Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-15-2002
Reported in : 2002AIHC4073
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. These two appeals involving commonquestions of law and facts arise out of a common judgment passed by a learnedsingle Judge of this Court and they can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The parties herein are referred toas they are arrayed in the suits for the sake of convenience.3. In these two appeals, this Courtis called upon to decide the effect of deletion of Section 47 of the AndhraPradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Act No. XXIof 1950) - hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act'. The main issueto be decided in these appeals is whether both the suits (O.S.Nos.1001 of 1978and 1174 of 1981) filed by the plaintiffs are liable to be dismissed as thesuit transaction is hit by Section 47 of the Tenancy Act.FACTUAL BACKGROUND:4. The defendant in both the suits,Mohd. Qutubuddin filed O.S.No.38 of 1963 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate(West), Hyderabad against Syed Basharat Ahmed and his wife Smt. UmmatulBasheera Begum for perman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-01-2002
Reported in : 2002(25)PTC161(Guj)
ORDER BELOW APPLICATIONS FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION 1. These applications are filed by plaintiff Mr. Pravinbhai J Mehta in five suits filed by him against defendant No. 1 Officine Lovato S.P.A. (the first defendant) under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 (the Act). Since in all the five suits the parties are the same and common questions of law and fact arise for consideration, these applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. The plaintiff claims to be engaged in the business of automobile spares. The plaintiff also claims to have invented and designed five specific designs in certain parts which are used for converting Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) as fuel for running automobiles. The details about the registration numbers, dates of application and the dates of registration are set out in a chart, which is annexed to this order and is to be treated as a part of this order.3. The plaintiff filed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : Sep-24-2002
Negendra Rai, J.1. The decree holder is petitioner against the order dated 21.6.2001 passed in Title Execution No. 15 of 1996 by Spl. Execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur holding that the execution case filed by him is barred by limitation.2. The sole question for consideration in this case is as to whether the decree under execution is barred by limitation in terms of the provisions contained under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as the Limitation Act).3. The factual matrix essential to decide the controversy are as follows. Janki Devi Pramod Kumar and Prem Kumar filed a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 76 of 1964 against the descendants of Jogendra Tiwari for specific performance of contract. Defendant No. 7 only contested the suit. During pendency of the case, Janki Devi died. The suit was decreed on 30th November, 1976 in favour of Pramod Kumar and Prem Kumar. They were directed to deposit Rs. 2,000 (rupees two thousand) by 3.1.1977 to the credit of defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-06-2002
Reported in : ILR2002KAR1694; 2003(2)KarLJ276
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This revision petition under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the repealed Act'), is filed by the tenant against the order of eviction dated 27-6-1997 passed by the Small Causes Court in H.R.C. No. 4351 of 1980.2. The deceased respondent was the landlord and petitioner was the tenant in the Trial Court. The respondents herein are the legal heirs of deceased landlord. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to as 'landlord' and 'tenant' respectively.3. The brief facts of the case are, the landlord filed petition in H.R.C. No. 4351 of 1980 under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the repealed Act seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent and that the landlord requires the petition schedule premises for his bona fide use and occupation. The tenant resisted the eviction petition denying the claim of the landlord and the jural relationship and taking variou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-24-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC2036; JT2002(Suppl1)SC481; RLW2002(4)SC481; 2002(4)SCALE31; (2002)4SCC666; [2002]3SCR365; 2002(2)LC820(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was published in the State Gazette in June 1960, acquiring land in the localities of Bhojpura and Chak Sudershanpura, Tehsil Jaipur, adjacent to Jaipur city for urban development, viz. for multi purpose project of constructing legislative assembly, MLA quarters and planned development of city, popularly known as 'Lal Kothi Scheme'. The exact public purpose for acquisition is not discernible from the record but that is immaterial for our present purpose. The Notification under Section 4 was followed by declaration under Section 6 in May 1961. The persons whose land was acquired under the scheme include the four appellants before us. On 9.1.1964. the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing monetary compensation at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per bigha, i.e. approximately 60 paise per sq. yard. In addition to the amount of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer also directed plots of 2000 or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-20-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD597; 2003(1)ALT127
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. These writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order since they are directed against the common order dated 1-8-2001 made in O.A. No. 7226 of 2000 and Batch (petitioners herein are the applicants in O.A. Nos.6849 of 2000 and 7636 of 2000 respectively) by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, whereunder the Tribunal did not grant any relief whatsoever to the petitioners herein.2, The petitioners herein are the visually handicapped persons. They have applied for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher/School Assistant in pursuance of DSC-2000 notification dated 3-7-2000 issued by the second respondent herein, which was published in the newspapers on 4-7-2000. The said notification is for recruitment of various categories of posts. There is no dispute whatsoever that 597 Secondary Grade Teacher posts were notified in respect of Cuddapah District, out of which 485 posts are in the Government/Zilla Parishad Schools and 112 posts are in Cuddapah a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-15-2002
Reported in : (2003)2CALLT523(HC),2003(162)ELT1170(Cal)
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. This is an appeal directed against the order dated 12th January, 1984 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner filed this writ petition before the learned single Judge challenging the show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Calcutta and Orissa under Defence of India Rules.2. The petitioner carries on business as jeweller and manufacturer of and dealer in gold ornaments under the firm name and style of M/s. B. Sarkar (Johuri) as the sole proprietor thereof. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 9th February, 1967 by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Calcutta and Orissa to show cause why certain quantities of gold and gold ornaments as mentioned in the show cause notice, which have been seized from his premises No. 131B, Bepin Behari Ganguly Street, Calcutta, should not be confiscated under Rule 126M of the Defence of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-26-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Bom64; II(2003)BC481; 2002(6)BomCR39; 2002BomCR(Cri)876; 2002(4)MhLj838
C.K. Thakkar, C.J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, a practising advocate praying for a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction ordering respondent No. 1, Union of India, other respondents as also Courts of law everywhere in India, not to take cognizance of any case or proceeding under sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act 66 of 1988),2. The petitioner is a citizen of India. He is a lawyer by profession, practising in the High Court of Bombay as well as in other courts in Bombay since 1966. He has approached this court in public interest litigation by filing this petition for seeking a direction from this Court which would prevent illegal prosecution and thus benefit general public all over India.3. The case of the petitioner is that the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was enacted and came into force in Dece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-26-2002
Reported in : AIR2003All43
ORDERAshok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri A. S. Diwekar, counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 2nd September, 2002 and the show cause notice dated 25th September, 2000 and also writ of prohibition prohibiting the proceedings.3. Facts of the case as stated in the writ petition, briefly stated, are: Plot No. 416 is a Government estate land under the management of District Magistrate, Allahabad having area of 13 bighas, 19 biswas and 10 dhoors. On part of the aforesaid plot there is old building popularly known as European Lockup. It is claimed that father of the petitioner was clerk in the Collectorate who was allowed to occupy the land in pre-inde-pendence era. It is claimed that father of the petitioner died in the year 1983 and thereafter name of mother of the petitioner was mutated who too died in the year 1996. It is stated that for fiscal purposes the name of mother of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-15-2002
SETHI,J.In all these appeals, the FIRs and subsequent proceedings pending against the respondents under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1988 Act") were quashed by the High Court in exercise of the powers vesting in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused- respondents had been apprehended while accepting the bribe by laying the trap under the 1988 Act. The High Court found that as the investigations had not been conducted by the authorised officers under the 1988 Act, the same were vitiated and deserved to be quashed.The questions of law to be adjudicated upon in these appeals are:(1) Whether the notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (since repealed) empowering and authorising Inspector of Police to investigate the cases registered under the said Act are not saved under the saving provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!