Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : May-19-2004
Reported in : [2004(4)JCR437(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant (who was defendant No. 2 in the suit) has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.02.1995 and 08.03.1995 respectively passed by Shri Azad Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, Sub-Judge VI. Ranchi in Title Suit No. 147 of 1976 whereby and whereunder the said title suit was decreed in part directing defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs, 25'51,568.16 paise along with interest pendente lite and future @ 6% within three months.2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had filed Title Suit No. 147 of 1976 on 15.09.1976 against the defendant-appellant and proforma defendant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for a declaration that the goods mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint were taken over from the custody of the plaintiff-respondent on 18.09.1973 and 19.09.1973 illegally and without any authority of law and they did not vest in the Central Government and subsequently ..in the Coal Mines Authority Limited and its succ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-15-2004
Reported in : (2004)187CTR(SC)219; [2004]266ITR721(SC); JT2004(1)SC375; 2004(1)SCALE425; (2004)10SCC201
CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 1532 of 1993PETITIONER:State of West BengalRESPONDENT:Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/01/2004BENCH:V.N.Khare CJI & R.C.Lahoti & B.N.Agarwal & S.B.Sinha & A.R.LakshmananJUDGMENT:JUDGMENTDELIVERED BY:R.C.LAHOTI, J.S.B.SINHA, J.WITHCivil Appeal Nos. 3518-3519 and 5149-54 of 1992, 1532-1533 and 2350 of 1993and 7614 of 1994 and C.A. Nos. 297, 298 and 299 of 2004 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3986 of 1993, 11596 and 17549 of 1994) with W.P. (C) Nos. 262,515, 641 and 642 of 1997, 347 and 360 of 1999, 50 and 553 of 2000, 207, 288and 389 of 2001 and 81 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 5027, 6643 to 6650 and6894 of 2000 and 1077 of 2001Decided On: 15.01.2004JUDGMENTR.C. Lahoti, J.This batch of matters, some appeals by special leave under Article 136 ofthe Constitution and some writ petitions filed in this Court, raise a fewquestions of constitutional significance centering around Entries 52, 54and 97 in List I and Entries 23, 49, 50 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-09-2004
Reported in : [2006]146STC513(Kar)
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, assailing the legality and validity of the order dated December 14, 1999 passed for the assessment year 1996-97 Under Section 18-AA(2)(ii) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the accompanying demand notice in form 6 dated December 16, 1999, vide, annexure C, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, the petitioner has sought for a declaration declaring that, the provisions of clause (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 18-AA of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 have no applicability to amounts collected by way of or purporting to be by way of CST in excess of A the prescribed rate of tax. Further, the petitioner has sought to quash the provisions of clause (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 18-AA of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, as violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of prohibition, restraining the first respondent f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-04-2004
Reported in : (2004)3UPLBEC3070
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard Shri PS. Baghel, Advocate, Shri Sandeep Dixit, Advocate, Shri R.R.Awasthi, Advocate and Shri Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri I.B.Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5 of the Standing Counsel.2. These bunch of writ petitions involved common question of fact and law, hence, heard and decided by common judgment with the consent of parties.3. The controversy relates to admission in the Post Graduate Medical Courses of the State of U. P though U.P. Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2004 (in short, herein after referred as UPPGMEE), which provided that only those candidates shall be eligible to appear in the examination and will be entitled for admission in pursuance to UPPGMEE, who have passed their MBBS or BDS courses from the recognized Medical Colleges situated in the State of U.P. Accordingly there is 100 per cent institutional reservation for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses held through UPPGM...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : May-31-2004
D. Biswas, J.1. The above mentioned writ petitions have been filed before this court by the writ petitioners disputing the legality and validity of the search and seizure operations carried out, by the respondent authorities on different dates. The writ petitions pose common questions of law on identical facts and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Mr. S.S. Ray, learned senior counsel appeared for the writ petitioners in W. P. (C) Nos. 1552 of 2000, 137 of 2000, 6965 of 2000, 7008 of 2000, 2889 of 2001, 2890 of 2001, 8647 of 2001 and 8648 of 2001 along with Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel and assisted by Mr. S. Shyam, learned counsel, Mr. P. Upadhaya, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner in W. P. (C). No. 3729 of 2001. The respondent authorities have been represented by Shri R.P. Agarwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel.3. At the very outset, for convenience, the facts in each case and the stand of the Reven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-05-2004
Reported in : 113(2004)DLT488; 2004(76)DRJ74; [2005(104)FLR8]; (2004)IIILLJ1123Del
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The three captioned petitions have a common back drop and hence are being decided together.2. Prayers made in W.P(C) No.4361/1997 filed by the management are as under:-'(i) issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari or mandamus quashing the impugned award dated 13.6.97 (Annexure P-1) of Industrial Tribunal-II, Tis Hazari, Delhi.(ii) issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari or mandamus quashing the impugned terms of reference dated 17.11.95 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT Delhi.(iii) issue appropriate writ, order or direction to Industrial Tribunal-II, Tis Hazari, Delhi for forwarding the file relating to the impugned award dated 17.11.1995 in ID No. 38/95, 2/96.(iv) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to Secretary (Labour, Government of NCT Delhi to forward the file on the basis of which terms of reference No. F.24 (3383)/95-Lab/13628388 dated 17.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-23-2004
Reported in : 2004(5)ALD807; 2004(5)ALT755
1. The judicial somersault for a decade in the hands of the Division Benches and the Full Bench and the decisional upheavals inherent in the system continue to make the litigant under the perennial predicament and speculation. This is one such instance, we are called upon to clear the riddles.2. The matter is brought before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge (BPRJ) in regard to the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court reported in Motichand Jain v. Jaikumar M, : AIR2004AP136 (FB).3. The issue that arises for consideration is(a) Whether A.P. Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 30 of 1989 is retrospective or prospective in operation?(b) Whether there is any distinction between vested right and right to forum? 4. The Andhra Pradesh Civil Court Act, 1972 was brought into statute book with effect from 1.11.1972. The pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts both original and appellate and as also the forum are being amended from time to time. By A.P. Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-10-2004
Reported in : AIR2004SC4174; JT2004(6)SC323; 2004(6)SCALE550; (2004)8SCC31
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Criminal Revision No. 29(4) of 1997. Appellants had challenged legality of the cognizance taken and issuance of process on the basis of a complaint tiled by respondent No. 1. The complaint was tiled by respondent No. 1 alleging that on 21.3.1997 the present appellants along with some other personnel of Border Security Force (in short 'BSF') came to his crockery-cum-cloth shop and demanded Rs. 10,000/- as illegal gratification which the complainant refused to pay. They entered into his shop without any authority, ransacked the shop and illegally took away some commodities which were stored for business purposes. Certain documents were also taken away. It was further alleged that they threatened him to take away his life and with dire consequences on the point of revolver. They illegally took away the articles on the basis of a purported seizu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-15-2004
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC1310; 2005(3)SLJ354(P& H)
Surya Kant, J.1. Whether the allegations of fraud in public employment centrestaged on the 'procedure and mechanism' adopted by the State of Punjab in the wholesome selection of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) from 'Outstanding Sports Persons', can be a subject matter of public interest litigation or not and whether this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain such public interest litigation, even if it is found to be a probono publico to prevent and remedy the abuse and misuse of executive powers by the State apparatus, or it shall amount to mere adjudication of 'competing claims' between two sets of parties with no element of larger public interest involved are some of the vital issues to which this larger Bench is confronted with. The other related issues pertaining to the legality and propriety of these selections have also been raised in certain individual writ petitions which we propose to dispose of along with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-21-2004
Reported in : 2004(6)ALD1; 2004(5)ALT634
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Several of the most devisive moral conflicts that have beset us Indians, in the period since the dawn of independence have been transmuted into constitutional conflicts - conflicts what the Constitution of India forbids - and resolved as such. The most prominent instances include the conflicts over Federalism, Secularism, sex- based discrimination and affirmative action. The conflicts over affirmative action programme occupy a large space.2. The great bulk of constitutional litigation concerns State enactments and nearly all of that litigation purports to be based on a single sentence of Article 14 and, indeed, on one or the other of two pairs of words, 'equality before the law' and 'equal protection of the laws'. If the Constitution is the embodiment of our aspirations, it must have become so very largely because of those two pairs of words. Each is a protection with centuries of history behind it, often dearly bought with the blood and lives of people determi...
Tag this Judgment!