1
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-13-1972
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi649; 1973LabIC754
ORDERSunder Section 33B themselves may be either administrative or quasi-judicial according to the context. An order transferring one industrial dispute from one Labour Court to another for purely administrative reasons, such as a transfer of the concerned officer, or in order to re-distribute the work between different officers, and it is so stated in the order of transfer itself, would be purely administrative and could not be said to be quasi-judicial. On the other hand, if, as in the present case, when proceedings are pending before a Labour Court and evidence is actually being recorded by that Court any transfer from that Court to another on the ground that the presiding officer was prejudiced against one of the parties must obviously be made after notice to the other side. Propriety and fairness would require that the concerned judicial officer should not only be apprised of what is stated against him but also must be given an opportunity of making his own comments on such allega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-26-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Delhi15
1. The respondent therein M/s. Rishi Raj and Company filed an application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st, Class, Delhi, under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for referring certain disputes between the respondent and the appellant to arbitration of the arbitrator named in the agreement dated 5-11-1963. According to the averments in the application, the Regional Director (Food), Northern Region, had issued an invitation to tender dated 21-9-1963 for the appointment of loading/unloading and transport contractors at Government of India Godowns and Railway Heads at Agra. The tender submitted by the respondent was accepted by the government by its letter of acceptance dated 11-10-1963. The respondent commenced the work but before the work was completed and before the expiry of the period of the contract, the Regional Director (Food) cancelled the contract on 25-6-1964. The Regional Director further claimed a sum of Rs.21,314.15 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-19-1972
Reported in : AIR1972SC2119; [1972]83ITR720(SC); (1972)1SCC508; [1972]3SCR118
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court arising out of a reference under the Wealth Tax Act 1957 in which the question involved is one of importance, namely, whether a Jain undivided family is included in the expression 'Hindu undivided family' within Section 3 of the Act.2. The facts are few and may be stated. For the assessment year 1957-58, the valuation date being 31.12.1956 the Wealth Tax Officer assessed the family assets of the assessee in the status of a Hindu undivided family. On appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the contentions raised, inter alia, were that (1) upon the description of the assessee in the notice of demand the assessment should be deemed to have been made in the status of an association of persons which was not a unit on which tax could be levied under the Act; (2) even if the assessee was to be treated as a Hindu undivided family, the imposition of wealth tax on such family was ultra vires ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-05-1972
California v. LaRue - 409 U.S. 109 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109 (1972) California v. LaRue No. 71-36 Argued October 10, 1972 Decided December 5, 1972 409 U.S. 109 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Following hearings, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control issued regulations prohibiting explicitly sexual live entertainment and films in bars and other establishments licensed to dispense liquor by the drink. A three-judge District Court held the regulations invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, concluding that, under standards laid down by this Court, some of the proscribed entertainment could not be classified as obscene or lacking a communicative element. Held: In the context not of censoring dramatic performances in a theater, but of licensing bars and nightclubs to sell liquor by the drink, the States have broad latitude under the Twenty-first Amendment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-04-1972
Reported in : (1973)ILLJ600AP
A.D.V. Reddy, J.1. In this writ petition the constitutional validity of Sections 8(3), 11 and 13 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, and the action taken thereunder are questioned.2. The petitioner M/s. Swaraj Motor Works have an auto workshop at Guntur attending to car repairs employing 17 workmen. A memo was sent to the petitioner on 25-11-1970 by the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor, Industrial Training Institute, Vijayawada, purporting to be under the Apprentices Act (52 of 1961) and the rules made thereunder directing them to take one Narasimba Rao as an apprentice for a period of two years on stipendiary basis of Rs. 60/70 per month.3. According to the petitioner he intimated the 2nd respondent stating his incapacity to entertain an apprentice on payment basis, but the 2nd respondent insisted, by another memo, on his taking an apprentice and directed him to intimate to him the date of the apprentice joining the firm. Hence this petition,4. It is now contended that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-06-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Mad393; (1973)1MLJ81
1. The fourth defendant is the appellant in the Second appeal which arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale of the suit properties. The first defendant is the husband of the second defendant and the minor third defendant is the step-sister of the second defendant. Defendants 1 to 3 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the share of the second defendant as well as share of the third defendant to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. An advance of Rs. 500/- was received. A period of four months was fixed for completion. In executing the agreement the first defendant acted as guardian for his sister-in-law, the minor third defendant. When the plaintiff pressed the defendants to complete the transaction, the second defendant repudiated the agreement itself while on behalf of the third defendant, the objection was raised that the first defendant had no authority to represent her. On 17-10-1964, the second defendant so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-20-1972
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1574
ORDERM. Santhosh, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, for enhancement of sentence passed on the respondent-accused (who will hereinafter be referred to as the accused). The accused was convicted of an offence under Section 135 (B) (ii) of the Customs Act; he was also convicted for contravening Rule 126-P (2) (ii) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963. The trial Court sentenced him to suffer 6 months' R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer each of the two offences. The substantive sentences were directed to run doncurrently. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge of Belgaum, who confirmed the conviction of the accused for both the offences; but the learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentence from 6 months' R. I. to one month's R. I, for each of the offences. He retained the fine of Rs. 500/-. This order passed by the learned Sessions Judge reducing the se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-21-1972
Reported in : (1973)14GLR410
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal raises an interesting question of law as to the effect of repeal of Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Saurashtra Rent Act) on a suit filed by a landlord against a tenant in respect of premises exempt from the applicability of the Saurashtra Rent Act by reason of Section 4(2) of that Act. The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows.2. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant to recover possession of certain premises let to the defendant. The premises were situate in Bagasara which was formerly part of Saurashtra. The case of the plaintiff was that the premises were new premises erected and let for the first time after 1st January 1951 and, therefore, by reason of the exemption contained in Section 4(2), the Saurashtra Rent Act had no application to the premises and the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the premises under the ordinary law of landlor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-24-1972
S & E Contractors, Inc. v. United States - 406 U.S. 1 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court S & E Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 406 U.S. 1 (1972) S & E Contractors, Inc. v. United States No. 70-88 Argued October 21, 1971 Reargued March 20, 1972 Decided April 24, 1972 406 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus In a contract disputes procedure, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) approved claims of its contractor for additional compensation. In response to an AEC certifying officer's request for advice as to one item, however, the General Accounting Office (GAO) ruled that the claims could not be certified for payment. When the AEC then refused to pay the compensation, the contractor brought suit in the Court of Claims alleging that the GAO had no authority to overturn the AEC approval. The Government, through the Department of Justice, defended on the ground that the AEC determination was not final, but was subject to judicial review under the standards spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-08-1972
Reported in : (1973)2MLJ126
M.M. Ismail, J.1. This batch of writ petitions raises a question regarding the construction and constitutional validity of several provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (Central Act XXXII of 1966), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 2680 to 2685, 2688 to 2701, 2711, 2712, 2727, 2762, 2797, 2847 to 2857, 2919, 3028, 3223, 3268, 3425, 3477 and 4466 of 1968; 227, 468, 503, 531, 629, 579, 711, 849, 1065, 1301 and 1926 of 1969; 3211, 3641 and 3730 of 1970 and 923 to 928 of 1971 are what are known as trade mark holders in beedies. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 415 to 425 of 1969 and 444 to 455 of 1969 call themselves as contractors in the manufacture of beedies, attached to the petitioner in W.P. No. 227 of 1969. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 40, 41, 169, 211, 212, 213, 231, 276 and 2631 of 1969 and 2848 of 1970 are manufacturers of cigars. The petitioners in W.P. No. 125 of 1969 are cigar roll...
Tag this Judgment!