Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR727
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a 'Dazan' (Associate) of Shree Bhagwati Chimulkarrin Devasthan of Marcela, Goa (hereinafter referred to as the said Devasthan). According to the petitioner, the said Devasthan has bye-laws, duly approved by Port aria (Order) No. 108, which were published in the Government Gazette No. 83 dated 27-10-1910. The said bye-laws contemplate two managing committees, namely one managing committee of 'Mahajans' and the other managing committee of 'Dazans'. The functions of the said committees are distinct and defined in the bye-laws, as can be seen from various articles, especially Articles 3, 4, 10, 23, 29, 33 and 34. The petitioner further contends that the treasury of 'Dazans' is distinct and independent from the treasury of the 'Mahajans'. Respondents No. 5 to 12 claimed that they should be appointed as 'Mahajans' of the said Devasthan, but the same was denied to them, as a result of which, the said respondents moved the Government and obtain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.By the order passed by us on April 1, 2011, we had allowed this appeal. We had, further, observed that we will indicate our reasons by a separate judgment. We do so herein.2. The Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, like other Municipal Acts, provides for the election of the Municipal Councillors, the Mayor or Chief Councillor and the Deputy Mayor/Deputy Chief Councillor. It also provides for an Empowered Standing Committee to exercise the executive power of the Municipality. This committee is supposed to consist of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and seven other Councillors nominated by the Mayor/Chief Councillor under section 21 (3) of this Act. Section 27 of this Act provides that the term of office of the Mayor/Chief Councillor and the members of the Empowered Standing Committee shall be co-terminous with the duration of members of the Municipality. The Act provides for the removal of the Mayor/Chief Councillor and the Deputy Mayor/Deputy Chief Councillor under section 25 (4) of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. - 436 U.S. 307 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978) Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. No. 76-1143 Argued January 9, 1978 Decided May 23, 1978 436 U.S. 307 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO Syllabus Appellee brought this action to obtain injunctive relief against a warrantless inspection of its business premises pursuant to 8(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), which empowers agents of the Secretary of Labor to search the work area of any employment facility within OSHA's jurisdiction for safety hazards and violations of OSHA regulations. A three-judge District Court ruled in appellee's favor, concluding, in reliance on Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 , 387 U. S. 528 -529, and See v. Seattle, 387 U. S. 541 , 387 U. S. 543 , that the Fourth Amendment required a warrant for the type of search involved and that the statutory authorization fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975MP217
Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises a question as to the validity of the fee imposed by Bye-law 7 of the Building Permission (Fees, Composition Fee) Bye-laws, 1973, of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur.2. The petitioner has filed this petition as a guardian of his minor son. An application was made to the Corporation on behalf of the minor for permission to construct a building. As a prerequisite to the grant of permission, the petitioner was required to pay to the Corporation Rs. 225/- as fee payable under the bye-laws. The petitioner contends that the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, which is the relevant Statute, does net authorise the Corpora lion to charge any fee for grant of building permission, that the provisions under which the bye-laws purport to have been made do not refer to any fee and that the impost is a tax in the garb of fee. The petitioner prays that the bye-laws be quashed and that a direction be issued to the Corpor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1954CriLJ1093
Misra, C.J.1. The following four questions have been referred by a Full Bench of three judges to a Fuller Bench of five judges:(1) Whether the Hyderabad Defence Regulation, having regard to its preamble, language, emergency and the constitutional set up at the State then existing was operative only during the period of emergency for which it was promulgated and should be deemed to have lapsed afterwards without any express repealment;(2) whether the directions contained in the Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order of 1355-F. about the publication of a press-note explaining its provisions read with R. 110 at the Defence of Hyderabad Rules are man-datory;(3) whether the directions by the Textile Commissioner about the markings on the bales having regard to the definition of 'Cloth'. 'Yarn' and other provisions of the Order of 1352-P., under which it was framed as well as the later Order are not within the scope of his delegated authority and therefore ultra vires; and(4) whether Sections 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1984)IILLJ140AP
Chennakesav Reddi, J.1. A controversy of considerable interest and public importance is aroused by this Writ Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. It is (a) whether right to employment is a fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 16 of the Constitution and (b) whether past prejudicial conduct and antecedents of a person relating to his subversive political activity prescribed as a disqualification for employment under Government of India in Office Memoranda dated 27th September, 1967 and 1st August, 1975 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, amounts to an infraction of the provisions of Art. 16 of the Constitution. 2. The controversy in this case grew out of the denial of employment to one Kalluri Vasayya, to a Civil post - a post of Time-Scale Clerk in the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department, Government of India. Vasayya, a Science Graduate, applied for the post of Time-Scale Clerk in the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1 Rule. 2 The Respondents waive service. 3 By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 4 By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Dadar (East), Mumbai-14 in Case No.4100087/SW/2012 whereby he issued the process for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 3(3), 3(4) r/w 36 of the Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Act, 2006 (for short the said Act). This process was issued on a complaint which was lodged by the Respondent No.2 /Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai. 5 The complaint alleges that on 02.12.2012 at about 3:33 a.m., the officer concerned of Watch Room of Colaba Fire Station received a message from the Control Room to attend the Fire Call at Jolly Maker-I Cooperative Housing Society as fire broke out therein. The officer concerned had atte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1984Delhi123; 25(1984)DLT201
Sachar, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the election as members of Delhi Development Authority of three representatives of the Metropolitan Council from amongst themselves held on 21.7.1983.(2) Election to the Metropolitan Council were held in the month of February, 1983. At present out of 56 elected members 34 belong to the political party, known as Congress (1) and 22 belong to the opposition ; 19 of political party known as Bharatiya Janata Party (B.J.P.) ; 2 of Lok Dal and I of Janata. The petitioner is elected member from the Patel Nagar Constituency and belongs to B.J.P.(3) Parliament has passed an Act called Delhi Administration Act, 1966 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1966). The Act provides for the administration of the Union Territory of Delhi and for matters connected therewith.(4) Section 3 of the Act of 1966 provides for a constitution of Metropolitan Council for Delhi. Total number of seats in the Metropolitan Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1983LC1793D(Karnataka); 1983(14)ELT2270(Kar)
ORDER1. M/s. British Physical Laboratories India Limited, Petitioner No. 1, is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and has its registered office at Palghat, State of Kerala and has its Head Office at M. G. Road, Bangalore City. Sri M. A. Uppal, who represents petitioner No. 1 as its 'Finance Director', is the second petitioner in the case. In the course of my order hereafter, I will refer to petitioner No. 1 who is the principal petitioner as the petitioner in the case. 2. The petitioner is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale of sophisticated electronic instruments and equipments at its factories situated at Palghat and Avalahali, Old Madras Road, Bangalore Distt. From 1982 the petitioner has started the manufacture of television sets and video cassette recorders (hereinafter referred to as T. Vs and VCRs). The petitioner has its sales offices at Bangalore, Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi. 3. The manufacturing places at Palghat, Avalahali and portions o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(4)ALD210; 2006(4)ARBLR75(AP)
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The profession of law is called a noble profession. It does not remain noble merely by calling it as such unless there is a continued, corresponding and expected performance of this noble profession observed the Apex Court in Satish Sharma v. Bar Council of A.P. 2001(2) SCC 365. In Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor 2001(1) SCC 118, the learned Judges held that the lawyers are a force for the preservance and strengthening of Constitutional Government as they are guardians of the modern legal system. While dealing with the locus standi of lawyers in maintaining the Public Interest Litigation in relation to the matters concerned with the independence of judiciary in S.P. Gupta and Ors. v. President of India and Ors. : [1982]2SCR365 , it was held that there can be no doubt that the practising lawyers have a vital interest in the independence of the judiciary and if any unconstitutional or illegal action is taken by the State or any public authority which has th...
Tag this Judgment!