Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1973)14GLR237
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This appeal is filed by the original accused who has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 66-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'), by the City Magistrate, 2nd Court, Ahmedabad, in Summary Case No. 879 of 1970, and sentenced to suffer six months, rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 750/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment. He is convicted of the said offence for possession of 1,500 grams of opium without pass or permit.2. This appeal came up for hearing before our learned Brother B. K. Mehta, J. It was urged before him on behalf of the appellant (original accused) that the evidence led by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove the fact that the substance found in possession of the appellant, even if the prosecution evidence is believed, was 'opium' within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the Act. It was the possession of opium falling...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1958CriLJ115
ORDEROak, J.1. These seven connected revisions have been filed by ten persons, who were convicted by the learned Special Magistrate, first class, Baraut, district Meerut, under Seciton 299, U. P. Municipalities Act. Amin Nagar Sarai is a Town Area in district Meerut. The ten applicants are residents of Amin Nagar Sarai, and are butchers.2. According to the prosecution, the Town Area Committee, Amin Nagar Sarai passed on 23-3-1948 a resolution prohibiting the slaughter of cows, buffaloes and other animals, and forbidding the sale of meat of these animals within the limits of the Town Area. The bye-law was duly confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Baghpat, On 16-10-1952 the ten applicants slaughtered a buffalo within the limits of the Town Area, and they sold the meat of the slaughtered animal. The ten applicants were therefore, prosecuted under Section 299 of the U. P. Municipalities Act for a breach of the bye-law.3. The trial of the ten accused was split up In seven separate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)ALLMR583; 2003(3)BomCR347; [2003]114CompCas378(Bom); [2003]42SCL769(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The important yet interesting question pertaining to legislation by incorporation has been raised in this writ petition. The question is whether in Section 2(e) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions, Act, 1993 (for snort, 'Act of 1993') which says that 'Banking Company' shall have the meaning assigned to it in Clause (c) of Section 5 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Co-operative Bank is included by virtue of Section 56(a)(i) of Banking Regulation Act which provides that unless context otherwise requires, reference to 'Banking Company' shall be construed as reference to 'Co-operative Bank'.2. The aforesaid question arises in the facts and circumstances which we very briefly narrate hereinafter. The Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. a Scheduled Multi State Co-operative Bank is the 1st petitioner in the writ petition. M/s Star Glass Works respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 carrying on the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC605A
ORDER1. We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.' - Jonathan Swift2. Swami Vivekananda said -Religion is not in doctrines, in dogmas, nor in intellectual argumentation; it is being and becoming, it is realisation. This thought comes to mind as we contemplate the roots of this controversy. Genesis of this dispute is traceable to erosion of some fundamental values of the plural commitments of our polity.3. The constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (No. 33 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. 33 of 1993' or 'the Act') and the maintainability of Special Reference No. 1 of 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Reference') made by the President of India under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India are the questions for decision herein. The background in which these questions are to be answered is contained in the facts stated in the White Paper on Ayodhya, February 1993, issued by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(2)ALLMR110; 2007(1)BomCR329
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The creative judicial interpretation of Article 21 by our constitutional Courts, has broadened our vision, in understanding the expression 'right to life'. Preventing degradation of our ecology and protection of our environment, including the right to clean drinking water and pollutant free atmosphere are some of its facets. Ecological factors as judicially understood, indisputably are relevant considerations in Town and Country Planning Statutes. Courts to preserve the environment and ecology of 'Earth' our home for the present and future generations whilst interpreting environmental laws, lean in favour of protection. The questions raised by the petitioners and which fall for our consideration, give rise to a host of legal issues. Can the State, citing its financial inability to provide housing to encroachers on public and private lands residing in structures which came up before 1-1-1995 to whom it has granted protection from eviction or its inability to free RG a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1125; 1997(1)BLJR735; (1997)1CALLT55(SC); 83(1997)CLT815(SC); 1997(92)ELT318(SC); [1997]228ITR725(SC); JT1997(3)SC589; 1997(1)MPLJ621; 1997(I)OLR(SC)408; 1997(3)SC
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, C.J.1. The special leave petitions, civil appeals and writ petitions which together constitute the present batch of matters before us owe their origin to separate decisions of different High Courts and several provisions in different enactments which have been made the subject of challenge. Between them, they raise several distinct questions of law; they have, however been grouped together as all of them involve the consideration of the following broad issues: (1) Whether the power conferred upon Parliament or the Stale Legislatures, as the case may be, by Sub-clause (d) of Clause (2) of Article 323A or by Sub-clause (d) of Clause (3) of Article 323B of the Constitution, totally exclude the jurisdiction of 'all courts', except that of the Supreme Court under Article 136, in respect of disputes and complaints referred to in Clause (1) of Article 323A or with regard to all or any of the matters specified in Clause (2) of Article 323B, runs counter to the power of judici...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(9)SC218; 2003(10)SCALE1; (2004)9SCC512
S.B. Sinha, J.THE BACKGROUND FACT:1. The appellant (Club) herein is an association incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom. It is a mutual association of ship owners. It offers insurance cover in respect of the vessels entered with it for diverse third party risks associated with the operation and trading of vessels. According to the appellant, no vessel operates without a Protection & Indemnity (P&I;) cover and the same has been made compulsory to allow a ship to enter major ports in India. 2. 'Sea Ranger' and 'Sea Glory' are the sister vessels of the 1st respondent vessel and they are allegedly owned by the 2nd respondent. The first two vessels entered into a contract with the appellant's association for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 but they have not paid the unpaid insurance premium due and payable by the 2nd respondent for various P&I; risks for which they had been insured. These unpaid insurance calls being 'necessaries' was enforceable within the 'admiralty jurisdi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC605; JT1994(6)SC632; (1994)6SCC360; [1994]Supp5SCR1
J.S. Verma, J.We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.- Jonathan Swift1. Swami Vivekananda said -Religion is not in doctrines, in dogmas, nor in intellectual argumentation; it is being and becoming, it is realisation.This thought comes to mind as we contemplate the roots of this controversy. Genesis of this dispute is traceable to erosion of some fundamental values of the plural commitments of our polity.2. The constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (No. 33 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. 33 of 1993' or 'the Act') and the maintainability of Special Reference No. 1 of 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Reference') made by the President of India under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India are the questions for decision herein. The background in which these questions are to be answered is contained in the facts stated in the White Paper on Ayodhya, February 1993, issued...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G. S. Singhvi, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether a Village Panchayat established under Section 3 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') or any other statutory dispensation existing prior to the enactment of the Act has the locus to file a petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution for setting aside an order passed by the designated officer exercising the power of an appellate authority qua the action/decision/resolution of the Village Panchayat is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals filed against order dated 18.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench in Writ Petition Nos. 16 and 312of 2010.3. M/s. Kay Jay Constructions Company Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter described as, 'the company') (respondent No.4 in the appeal arising out of SLP (C)No.1758 of 2011) was granted permission by the appellant in 2006 for raising construction on property bearing Survey No. 362/12 and part of Survey No. 362/10 at Porba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995(1)BomCR342; (1994)96BOMLR161; (1995)IILLJ514Bom
D.R. Dhanuka, J. 1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has preferred this appeal against order dated April 29, 1983 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay in Application (ESI) No. 27 of 1979. By the impugned order under appeal, the trial Court held that the head office/principal office and warehouse of the applicant company were not covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. By the said order, the trial Court further held that the establishments mentioned in para. 6 of the application (Exhibit C-1) were also not amenable to coverage under the said Act. By the said order, it was further declared that the applicant company was not required to comply with any provisions of the E.S.I. Act and/or the Scheme and/or the Regulations framed thereunder in respect of or in relation to any of the concerned establishments or the persons employed therein till the time the position disclosed in the application (Exh. C-1) subsisted. 2. Indian Sewing Machine Co. Ltd. is a...
Tag this Judgment!