Court : Punjab and Haryana
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-790-MA-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 18, 2013 **** M/S.Tata Steel LTD.. . Petitioners versus M/S.Atma Tube Products LTD.& ORS.. . Respondents **** CRM-A-547-MA-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 18, 2013 **** Kesar Singh . . Petitioner versus Dheeraj Kumar . . Respondent **** CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HONBLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH HONBLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. **** Present: Mr.HL Tikku, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate; Mr.Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate (in CRM-790-MA-2010) Mr.PS Ahluwalia and Mr.Arjun Sheoran, Advocates (CRM-A-547-MA-2011) for the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Mr.Pardeep S. Poonia, Additional AG Haryana; Mr.Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana; Mr.Saurabh Mohunta, DAG Haryana; and Mr.Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana Mr.Amit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1182; 1973(0)BLJR502; 37(1971)CLT539(SC); (1971)2SCC236; [1971]SuppSCR319
Hegde, J.1. In this appeal by certificate the vires of Rule 111 of the Rules framed under Section 90 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 is in issue. The appellant, Indian Mica & Micanite Industries contends that the said Rule is ultra vires the Constitution. The High Court of Patna rejected that contention.2. In the High Court various contentions came up for consideration. The High Court has come to the conclusion that the levy made under the impugned rule is a fee. That finding was not challenged before us by any of the parties. Therefore all that we have to see is whether the fee levied is within the permissible limit. In other words whether there is sufficient quid pro quo for the levy in question.3. The appellant is a consumer of denatured spirit. It purchases denatured spirit from the wholesalers or the manufacturers for the purpose of manufacturing micanite. The Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (Bihar & Orissa Act 2 of 1915) came into force on January 19, 1916. In pursuanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3290; 2000(4)ALLMR(SC)862; [2000(87)FLR610]; 2000(6)SCALE586; (2000)8SCC167; [2000]Supp3SCR513
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C)No. 12499 of 1997.2. The controversy raised in all these appeals relates to validity of the revision of license fee under the Andhra Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') which was introduced by the State Government by G.O.Ms. No. 154, E & F Deptt. Dated 26.07,1994. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the cases, they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The appellants who are owners of factories located in the State of Andhra Pradesh challenged the levy of revised license fee by filing writ petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The challenge was on several grounds some of which are not relevant for the purpose of the present proceedings. Suffice it to state that the main grounds on which the revised license fee was challenged were(i) that the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') does not impose license fee as the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC480; 1959CriLJ533; 1959Supp(1)SCC715; [1959]Supp1SCR715
Wanchoo, J. 1. This appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court raises a question relating to the interpretation of certain provisions of the U.P. District Boards Act, (U.P. X of 1922), and the U.P. Town Areas Act (U.P. No. II of 1914). It is necessary to state the facts on which the question has arisen. Asa Ram appellant runs certain machines with the aid of power in premises which are in locality which is admittedly within the Jalalabad town area since the year 1953-54. He did not take out a licence for running these machines for 1953-54, as required by bye-law (7) of the Muzaffarnagar Factories Bye-laws, framed by the District Board of Muzaffarnagar, under section 174(1)(k) read with section 106 of the District Boards Act. Consequently, he was prosecuted for contravening the bye-laws in question. He admitted that he was running these machines with the aid of power; but his contention was that as the premises where the machines were running were in the town area of Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All753
Bind Basni Prasad, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against (1) the Municipal Board of Allahabad, (2) the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, and (3) the State of Uttar Pradesh, in which the relief prayed is that a writ of Mandamus or directions be issued or such other suitable orders be passed as the Court may deem fit to restrain the Municipal Board of Allahabad from enforcing its bye-laws published by Notification No. 4100/XXIII-82(3)-49 in the U. P. Gazette, dated the 31st March, 1951. The facts are as follows:2. The applicant is a butcher and carries on the business of slaughtering cows, bulls and calves at Allahabad. Bye-laws to regulate the slaughter of animals have been in existence in this Municipality since 1916. On 31-3-1951, an amendment was made in these bye-laws according to which Clause (iii) of bye-law No. 1 was inserted to the following effect: 'No bull, bullock, cow, calf (both male and female) shall be slaughtered in any slaug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD759; 2002(1)ALT227
A.R. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order-dated 1.11.2001 in W.P. No. 18761 of 2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.2. The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant to declare that the application submitted by the 4th respondent herein -MNR Educational Trust, Kukatpally to the respondents 1 and 2 for issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for establishment of a B.Ed College in Hyderabad East Revenue Division pursuant to the notification dated 24.2.1998 issued by the Director of School Education as nonexistent and the NOC granted to the 4th respondent on 30.12.2000 and the subsequentdecision taken by the State Level Standing Committee (SLSC) on 28/29-8-2001 not to cancel the NOC already granted to the 4th respondent on 30.12.2000 as illegally and void and to direct the 3rd respondent not to grant permission to the 4th respondent for establishment of B.Ed., College in Hyderabad East...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Staples v. United States - 511 U.S. 600 (1993) OCTOBER TERM, 1993 Syllabus STAPLES v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No.92-1441. Argued November 30, 1993-Decided May 23,1994 The National Firearms Act criminalizes possession of an unregistered "firearm," 26 U. S. C. 5861(d), including a "machinegun," 5845(a)(6), which is defined as a weapon that automatically fires more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger, 5845(b). Petitioner Staples was charged with possessing an unregistered machine gun in violation of 5861(d) after officers searching his home seized a semiautomatic riflei. e., a weapon that normally fires only one shot with each trigger pullthat had apparently been modified for fully automatic fire. At trial, Staples testified that the rifle had never fired automatically while he possessed it and that he had been ignorant of any automatic firing capability. He was convicted after the District Court rejected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3616
Janardan Sahai and S.P. Mehrotra, JJ.1. In these three Writ Petitions identical controversy is involved and as such all these Writ Petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in these cases and the counsel for the parties are agreed that the Petitions may be disposed of finally.2. The petitioners are mining lease holders of Sand on the Yamuna River bed in portions of District-Kaushambi. They were granted mining leases in the year 2006 which are operative for a period of three years i.e. till 2009. There is a condition in the lease deed that they will not conduct mining operations by use of machines except with the permission of the District Magistrate. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not obtained any permission from the District Magistrate. The petitioners are aggrieved by the stoppage of mining operations on the basis of oral orders of the District Magistrate. Other contentions have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Mathews - 165 U.S. 1 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Mathews, 165 U.S. 1 (1897) St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company v. Mathews No. 105 Argued and submitted November 4, 1890 Decided January 4, 1897 165 U.S. 1 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI Syllabus A statute of a state which enacts that every railroad corporation owning or operating a railroad in the state shall be responsible in damages to the owner of any property injured or destroyed by fire communicated directly or indirectly by locomotive engines in use upon its railroad, and which provides that it shall have an insurable interest in the property upon the route of its railroad, and may procure insurance thereon in its own behalf, does not violate the Constitution of the United States as depriving the railroad company of its property without due process of law, or as denying to it the equal protection of the laws, or as impai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J. 1. These appeals have been filed challenging the judgment dated 17/11/2015 in WP(C) No. 19503/2015. Writ Appeal No.2760/15 is filed by the Ramapuram Grama Panchayat, the 1st respondent in the writ petition and WA No. 78/2016 has been filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition has been filed by the 1st respondent in these appeals challenging Exts.P6 and P7 and for a direction to the respondent Panchayat to grant licence in favour of the petitioner's quarry. The parties are referred to as shown in the writ petition. 3. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, a Private Limited Company, had obtained quarrying lease from Government of Kerala for quarrying granite building stones from a property having an extent of 4.1341 hectares which is situated in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat. Petitioner obtained Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short SEIAA) as per procee...
Tag this Judgment!