Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-06-1998
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2776; 1998(3)KarLJ382
ORDER1. The petitioners are the owners of the land measuring 1 acre 6 guntas in Survey No. 56574 of Malavalli Village, Mandya District. The Deputy Commissioner-2nd respondent issued a notification dated 9-3-1990 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act') proposing to acquire the land for a public purpose i.e., for construction of Primary School. This notification is under challenge in this writ petition.2. Sri Mohandas N. Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notification issued by the D.C., under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, is without jurisdiction in view of Act 68 of 1984. It is in his submission that after coming into force of the Act 68 of 1984, only the appropriate Government is authorised to issue notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act. It is further submitted that the provisions of Act 17 of 1961 (State Act) are repugnant to the provisions of Act 68 of 1984 (Central Act) and therefore Act 17 of 1961 is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-10-1998
Reported in : (1999)ILLJ464Ori
R.K. Patra, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner seeks quashing of the 'charge sheet- cum-show cause notice' dated February 28, 1997 (Annexure 1) issued by the Disciplinary Authority calling upon him to show cause as to why the proposed penalty of removal from service would not be imposed on him since he has been found guilty of offence under Section 471 IPC.2. To get a hang of the controversy raised in mis matter facts in brief may be set out.The petitioner came to be appointed as sub-staff in Life Insurance Corporation of India, District Branch Office, Cuttack. While serving as such, notice dated July 20, 1988 was issued calling upon him to show cause as to why any one or more of the penalties specified under Regulation 39(1) (a) to (g) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 would not be inflicted on him for having committed breach of Regulations 21 and 24 of the aforesaid Regulations. The gist of the charge was that the minimum standard of educa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-17-1998
Reported in : 1998(46)DRJ397
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. Lottery is 'A chance for a prize for a price; a scheme for the distribution of a prize or prizes by lot or chance, the number and value of which is determined by the operator of lottery. Essential elements of a lottery are consideration, prize and chance and any scheme or device by which a person for a consideration is permitted to receive a prize or nothing as may be determined predominantly by chance', so defines the Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn, p.947). It goes on to say- 'An unlawful gambling scheme in which (a) the players pay or agree to pay something of value for chances, represented and differentiated by numbers or by combinations of numbers or by some other media, one or more of which chances are to be designated the winning ones; and (b) the winning chances are to be determined by a drawing or by some other method based upon the element of chance; and (c) the holders of the winning chances are to receive something of value.' 2. Lottery is a game of c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-20-1998
Reported in : AIR1998Kant389; ILR1998KAR3230; 1998(3)KarLJ73
1. The present second appeal has been placed before this Full Bench under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, since the learned Single Judge, before whom the appeal was placed for hearing, has doubted the correctness of the law laid down by the Division Benches of this Court in the cases of A. Kareem Baig and Others v Dr. Mohammad Khizar Hussain, K. Guru Rao vM. Subba Rao and M. Azmathulla Khan (dead) by L.Rs vThankamma Mathews. In the said decisions, it has been held that once the remedy by way of suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of an immovable property becomes barred by limitation as provided under the Limitation Act, then even the statutory right of the transferee, as given under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short 'the Act'), to defend the possession over the property taken or continued under the said contract as granted is lost, destroyed or gets extinguished.Facts2. This is defendants' second appeal. The plaintiff/respondent had f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-27-1998
Clinton v. City of New York - 524 U.S. 417 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No. 97-1374. Argued April 27, 1998-Decided June 25,1998 Last Term, this Court determined on expedited review that Members of Congress did not have standing to maintain a constitutional challenge to the Line Item Veto Act (Act), 2 U. S. C. 691 et seq., because they had not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811 . Within two months, the President exercised his authority under the Act by canceling 4722(c) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which waived the Federal Government's statutory right to recoupment of as much as $2.6 billion in taxes that the State of New York had levied against Medicaid providers, and 968 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which permitted the owners of certain food refiners and processors t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-03-1998
Reported in : (1998)3CALLT209(HC)
G. R. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. In this writ petition under Article 226 the wril petitioners have challenged the award dated the 29th August, 1996 passed by the Labour Court, Andaman and Nicobar islands at Port Blair as published in the Andaman and Nicobar Gazette dated the 3Ist December, 1996, Annexure-G to the writ petition. The said award was passed by the Labour Court on a reference made to the said court by the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar administration on 6th December, 1994 under section 10(1) read with section 12, 15) of the industrial Disputes Act. 1947. The notification about the said reference is Annexure-D to the writ petition. The matter that was the subject of reference was formulated in the said notification by the Lieutenant Governor (Administrator). Andaman and Nicobar islands in the following form:Whether the action of the management of Central Agriculture Research institute in retrenching 42 Majdoors as per annexure with effect from1.8.86 is legal and justifie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-25-1998
Reported in : 1999CriLJ635
ORDER1. These eight criminal Misc. Petitions No. 5860-M of 1991, 397-M, 2441-M of 1992, 17558-M of 1993, 5772-M, 8262-M of 1994, 14806-M of 1995 and 318-M of 1997, have been filed under S. 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 46 dated 15-3-1991, Police Station Jagraon, FIR No. 45 dated 28-2-1991, Police Station Kotwali, Ludhiana, FIR No. 187 dated 21-10-1991 Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, FIR No. 62 dated 9-6-1993, Police Station City Ferozepur, FIR No. 83 dated 15-5-1991 Police Station Nur Mahal Distt. Jalandhar, FIR No. 47 dated 8-4-1991, Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, FIR No. 22 dated 1-4-1992, Police Station Longowal and FIR No. 109 dated 28-7-1991, Police Division No. 4 Jalandhar respectively registered under S. 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. In all these petitions, same question of law and fact is involved therefore, these shall be disposed of by a common order. Facts are being taken from Crl. M. No. 58...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-01-1998
Reported in : 73(1998)DLT732
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The plaintiffs claiming to be engaged in the sale of suit cases all over the globe have instituted the suit against the defendants stating that the defendants have infringed the plaintiff's copyright in drawings; the defendants are passing off their goods and they are imitating the trade dress in making the suit cases to sell their products. The defendants resist the case of the plaintiffs on various grounds. In view of the fact that the parties relied heavily on their respective pleadings to project their respective contentions and the arguments covered a very wide canvass, it has become necessary for me to refer to the pleadings in the first instance and then to deal with the rival contentions put forth at the time of the arguments and the precedents referred to by the learned counsel for the parties.2. The case of the plaintiffs could be recounted in the following terms. The first plaintiff Samsonite Corporation is a Company operating under the State of Del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-02-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)AWC470
S.R. Singh, J.1. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant petition is centred on two orders firstly the order dated 25.5.1998 passed by the State Transport Authority, U. P., Lucknow rejecting their application for renewal of Stage Carriage Permit, and secondly, the revisional order dated 31.8.1998, by which their revision No. 33 of 1998 preferred against the order dated 25.5.1998 came to be dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow.2. The facts draped in brevity and shorn of unnecessary details are that the Stale Transport Authority. U. P.. Lucknow (in short the S.T.A.'). released 26 Stage Carriage Permits by resolution/order dated 23.11.1992 including one Permit in favour of the petitioners to ply their vehicle on the route in question, namely, Meerut-Gangoh via Rohta-Barnava-Daha-Budhana-Shamit-Jhinjhana-Bidault (New Yamuna Bridge)-Basech, The order dated 23.11.1992 was taken up in challenge by Sheetal Prasad, Gajraj Singh and Ugrasen before the State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-04-1998
Reported in : (1998)100BOMLR460
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 16.6.1994, passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 229 of 1991, convicting and sentencing him to undergo RI for life, for an offence under Section 302 IPC, has come up in appeal before us.2. In short, the prosecution runs as under :-On 25.11.1991, the deceased Dhondiba Yellu Karve was grazing cattle of Ravsaheb Mahimkar, P.W. 6, in the land of the latter situated within the limits of village Antroli, Taluka South Solapur, District Solapur. At about 12 noon, the appellant reprimanded Dhondiba for grazing the cattle in his field. On this score, there was a quarrel between the appellant and Dhondiba and during the course of the same, the appellant gave three blows with axe; the first on the hand of Dhondiba, the second on the left leg and the third on the upper side of the left thigh. It is alleged that hearing the cries of Dhondiba, a large number of people, including Jagannath P...
Tag this Judgment!