Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-16-2003
Reported in : AIR2003SC3277; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)65; 1(2004)BC173(SC); [2003]117CompCas123(SC); (2003)4CompLJ1(SC); 2003(4)CTC237; JT2003(Suppl1)SC515; 2003(7)SCALE491; (2003)7SCC532; [2003]
Rajendra Babu, J. 1. In these two writ petitions filed in public interest the petitioners are calling in question the decision of the Government to sell majority of shares in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) to private parties without Parliamentary approval or sanction as being contrary to and viotative of the provisions of the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1974, the Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976 and Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining India Limited and all the Undertakings in India for Caltex India Limited) Act, 1977. 2. The petitioners contended that in the Preamble to these enactments it is provided that oil distribution business be vested in the State so that the distribution subserves the common general good; that, further, the enactments mandate that the assets and the oil distribution business must vest in the State or in Government companies; that, they...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Nov-10-2003
Reported in : [2004(101)FLR217]; [2004(1)JCR66(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 31.3.1993, passed in Reference Case No. 41 of 1988 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad. The Tribunal heard four Reference Cases, including Reference Case No. 41 of 1988, or the preliminary point of maintainability and held that they are not maintainable in view of the Coal Mines Nationalization Law (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Amendment Act' for Short).2. The petitioner, an employee of Loyabad colliery, after due enquiry was dismissed on 6.4.1968 on the charge of defalcation of money, belonging to the Cooperative Stores of the Colliery. Under the Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1973 ('Nationalization Act' for short), the Colliery was nationalized. It appears that a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner regarding the said defalcation in which he was acquitted by judgment-dated 9.10.1980. The petitioner claims that he made a representation for his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jul-09-2003
Reported in : [2003(3)JCR296(Jhr)]; (2003)IIILLJ1082Jhar
R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties.Both the connected matters are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. The management has challenged the award whereby and whereunder the management has been directed to give employment to the two workmen (respondent No. 3 and 4), in such post as they were previously employed, whereas CWJC No. 1484 of 1994 (R) the two workmen have challenged the award on the ground that back wages from 18.11.1986 has not been provided in the award.CWJC No. 754 of 1994(R)2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the following facts are un-controverted.(I) M/s. Oriental Coal Company Limited (Company for short) was the owner of the coal mine, namely Badjna Colliery, which was nationalized under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. At the time of taking over of the mine, the said company refused to handover the Barakar Engineering and Foundry Works Limited (BEFW) to the custodian/Central Government, on the ground that the same was a se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Aug-20-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)BLJR2164; [2003(3)JCR787(Jhr)]; (2004)ILLJ346Jhar
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The Workman Dip Lal Singh, Watchman of Bararee Coke Plant was in the services of M/s. Bararee Coke Co. Ltd. His services were terminated by a Notice dated 12th October, 1971 w.e.f. 19th October, 1971. The dispute was raised by the workman after about nine years of termination and after about ten years, the Central Government referred the following dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act, 1947) to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No. II (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). 'Whether the action of the management of Bararee Coke Plant of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Post Office Kusunda, District Dhanbad in terminating the services of Shri Dip Lal Singh, Watchman with effect from the 19th October, 1971 vide Management's notice dated the 12th October, 1971 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled? 2. In the Reference Case No. 13 of 1982, though M/s. Bha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-29-2003
Reported in : (2003)3UPLBEC2293
A.K. Yog, J. 1. Shri A.N. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Committee of Management, Attarra Mahavidyalaya, Atarra, District Banda called the 'Committee of Management' through its President-Jagpat Singh; learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and , Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashok Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Dr. Nand LalShukla (who had filed an application of impleadment) as well as Ms. Sadhna Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of S.K. Agrawal claiming to be the Joint Secretary of the Committee of Management of the College, present and heard; also perused the record of the case.2. Dr. Nand Lal Shukla and Sri S.K. Agrawal filed impleadment applications which have been rejected by separate orders of date but said persons have been allowed to be heard as contemplated under Chapter XXII, Rule 5-A, Rules of Court.3. The preliminary objection, raised by Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, on the first day of hearing of the case, that Ghan Shyam Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-31-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)BomCR24
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Writ Petition No. 1052 of 1998 is filed by the State of Maharashtra against respondent No. 1 for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Appeal Forest-3 of 1997 wherein it was held that the land in question is neither 'forest' nor 'private forest' within the meaning of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Aquisition) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). A prayer is also made to set aside the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Bombay Suburban District dated 23rd April, 1985 under section 6 of the said Act. A declaration is sought to the effect that the land bearing Survey No. 345-A situated at village Dahisar is 'forest' and 'private forest' under the Act and as such the land stands acquired and vested in the State of Maharashtra.2. It is the case of the petitioner-State that the land in question was part of original Survey No. 345. Survey No. 345 was admeasuring ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-29-2003
Reported in : 2003VIIAD(Delhi)1; 107(2003)DLT385; 2003(71)DRJ178; 2003(3)JCC1669
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. PREFACE 1. Every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. The journey, in the present case, has been navigated by the Designated Judge of the Special Court constituted under Section 23 of the Prevention of Terrorists Activities Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as POTA). In the Murder Reference and the connected appeals arising out of the judgment dated 16.12.2002, we are called upon to decide the legality and validity of the trial as also the sustainability of the judgment pronounced by the Designated Judge of the Special Court, POTA. By the impugned judgment, the learned Designated Judge has held that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charge of conspiracy against accused Nos. 1 to 3, for having entered into a conspiracy with the 5 slain terrorists who had attacked Parliament House on 13.12.2001 along with Mohd. Masood Azhar, Gazi Baba @ Abu Zehadi @ Abu Seqlain and Tariq Ahmed, all Pakistani nationals (declared as pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-04-2003
Reported in : 2003(6)ALD562; 2004(1)ALT195; 2004(1)ARBLR319(AP)
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. The petitioner, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, had filed the present O.P. under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as 'Act' in short, praying for the relief to set aside the award dated 28-2-1991 made by Sri Gurucharan Singh, Umpire, 12, Palam Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi 110057, shown as 1st respondent in the O.P., relating to the work of construction of land based works at Lova Gardens which is C-2 works and marine works and break water construction, which is C-3 works. The Contractor M/s. Continental Constructions Limited, Continental House, 28, Place, New Delhi 110018, is shown as 2nd respondent in the O.P.2. The O.P. was filed in the matter of C.M.A. No.162/80 and C.M.A. No. 1189/82, The petitioner, no doubt, had raised several grounds in the main O.P. and also in the supplemental statement to the said O.P. on objections filed by M/s. Continental Construction Limited, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-01-2003
Reported in : (2004)1GLR50
M.S. Shah, J.1. This group of Letters Patent Appeals is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.5.2000 of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos. 3196 to 3217 of 1998 and connected petitions. The writ petitions were filed by co-operative banks/co-operative societies which are respondents herein. Some of the co-operative banks/societies have filed more than one petitions in respect of different fixed deposit receipts. Common contentions have been urged in all these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.Proceedings before the learned Single Judge2.0 The facts leading to filing of the petitions are as under :-2.1 The petitions were filed by 22 co-operative banks or co-operative credit societies for directing Bank of Baroda and Indian Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants' or 'the Nationalized Banks') to refund the amounts of fixed deposit receipts which the petitioners had invested with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-02-2003
Reported in : AIR2004Bom38; (2004)1BOMLR833; [2003]117CompCas506(Bom)
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Both the appeals are directed against an order dated April 2, 2003, on Company Petition No. 45 of 2002 passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board, since reported in Maharashtra Power Development Corporation Ltd. v. Dabhol Power Company [2003] 117 Comp Cas 467. Appeal (Lodging) No. 4 of 2003 is filed by the original petitioner while Appeal (Lodging) No. 6 of 2003 is filed by the original respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 before the Company Law Board. For the sake of convenience, the original petitioner is hereinafter referred as 'the appellant' and original respondents are referred to by their respective numbers before the Company Law Board. Respondent No. 1 is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No. 2 is a director of respondent No. 1-company. Respondent No. 3 was also a director of respondent No. 1 till he resigned on June 4, 2002, and was replaced by respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 5 purports to be the managing d...
Tag this Judgment!