Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals are filed under Section-4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition NO.9762-63/2012 dated 18/06/2012) Vikramajit Sen, C.J. 1. Petitioner No.1, a serving Major in the Indian Army, states that he had fallen in love with Petitioner No.2 who is a foreign citizen, who has been a bona fide student resident in Bangalore for several years and is presently pursuing her doctoral studies. On realizing their resolve to marry each other, Petitioner No.1 filed an application seeking permission to marry petitioner No.2 or if that was considered to be impermissible, to be released from the Army. This request has been rejected and hence they successfully invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this High Court. 2. Events and attitudes in most countries indicate that we are indeed disingenuous and insincere whenever we proclaim, platitudinously, that the world has become a “global village”, distrust and discrimina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. The interplay of the jurisdictions to be exercised under Letters Patent and as the First Appellate Court while dealing with non-appealable orders passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of ordinary original civil jurisdiction has given rise to the present reference. The question, thus, which arises for consideration is: “If an order is passed by the learned single Judge in exercise of Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction which is not appealable under Section 104 (1) read with Order 43 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Code”) whether the remedy would be under Section 10 (1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) or under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent?” 2. The occasion to make this reference arose on account of the fact that at various times pronouncements of this Court have treated it as an “either” or “or” sit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 7(1971)DLT82
S. Rangarajan (1) The petitioners (Messrs Grand Jron Works & others) carry on the business of giving on hire Kohlus (sugarcane crushers) and Karahas (boiling pans) at their Head Office in Chawri Bazar, Delhi, having their depots spread out in various villages in the States of Haryana, Pinjab, H, P., Rajasthan, etc. They run an iron casting foundry-cum-machine Shop at the Indastrial Estate, Okhla, New Delhi. The controversy in this writ petition is concerning the liability of the petitioners to pay the employer's contribution under the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948 in respect of the employees at the Head Office in Chawri Bazar, Delhi, according to the respondents they are so liable by reason at section 2(9) of the said Act, as amended by Act 44 of 1986 The petitioners contention is that since the Office at Chawri Bazar was engaged in the hiring out of the Kohlus and Karahas and the employees working there had absolutely nothing to do with any process or work of or incidental to o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(29)ELT627TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The only issue arising for determination in the present proceedings is the proper classification, under the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as GET), of carbon paper manufactured by the appellants.3. M/s. Kores (India) Ltd., the appellants, purchase duty-paid paper from the market. This paper is coated with a solution of carbon black or lamp black in a greasy/oily medium on a coating machine on one side or both sides, as required, by means of a coating roller and an equalising rod and then passing it through chilled rollers.4. After holding adjudication proceedings, the Assistant Collector, Thane, Division I, by an order dated 18-9-80, held that the carbon paper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.38048 OF2021IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.793 OF2017MOHAMMAD SALIMULLAH AND ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s) ORDER1 Pending disposal of their main writ petition praying for the issue of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to provide basic human amenities to the members of the Rohingya Community, who have taken refuge in India, the petitioners who claim to have registered themselves as refugees with the United Nations High Commission for refugees, have come up with the present interlocutory application seeking (i) the release of the detained Rohingya refugees; and (ii) a direction to the Union of India not to deport the Rohingya refugees who have been detained in the subjail in Jammu.2. We have heard Sh. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel and Sh. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants/writ petitioners, Sh. Tushar Mehta, learned Solici...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1988(19)LC340(Bombay); 1987(31)ELT671(Bom)
ORDER1. The first petitioner-company manufactures, amongst other things, what is known as V. Link Beltings. In the court of manufacture of V. Link Beltings the company utilises cotton fabrics, rubber compounds and volatile solvents as raw materials. This process of manufacture is an uninterrupted process which goes through various stages of production. At one stage rubber compound is dissolved in volatile solvents to prepare a solution which is applied to cotton fabrics without the aid of power. After application of the rubber compound the cotton fabric is cut into pieces and these pieces are placed one over the other as per requirement and thereafter they are vulcanised to form sheetings of the maximum size of 18'/24'. The process of vulcanising is necessary to impart elasticity to the sheeting which is essential for the further use of such sheetings in manufacture of V. Link Beltings. The said sheeting is thereafter cut into strips on a sheeting machine, slit and punched into links o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1987)IILLJ498Ker
ORDERSivaraman Nair, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment of the District Judge, Ernakulam in A.S. No. 78 of 1979, in his capacity as the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. That appeal was filed by the present petitioner against the order in P.W.A. No. 58 of 1976 of the Labour Court, Quilon which is the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 58 of 1976.2. The respondent was the Secretary of the petitioner-Society. She was kept out of employment for a period from 24th November 1975 to 31st August 1976 without payment of salary. She filed P.W.A. No. 58 of 1976 under the Payment of Wages Act, claiming an amount of Rs. 2,177.50 as unpaid wages. The Authority allowed the application to the extent of Rs. 1,526.50, over-ruling the objection of the petitioner-Society on a point of jurisdiction that the dispute should have been referred to and could be decided only by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2192/2006 SHRI ASHOK REKHI ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aquib Ali, Mr. Manik Ahluwalia, Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Advs. versus SMT. CHANDA BHASIN & OTHERS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. V.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sakal Bhushan, Adv. for D-5. Date of Decision :06. h April, 2015 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) IA No.1207/2015 1. Present application has been filed under order 14 Rule 5 for framing of an additional issue. The additional issue sought to be framed is as under:Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in so far as the immovable property i.e. 2840 sq. ft.of land forming part of the Emily Cottage, Ayar Patta, Mallital, Nainital, Uttranchal as detailed in para No.7 read with 11(c) of the plaint is concerned, being situated outside its territorial jurisdiction?. OPD-52. Mr. V.K. Gupta, learned senior counsel for defendant No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi933
Prakash Narain, J. (1) An exparte decree in favor of Union of India and against Arjan Singh for recovery of Rs. 47,521/7.00 was passed on 14-4-1960 by the Court of Shri V. B. Bansal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi. The Delhi High Court Act, 1966 came into effect from October 31, 1966. On 17-4-1967, the Union of India moved an execution application (O.M. 434/67) in this Court to execute the decree passed by the Court of Shri V. B. Bansal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi. Notice of this execution application was issued to the judgment debtor, Arjan Singh- After notice had been served on Arjan Singh he moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13(1) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the court of Shri V. B. Bansal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, to set aside the exparte decree passed against him. On 21-7-1967 Arjan Singh filed objections to the execution application filed in this Court. The learned Sub Judge sent the application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code moved by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on : May 05, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : July 01, 2014 + EFA (OS) 3/2014 GOYAL MG GASES PRIVATE LTD. .....Appellant Represented by: Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Tarun and Mr.Siran Mehta, Advocates versus MESSER GRIESHEIM GMBH .....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Amit Sibal, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms.Mohna M.Lal, Ms.Geetali Talukdar and Mr.Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Vide impugned order dated November 29, 2013 the learned Single Judge has dismissed EA No.32/2007, EA No.152/2008 and EA No.470/2009 filed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has held : (a) That since the decree sought to be executed is in sum of more than `20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) the High Court of Delhi has jurisdiction to execute the decree. (b) On merits challenge to the foreign decree on the plea that it violates ...
Tag this Judgment!