Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-22-2001
Reported in : AIR2002Bom39; 2002(1)ALLMR818; 2001(3)BomCR285; 2001(3)MhLj339
Marlapalle, J.1. All these petitions have assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 29th of November, 2000 passed by the Minister of State for Urban Development. Government of Maharashtra under Section 313(1)(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, Municipalities Act), By the said order the Municipal Council at Dhule came to be superseded by the Government. The Writ Petition No. 4901 of 2000 has been filed by two sitting Councillors and Writ Petition No. 5142 of 2000 has been filed by the three sitting Councillors, whereas Writ Petition No. 5011 of 2000 has been filed by the President of the Municipal Council, Dhule, By our interim order dated 1st December, 2000 the impugned, order was stayed and, therefore, the elected body continued to be in office, including its President, during the pendency of these petitions.2. On behalf of the State Government the Joint Secretary from the Urban ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-13-2001
Reported in : 2002(2)ALLMR517; 2002(3)MhLj895
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the Indian Medical Association, Nandurbar Branch through its President, Dr. Sunil Shah. The petitioner No. 1 is the branch of Association of Medical Practitioners at the national level and the petition is filed in public interest by the said association at Nandurbar. The Indian Medical Association at the national level is a legal entity, the petitioner No. 2 is the resident of village Dangri, Tq. Amalner. The petitioner No. 3 is the resident of Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. The petitioners have challenged the decision of the Government of Maharashtra to establish Government Medical College with 100 seats intake capacity at Kolhapur and have further sought directions against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to establish a new Medical College or increase the seats available in the existing Medical Colleges for M.B.B.S. course in the Marathwada and Vidarbha regions. The petitioners have also sought a Wri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-28-2001
Reported in : 2002(1)BomCR419
Singh, C.J. 1. This batch of appeals has been preferred by the several defendants against the order passed by a learned Judge of this Court exercising original jurisdiction in Notices of Motion No. 3120 of 1997 and 3932 of 1998 in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 M. Sreenivasulu Reddy v. Kishore R. Chhabria [2001] 34 SCL 1. In the suit, the plaintiffs have challenged the substantial acquisitions of shares of defendant No. 12 by some of the defendants on the ground of the acquisitions being in breach of regulations framed by the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which had come into force with effect from 7-11-1994. The learned Judge, by the impugned common order, made the notices of motion absolute in part. It was held that the plaintiffs do have a prima facie right to maintain the suit to seek a declaration that the acquisition of the disputed shares is void being in breach of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers), Regulations, 1994 ('the 1994 Regulations'). It has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-10-2001
Reported in : AIR2002SC350; [2002]108CompCas193(SC); (2002)1CompLJ205(SC); [2002(1)JCR339(SC)]; JT2001(10)SC466; (2002)ILLJ550SC; 2001(8)SCALE541; (2002)2SCC333; [2002]35SCL182(SC); 2002
Kirpal, J.1. The validity of the decision of the Union of India to disinvest and transfer 51% shares of M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BALCO') is the primary issue in these cases.2. BALCO was incorporated in 1965 as a Government of India Undertaking under the Companies Act, 1956. Prior to its disinvestments it had a paid-up share capital of Rs. 488.85 crores which was owned and controlled by the Government of India. The company is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium and had plants at Korba in the State of Chhattisgarh and Bidhanbag in the State of West Bengal. The Company has integrated aluminium manufacturing plant for the manufacture and sale of aluminium metal including wire rods and semi-fabricated products.3. The Government of Madhya Pradesh vide its letter dated 18th March, 1968 wrote to BALCO stating that it proposed that land be granted to it on a 99 years lease subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. The letter envisaged gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-12-2001
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD210; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)137; 2002(1)ALT611; 2002CriLJ1105
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Possession and transport of black jaggery although by itself is not an offence, can the vehicles carrying the same, be liable to be seized under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act is the question involved in these writ applications? 2. Facts of each case may be noticed briefly thus: In Writ Petition No. 354 of 2001 the petitioners were transporting 10176 kilograms of jaggery in a lorry bearing No. ABT 5508. The said lorry was seized and such seizure is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that it is illegal and arbitrary. Writ Petition No. 19706 of 2000 is filed assailing the action of the respondents in interfering with their day-to-day business in all varieties of jaggery and alum. The petitioners in Writ Petition N0.22705 of 2000 seek quashing of the criminal proceedings and also to declare the seizure of jaggery as illegal and void. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that sale of jaggery is neither ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-21-2001
..... . egelhoff, post, at 149 (noting possible "choice-of-iaw problems" presented by state laws affecting administration of employee retirement income security act of 1974 plans), and the necessity of bifurcation of proceedings in those cases where state law precludes arbitration of certain types ..... employees and employers to enter into arbitration agreements. it is argued that states should be permitted, pursuant to their traditional role in regulating employment relationships, to prohibit employees like respondent from contracting away their right to pursue state-law discrimination ..... , e. g., watt v. western nuclear, inc., 462 u. s. 36 , 44, n. 5 (1983). the court today turns this practice upside down, using ejusdem generis to establish that the text is so ..... act (faa or act) is not consistent with its expansive reading of 2. i join his dissent, but believe that the court's heavy reliance on the views expressed by the courts of appeals during the past decade makes it appropriate to comment on three earlier chapters in the history of this venerable statute. i section 2 ..... t "[i]t is not intended that this shall be an act referring to labor disputes, at all," but he also observed that "if your honorable committee should feel that there is any danger of that, they should add to the bill the following ..... engineering, inc. v. united elec. & machine workers of am., 207 f. 2d 450 (ca3 1953). we granted certiorari to resolve the issue. 529 u. s. 1129 (2000). ii a congress enacted the faa in 1925. as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-28-2001
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly - 533 U.S. 525 (2001) OCTOBER TERM, 2000 Syllabus LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. ET AL. v. REILLY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 00-596. Argued April 25, 200l-Decided June 28, 2001* Mter the Attorney General of Massachusetts (Attorney General) promulgated comprehensive regulations governing the advertising and sale of cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and cigars, petitioners, a group of tobacco manufacturers and retailers, filed this suit asserting, among other things, the Supremacy Clause claim that the cigarette advertising regulations are pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA), which prescribes mandatory health warnings for cigarette packaging and advertising, 15 U. S. C. 1333, and pre-empts similar state regulations, 1334(b); and a claim that the regulations violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. In...
Tag this Judgment!