Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-05-2007
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR611; 2007(5)BomCR481; (2007)109BOMLR1959; 2008(1)MhLj753
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Proprietor of M/s Akanksha International, which has purchased the land, building, plant and machinery of M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Private Limited in auction sale conducted by the secured creditor under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Securitisation Act, 2002'), for direction to the respondent Electricity Distribution Company to consider application for fresh electricity connection to the petitioner and to quash and set aside the letter dated 1.6.2007 issued by the respondent to the petitioner as illegal. By the said letter the respondent has insisted on the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,30,78,926.87 plus interest which were arrears of electricity charges due from erstwhile consumer M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Private Limited.2. The petitioner stated that the State Bank of India, Jalna Branch had granted fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-26-2007
Reported in : (2008)1MLJ21
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner is a Matriculation School, represented by its Secretary and the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.A. No. 278 of 2007 in I.D. No. 83 of 2005 is under challenge in this writ petition.2. In the said order dated 15.10.2007, the first respondent Labour Court rejected the plea made by the petitioner School Management and held that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Industrial Dispute raised by the second respondent under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act [for short, 'I.D. Act'].3. I have heard the arguments of Mr. K.M. Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. S. Ravichandran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the records.4. The writ petition is filed only against the preliminary order passed by the Labour Court and at this stage, it is not necessary to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the self-imposed restric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-06-2007
Reported in : 2008(1)ALT113
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Sri B. Subba Reddy, represented by his General Power of Attorney Holder filed the present writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent-appellate authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, New Delhi in an appeal No. 48 of 2005, dated 28-12-2005 and consequently allow the appeal of the petitioner as prayed for and to grant such other suitable relief.2. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri A. Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General, Smt. M. Lakshmi Kumari, Shri P. Vikram representing Sri K. Kodanda Ram, Sri K.Gopalakrishna Murthy, Sri V.V.S.N. Raju, the learned Counsel representing the respective respondents.3. At the outset it can be stated that the serious contest appears to be between the petitioner Sri B. Subba Reddy and the 6th respondent Sri V.N. Sunanda Reddy, Managing Director, M/s ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-09-2007
Reported in : 2007(122)ECC121; 2007(148)LC121(Delhi); 2008(222)ELT161(Del)
Gita Mittal, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioners have laid a challenge to the order dated 27th August, 2003 passed by the Designated Authority in exercise of its powers under Section 14(b) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1995 and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Article and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 whereby the Designated Authority in the Directorate of Anti-Dumping in the Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi informed the petitioners of its decision to terminate anti- dumping investigation into imports of Hot rolled coils, Sheets, Plates and Strips originating in or exported from South Africa, Rumania, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, European Union, Australia, Canada and Singapore.2. Both the petitioners are stated to be engaged in the manufacture and production of steel and steel products. The Steel Authority of India, the petitioner No. 2 has claimed that it produces approximately 50% of India's steel, which has been disput...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-31-2007
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2102
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This matter has come up before this Court on a reference by a learned single Judge of this Court to consider the question:Whether the date of filing of the complaint or the date of the court taking cognizance of the offence is relevant for the purpose of Section 468 Cr.P.C.2. The question of law involved in this case, though short one, has been the subject of conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court in Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran 1990 (Supp) SCC 121 and Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 27 (SC).3. The learned single Judge expressed his inability to agree with the view taken by this Court in Crl.P. No. 3572/2003 wherein it was held that the date of taking cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate is relevant and not the date of filing of the complaint before the court for the purpose of Section 468 Cr.P.C. Hence made the reference. 4. In order to appreciate the question arising for determination, facts-in-brief may be stated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Apr-04-2007
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR1185; [2007(2)JCR357(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In these writ applications, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the letter dated 13.9.2005 issued by the State Government withdrawing the proposal of the petitioners for approval Under Section 5(1) of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1960 (in short 'Act of 1960') and also withdrawing the application of the petitioners for grant of mining lease of Iron Ore in different areas of Mouza Ghatkuri in West Singhbhum district for captive consumption of its Integrated Steel Plant in the State of Jharkhand and further for a direction prohibiting the State Government from promulgating notification for dereservation under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in short 'Rules of 1960') regarding the applied area of the petitioners for mining lease.2. First of all, I shall state the brief facts of the case pleaded by the writ petitioners in their respective writ petitions.3. W.P.C. No. 1769/2006: The petitioner M/s. Adhunik Alloys & Power Ltd ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-27-2007
Reported in : AIR2007SC2762; 2007CriLJ4068; 2007(4)CTC740; JT2007(9)SC471; 2007(3)KLT760(SC); 2007(9)SCALE400; 2007(2)LC941(SC)
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. An important and interesting question of law has been raised by the appellant in the present appeal which is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Orissa on June 20, 2006 in Crl. M. C. No. 5148 of 1998. By the said order, the High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the respondent- accused for offences punishable under Sections 294 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a complainant who is inhabitant of village Damana under Chandrasekharpur Police Station. He had constructed many shops on his land on the side of the main road of Chandrasekharpur Bazar from which he was earning substantial amount by way of rent. It is alleged by the complainant that the accused was, at the relevant time, Inspector of Police at Chandrasekharpur Police Station and was aware that the complainant was receiving good amount of income from s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jun-11-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)AWC3181
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner seeks the quashing of the order dated 16th July, 2005 At passed by the Chancellor of the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi as well as the enquiry report dated 2nd June, 2005 submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi.2. The petitioner was at the relevant time functioning as the Vice-Chancellor, of the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') which was established under the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This was his second tenure of three years and was in continuity of his earlier tenure from 1999 to 2002 and was to come to an end on 31 July, 2005 but the Chancellor of the University by the order dated 16th July, 2005 purporting to exercise his powers under Section 12(12) of the Act removed the petitioner. The said removal order was preceded by issuance of a show cause notice dated 24th June, 2005 issued by the Chancellor of the University whereby the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-16-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN842
S.S. Nijjar, C.J.1. On 15th of March, 2007 this Court passed the following order:1(a). In addition to the order passed in this suo motu petition, there shall be a further order in this writ petition in terms of prayer clause '1':1) An interim order restraining the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 preventing the petitioner organizations other NGOs and voluntary aid organization from reaching Nandigram to provide assistance to injured and deceased villagers.1(b). We further direct the District Administration to ensure that the unclaimed dead bodies are handed over to the appropriate authorities and the identified dead bodies are handed over to the lawful claimants after due legal formalities have been concluded, such as post-mortem and inquest report, so that the relatives are able to perform the last rites of the deceased.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Contempt)In the matter of: The Court on its own Motion1(c). All the newspapers throughout the Nation have today carried as a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-10-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)ALLMR651; 2007(5)BomCR1; 2007(5)MhLj341
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The order of reference dated 16-1-2006, which has occasioned the constitution of this Full Bench, has been passed by the learned Single Judge in view of a divergence of the views of the Division Benches of this Court, the first being in Ramesh Dwarkadas Mehra v. Indravati Dwarkadas Mehra : AIR2001Bom470 and the second in Letters Patent Appeal No. 129 of 1993, Bhagirathi Lingawade and Ors. v. Laxmi Silk Mills, decided on 3-9-1993. The provisions of Section 41(1) of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (for short, 'PSCC Act') and Section 5(4A) of The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Rent Act') crop up for consideration in these petitions. In view of a conflict in the interpretation made by the Division Benches, in the aforesaid cases, on the language of these provisions the learned Single Judge has made a reference to the Larger Bench. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice has accordingly constituted this Full Bench to dec...
Tag this Judgment!