Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2008)17VST465(MP)
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Regard being had to the similitude and interconnectivity of the controversy that is involved in this batch of writ petitions it is disposed of by a singular order. It is condign to state at the outset that in some of the writ petitions, the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in the M.P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (for brevity, 'the 1976 Act') is called in question and prayer has been made to declare the entire enactment ultra vires Articles 301 and 304(b) of the Constitution and in some of the writ petitions the assail is to the constitutional validity of the notifications issued under the 1976 Act on the foundation that they invite the frown on Article 301 of the Constitution and also fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. Keeping in view the nature of the challenge and the contours of the attack I will advert to the issue of validity of the Act first and thereafter I shall dwell upon the substantiality and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)2GLR964
ORDER: Delay condoned. Heard. The special leave petitions are dismissed.' (v) Special Civil Application No. 7372 of 1999 was then filed by Halar Utkarsha Samiti against B.O.R.L. by way of Public Interest Litigation challenging the action/proposed action on the part of the respondents allowing setting up a huge pipeline through the declared Marine Sanctuary and a mandamus was sought for setting aside the decision which was about to be taken by the respondent No. 1 to permit B.O.R.L. to lay the pipeline as per the modified Route 2A passing through the reserved forest and Marine Sanctuary in the Gulf of Kachchh. This Special Civil Application was decided by the Division Bench (Coram: R. K. Abichandani & D. H. Waghela, JJ.) on 10th December, 1999 (page Nos. 48 to 61 of the paper as Annexure-A4 in Special Civil Application No. 1778 of 2000). Paras14. 15, 17 and 19 of this judgment arc reproduced as under : '14. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that there will not be any scop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR3148
ORDERShyamasundar, J. 1. These and other connected Writ Petitions running into two or three thousand in number are directed against four common entities who are arrayed as respondents in these Writ Petitions, their commonness extending even to their itemised positions in the Petitions in that the State is arrayed as the first respondent in all these petitions, the Deputy Commissioners as respondent No. 2, the Administrators as respondent No. 3 and the Mandal Panchayats as respondent No. 4. The common characteristic as aforesaid does not stop just there but spreads even to the factual aspects and the legal issues raised in every one of these Writ Petitions challenging the appointment of Administrators to all the Mandal Panchayats existing in the State of Karnataka numbering in all about 2534 according to information furnished at the hearing of the Writ Petitions.2. The petitioners in all these cases are the Pradhans of the Mandal Panchayats. The office of a Pradhan is an electoral one. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1988]63CompCas210(AP)
P.A. Choudary, J.1. The plaintiff, the State Bank of India, Eluru Branch, is the appellant. It appeals against a judgment of the learned District Judge, Eluru, who in A.S. No. 151 of 1980 confirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing a suit filed by the bank for recovery of a sum of money advanced by the bank as loan to an agriculturist. The bank sued its debtor, who is an agriculturist, in O.S. No.176 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Eluru, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,26.20. That amount was made up of the principal and compound interest due on the loan minus the part payments made by the defendant agriculturist from time to time. 2. The principal sum the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff was only Rs. 7,200 and that amount was secured by a mortgage. But that amount soared to the suit amount even after the defendant had made part payments because of the stipulation in the agreement providing for payment of compound interest. The loan agreement provided for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1987]61CompCas153(Delhi); [1987(54)FLR261]; (1986)IILLJ354Del
H.L. Anand, J. 1. This petition article 226 of the Constitution by a former general manager of the U.K. branches of a nationalised bank, concurrently in-charge of its European operations, assails the purported termination of his service by the Bank on the ground of 'loss of confidence' in him, as a sequel to and as part of a shake up in the higher echelons of the Bank in the wake of the largest bankruptcy of an Asian business house in the U. K., and failure of certain other accounts, allegedly exposing the Bank to the risk of loss of millions of pounds, and raises some interesting, as indeed, difficult questions of law, in relation to service in public sector, as indeed, interaction between the principles of industrial jurisprudence and administrative law following recent constitutional developments in the treatment of public sector undertaking as instrumentalities of the State under article 12 of the Constitution. Some of the questions that the petition raises are perhaps not appropri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. I had the advantage of reading the well-written judgment of my learned brother, A.K. Ganguly, J. Regretfully but respectfully, I am unable to persuade myself to concur with the findings recorded and the exposition of law expressed by my learned brother. In order to discernly state the reasons for my expressing a contrary view and dismissing the appeals of the appellants on merits, it has become necessary for me to state the facts as well as the law in some detail. It has been necessitated for the reason that complete facts, as they appear from the record and the facts which were brought to the notice of the Court during the course of hearing by the respondents, supported by the official records, duly maintained by them in normal course of their business, have not, in their entirety, and correctly been noticed in the judgment. I am also of the considered view that, in fact, the questions framed (particularly question `D') in the judgment by my learned brother neither so comprehensive...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Australia High Court
FRENCH CJ. Introduction 1. At the heart of the common law tradition is "a method of administering justice."[1] That method requires judges who are independent of government to preside over courts held in public in which each party has a full opportunity to present its own case and to meet the case against it. Antithetical to that tradition is the idea of a court, closed to the public, in which only one party, a government party, is present, and in which the judge is required by law to hear evidence and argument which neither the other party nor its legal representatives is allowed to hear. 2. The common law informs the interpretation of the Constitution and statutes made under it. It carries with it the history of the evolution of independent courts as the third branch of government and, with that history, the idea of a court, what is essential to that idea, and what is not. 3. The common law may be changed or abrogated by parliaments. The courts must apply the laws enacted by the parl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1986AP291
1. The facts:--The plaintiff , the State bank of India, Eluru Branch is the appellant. It appeals against a judgment of the learned District Judge, Eluruwho in A.S.No. 151 of 1980 confirmed the judgment of the trial Court dismissing a suit filled byt he Bank for recovery of a sum of money advanced by the Bank as loan to an agriculturist. In O.S.No. 176 of 1979 on the fill of the district Munsif, Eluru for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,260.20. That amount was made up of the principal and compounded interest due on the loan mius the part payments made bythe defendant agrkculturist from time to time .2. The principal sum the defendant borrowedc from the plaintiff was only Rs. 7,200/- and that amount was secured by a mortgage. But that amount soared to be the suit amount even after the defendant had made part payments because of the stipulation of agreement providing for payment of compound interest. The loan agreement provided for the payment 11/2 of interest subject to a condition of the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2006(4)CTC483
ORDERA.P. Shah, C.J.1. W.P. Nos. 18898 of 2000, 19998 of 2001 and 24316 of 2002 have been filed by the Consumer Action Group challenging the constitutional validity of the amended provisions of Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act' as also the Application, Assessment and Collection of Regularisation Fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999, hereinafter be referred to as 'the Rules'.2. Section 113-A was introduced through the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1998), whereby the Government is empowered, on an application being made by the person affected, to exempt any land or building developed immediately before the date of commencement of this Amending Act, from all or any of the provisions of the Act or Rules or Regulations made thereunder, by collecting regularisation fee at such rate not exceeding Rs.2,000/- per square metre. The constitutional validity of Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1994Kant256; ILR1994KAR687
ORDER1. The petition was listed in the preliminary hearing Group 'B'. By consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard on merits and disposed offinally.This petition is presented by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 31-5-1993 passed by the first respondent in Order No. HUD 109 CUP 92 (Annexure-S) on the ground that the same is illegal and without the authority of law having been made in violation of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'), besides being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner has further sought for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to take action under Section 20(2) of the Act by taking over the entire land in Sy. Nos. 97/2 and 98 of Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore on the ground that the land in question is in excess of the ceiling limit and for a further direction to 6th respondent to retain the entire land for the company for its expansion...
Tag this Judgment!