Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-01-2010
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER1.Regard being had to the commonality of controversy, these writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts in WP(C) No. 3001/2010 are exposited herein.2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has called in question the legality and validity of the initiation of the revisional proceedings against the petitioner by issuance of notice dated 08.04.2010 under Section 74A read with Section 106 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for brevity the DVAT Act) by the Commissioner, Trade Taxes, Delhi, the first respondent herein, purporting to revise the orders of the Additional Commissioner dated 14.01.2008 and 25.01.2008 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-29-2010
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. FACTS:1. On perusal of the pleadings as well as documents disclosed in the proceedings before the arbitrator as well as before the learned Single Judge and included in paper book it appears that the parties agreed to have a business transaction under which the appellant would supply to the respondent wire required for telecommunication purpose. The facts reveal that the respondent issued a purchase order on December 5, 1985 as would appear from page 55 onwards of the paper book. The appellant contended before us that the agreement dated December 5, 1985 was the parent agreement under which different purchase orders were issued being one on December 5, 1985 followed by three others dated September 1, 1986, May 27, 1987 and March 7, 1988 respectively. The respondent, however, contended that all those four purchase orders were distinct and would constitute a separate agreement and had no connection with the first agreement dated December 5, 1985. Under the contr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-03-2010
LORD HOPE 1. The Scottish Parliament was established by section 1 of the Scotland Act 1998. It was opened on 1 July 1999. Section 29(1) of the Act provides: "An Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament." 2. This provision lies at the heart of the scheme of devolution to which the Act gives effect. Section 29 has to be read together with Schedule 4 which protects certain enactments from modification, and then with section 30 and Schedule 5 which defines reserved matters. These are matters reserved to the UK Parliament, and which are therefore excluded from the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The area of competence that is identified by this group of provisions forms the basis for a series of sections that are designed to ensure that the Scottish Parliament confines itself to the defined areas of competence: section 31 (scrutiny of Bills before introduction), section 32 (the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-27-2010
LORD HOPE, with whom Lord Walker and Lady Hale agree 1. On 13 December 2006 the appellant Mohammed al-Ghabra, referred to in these proceedings as "G", was informed that a direction had been made against him by HM Treasury ("the Treasury") under article 4 of the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 (SI 2006/2657) ("the TO") and that he was a designated person for the purposes of that Order. He was told that the direction had been made because the Treasury had reasonable grounds for suspecting that he was, or might be, a person who facilitated the commission of acts of terrorism. He was also told that, in light of the sensitive nature of the information on which the decision had been taken, it was not possible to give him further details and that the effect of the direction was to prohibit him from dealing with his funds and economic resources and to prevent anyone notified of the freeze from making funds, economic resources or financial services available to him or for his be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Decided on : Feb-09-2010
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.1. Heard Sri Gopal Narain, Advocate alongwith Sri B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioners, Sri Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand as well as Sri V.P. Bahuguna, Advocate for the intervener.2. All these writ petitions raise a common question of law and are hence being decided by a common judgment. In all these petitions an order dated 13.1.2009 passed by the Secretary, Transport Department, State of Uttarakhand has been challenged, which has been passed under Section 68(3)(ca) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by which the State Government has formulated a motor route. The main ground for challenge in these writ petitions is that Section 68(3)(ca) which was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by way of an amendment, known as Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No. 54 of 1994), stood repealed in the year 2001 by the Repealing and Amending Act, 2001 (Act No. 30 of 2001). Hence, since these provisions i.e. C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-20-2010
Reported in : (2010)5SCC425
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The respondent is a company incorporated on 9.4.2003 under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant (Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., for short 'APTDC') is a 'government company' within the meaning of that expression in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. According to the respondent, the parties had entered into two agreements in regard to a property known as Hill View Guest House, Alipiri, Tirupathi, measuring 1.08 acres. The first was a lease agreement under which APTDC granted a lease of the said property to the respondent for a term of 33 years; and the second was a development and management agreement under which APTDC entrusted to the respondent, the development of a Three-Star Hotel in Hill View Guest House property on construction, operation and management basis. According to the respondent, both agreements contained a provision for disputes resolution (Clause 17 of the lease agreement and Article 18 of the management agreement) pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-30-2010
1. Whether reporters of the local news papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ORDER.1 These are 38 writ petitions filed by builders of various properties in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT of Delhi) who have been issued show cause notices and also directions by the Respondent Delhi Pollution Control Committee (`DPCC) for alleged violation of Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 [hereafter `the Water Act) and Sections 21 and 22 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 [hereafter `the Air Act]. Barring two petitions where the buildings constructed are residential complexes, in each of the other petitions the building constructed is a commercial shopping complex or a shopping mall.1.2 The show cause notices have been issued on the ground that these Petitioners had not, prior to commencing construction, applied to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-02-2010
H.R. Panwar, J.1. All these aforementioned civil second appeals and civil revisions involve identical question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties they are heard and decided together taking the facts of SBCSA No. 139/09 Ram Narayan v. Smt. Asha Devi as a leading case.2. Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these appeals and revisions are that the plaintiff respondent Smt. Asha Devi filed a civil suit against firm Ram Narayan Om Prakash for eviction of the disputed premises after serving notice under Section 106 r/w Section 114(h) of the Transfer of Property Act dated 6.10.2003. The suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.8.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 4, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), against which, one Ram Narayan the appellant herein filed an appeal before Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (for short 'the first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-17-2010
Reported in : 2010(2)KLT71
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. (i) Does a divorce valid under the Muslim Law ipso facto extinguish the liability of the husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to pay maintenance to his wife even when it is admitted or proved that amounts due under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have not been paid?(ii) Is unilateral pronouncement of divorce without offering any reason and without any attempt for reconciliation by the arbiters as mandated by Ayat 35 of Sura IV of the Holy Quran valid under the Muslim Law after the decision of the Supreme Court in Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. 2002 (3) KLT 537 SC?2. These two questions of crucial relevance and contextual significance arise for consideration in this RP(FC) which has been referred to a Division Bench under Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act by a Single Judge (one of us). The learned Counsel for the contestants have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-23-2010
1. The Apparel Export Promotion Council (for short AEPC), respondent No.2 invited tenders in July, 2010 for engaging an event management agency for the International Trade Fair, Tex-Styles India-2011, to be held in February, 2011at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi. The petitioner applied in pursuance to the tenders floated in this regard. The bid process envisaged two stages of evaluation, i.e. technical bid and the financial bid.2. The scope of activities for which the bid was invited included designing of logo, registration counter, stall construction, parking, signage/hoarding, audio-visual equipments, communication of the event, cafeteria, security, housekeeping, local transport for buyers, photograph, printing and mailing activities. The bids were evaluated based on the parameters fixed by the respondents. The petitioner was selected for award of the work, the total cost of the project being estimated at `17.44 crore. The petitioner claimed management fee of 12.5 per cent of the total ex...
Tag this Judgment!