subject matter of this designation. The complex question sometimes is the product of the vested interest. More often then not, the conflict of territorial jurisdiction is sharpened stark when the impugned order is passed, by a Court located in either of the twelve districts of Avadh. The controversy in turn involves interpretation in its true perspective, of the provisions of the United Provinces High Court's (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amalgamation Order), particularly the provisions of clause 14. The complex question has travelled more than once up to the Apex Court. This question has again been raised before this Court in the following circumstances :2. A devil daring and horrendous crime was committed in Ravindra Puri, Jawahar ...
Tag this Judgment!