Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-26-1991
Reported in : 44(1991)DLT735
P.N. Nag, J. (1) In this revision petition, the petitioner seeks for setting aside the order dated 30th January, 1989 passed by Shri S. C. Mittal, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner wherein he has prayed for cancelling the order dated 14th October, 1988 vide which a part of the claim of the suit of the plaintiff covered by issue No. 1 was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn.(2) The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner, who was the President of defendant No. 1, was managing its affairs and according to him his resignation dated 5-4-1976 was illegal and unenforceable and that he was entitled to continue in the service of defendant No. 1 and all consequential benefits, including recovery of Rs. 19,500. Out of the pleadings of the parties, as many as 10 issues were framed. However issue No. 1, which is relevant to determine the point ill controversy between the parties in the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-25-1991
Reported in : 1991(3)ALT362
V. Sivaraman Nair, J.1. Petitioners are operators of Contract Carriages in different districts of the State. The State Government published a draft scheme for nationalisation of contract carriages covering the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. The proposal is to exclude all private operators. Petitioners submit that the draft scheme which was published in the Government Gazette dated 19-8-1989 is illegal and unconstitutional. The reason for so contending is that Sections 99 and 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 1988 Act) which apply to the publication of draft scheme and its approval in so far as they have conferred powers on the State Government to hear objections to the draft scheme proposed by it and to approve it are void and inoperative as also violative of the principles of natural justice. In the alternative they seek a declaration that Chapter -VI of the 1988 Act has no application to contract carriages.2. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-28-1991
Reported in : [1992]85STC258(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this group of petitions, a common question of vires of section 15B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as amended by section 2 of the Gujarat Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1990, arises for consideration. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said provision is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. 2. In order to appreciate this common grievance of the petitioners, it is necessary to not a few introductory facts : 3. I. Introductory facts : The petitioners are dealers registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short). They carry on the activity of manufacturing and selling various goods in this State. For the purpose, they require raw materials which are to be used in manufacturing the end-products. The raw materials purchased by them in the State and used in the manufacturing process have been subjected to purchase tax by the impugned provisions. The petitioners contend that the State Legislature...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-20-1991
United States v. Smith - 499 U.S. 160 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160 (1991) United States v. Smith No. 89-1646 Argued Nov. 7, 1990 Decided March 20, 1991 499 U.S. 160 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondents Smith filed suit in the District Court against one Dr. Marshall, alleging that he had negligently injured respondent Dominique Smith during his birth at a United States Army hospital in Italy. The court granted the Government's motion to substitute itself for Marshall pursuant to the Gonzalez Act, which provides that, in a suit against military medical personnel for employment-related torts, the Government is to be substituted as the defendant and the suit is to proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The court then dismissed the suit on the ground that the FTCA excludes recovery for injuries sustained abroad. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that neither the Gonzalez Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-15-1991
Reported in : AIR1993Guj5; (1992)1GLR79
ORDERC.K. Thakkar, J.1. This group of petitions is filed against the order dated May 30, 1987 passed by the District Judge, Bhavnagar in various appeals filed before him under Section 9 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Public Premises Act').2. The facts giving rise to the present controversy may now be shortly stated.'The petitioner is a 'Board' i.e. the Housing Board constituted under Section 3 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Housing Board Act'). The respondent in each petition is an allottee of a tenament either in Middle Income Group (MIG for short) or in Lower Income Group (LIG for short) Scheme of Housing Board at Bhavnagar. It is the case of the petitioner-Board that the allottees had not paid rent equivalent to amount of instalments due and payable under the agreement to sell entered into between the Housing Board on one hand and the allottees who are tenants of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-02-1991
Reported in : ILR1991KAR1552; 1991(2)KarLJ132
ORDERRamachandriah, J. 1. Respondents 1 and 2 in Cr.P.No. 923/1990 are the applicants in I.A.III filed under Section 362 read with Sections 439(2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). They have filed I.A.III praying for re-calling and reviewing the order dated 27-11 -1990 by which the said Criminal Petition filed by the State was allowed and bail granted to the respondents in Cr.P.No. 923/1990 and petitioners in I.A.III by the Sessions Judge, Gulbarga (for short 'the Sessions Judge') was cancelled with liberty to the said respondents-accused to file a bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge under Section 439 of the Code praying for their release on bail.2. The relevant facts are as under:Respondents-applicants are facing trial for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in Sessions Case No. 24/1990 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge. Respondents are alleged to have committed the murder of one Kashappa in connection with al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-28-1991
Reported in : AIR1962SC1621; 1963(1)SCR778
VENKATARAM AIYAR, J.The petitioner is a partner in a firm called Messrs. Mohan Lal Hargovind Das, which carries on business in the manufacture and sale of biris in number of States, and is dealer registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act 15 of 1948 with its head office at Allahabad. In the present petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner impugns the validity of a levy of sales tax made by the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad, by his order dated December 20, 1958.On December 14, 1957, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under section 4(1)(b) of the Act exempting from tax, sales of certain goods including biris, provided that the additional Central Excise duties leviable thereon had been paid. In partial modification of this notification, the Government issued another notification on November 25, 1958, exempting from tax unconditionally sales of biris, both machinemade and handmade, with effect from July 1, 1958. The effect of the two notifications ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-11-1991
Reported in : JT1991(1)SC386; 1991(1)SCALE174; (1991)3SCC358; [1991]1SCR305; 1991(2)LC3(SC)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. The two appeals and the three writ petitions challenge the validity of the provisions of the Mysore Silkworm Seed and Cocoon (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distributions) Act, 1959 (Act No. 5 of 1960), hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act'. The challenge was repelled by the Karnataka High Court by its common judgment dated 9.9.1980 in two writ petitions, which is the subject matter of appeals. It is perhaps in view of this judgment that writ petitions No. 5548-5550 of 1980 have been filed directly in this Court raising a similar contention.2. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify two important points. The first is that the validity of the Act above mentioned and certain notifications issued thereunder were challenged in Civil Appeal Nos. 450 and 451 of 1966 and 542 of 1964. These Civil appeals were disposed of by a judgment of this Court dated 6.1.1967 in State of Mysore and Ors. v. Hanumiah. By the said judgment this Court repelled the contentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-25-1991
Reported in : 43(1991)DLT394; 1991(20)DRJ236
M.C. Jain, C.J.(1) This civil revision raises an important question as to the interpretation of S. 3(c); as inserted by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, (for short, the Amendment Act). That question arose before Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.N.Goswami in the aforesaid revision He, by his order dated 9.1.1989, referred the question to be answered authoritatively by the Division Bench of this Court. The question that arose before him was to whether the Amendment Act applies to the pending proceedings and according to him as the question would arise in a number of pending cases before ibis Court as will as before the Rent Control and the Appellate authority, so for deciding the question authoritatively, reference was made by him for deciding the said question by the Division Bench.(2) We may state a few relevant facts giving rise to the present reference.(3) The petitioner in this petition, Mrs. Nirmaljeet Arora let out the premises in question to the respondent on 14.7.80 at a renta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-06-1991
Reported in : II(1991)ACC449; 1991ACJ1060; AIR1991SC2156; 1992(2)BLJR816; [1992]75CompCas611(SC); JT1991(3)SC660; 1992(1)KLT338(SC); (1992)101PLR156; 1991(2)SCALE493; (1991)4SCC333; [199
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. Special leave is granted.2. The appellant was injured in a road accident and his claim petition has been dismissed as being barred by limitation. The accident took place on 22.1.1989. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed by Section 217(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which came into force on 1.7.1989. The period of limitation for filing a claim petition both under the old Act and the new Act being six months expired on 22.7.1989. The claim petition of the appellant, however, was filed belatedly on 15.3.1990 with a prayer for condonation of delay. The Accident Claims Tribunal held that in view of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the new Motor Vehicles Act, the delay of more than six months could not be condoned. The application was accordingly dismissed. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the decision before the High Court.3. It has been contended that since the accident took place when the old Motor Vehicles Act was in force...
Tag this Judgment!