Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(2)ALD755; 2006(3)ALT152
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5 and 18 to 20 in the Court below filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru dated 25-8-1999 in OS No. 123/95, whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed in favour of the 1st plaintiff declaring that she is a permanent tenant of the plaint schedule land; directing the defendants 3 to 5 and 18 to 20 to deliver possession of the same and to pay past and future mesne profits.2. Pleadings in nut-shell are as under:3. One Pratapa Venkata Nageswara Viswanatha Sastry was the original owner of the suit schedule property. He executed a permanent lease deed dated 7-2-1951, Ex.A-8, in favour of Mylavarapu Rama Krishna Rao for a maktha of 30 bags of paddy per year payable undertaking to pay the land revenue to the Government. The original owner-lessor Pratapa Venkata Nageswara Viswanatha Sastry sold his rights over the suit schedule property including right to collect maktha of 30 bags of paddy from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD142; 2007(1)ALT578; (2007)2LLJ481AP
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. Seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to permit him to rejoin service as a Scale III officer, to direct them to pay him full salary with effect from 1-4-1993 and to grant him all ancillary and attendant benefits or in the alternative to direct the respondents to pay him compensation of Rs. 20.00 lakhs, W.P. No. 21796 of 1995 is filed by the petitioner herein.2. When W.P. No. 21796 of 1995 was pending on the file of this Court, the first respondent, in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 19(1) and (2) of the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, issued proceedings dated 24-11 -1995 retiring the petitioner from service with immediate effect and directed that he be paid an amount equivalent to three months substantive salary/pay and allowances last drawn by him. Seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the said proceedings dated 24-11 -1995 and consequently permit him to rejoin service as a Scale III officer, to pay him full salary wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC949; (1982)1CompLJ217(SC); 1982CriLJ819; 1982(1)SCALE38; (1982)1SCC561; [1982]3SCR121
1. My learned Brother A.N. Sen has dealt fully with the various points argued before us. I agree respectfully with his judgment, but desire to add a few words in view of the importance which this matter has acquired by reason of the immense circulation of 'black money' clearly and almost concededly involved in the affairs of the firm which is facing a prosecution.2. These appeals by special leave arise out of the judgment dated March 5, 1981 of a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Matters Nos. 2829 of 1980 and 37 of 1981. The appeals are, in substance, by the State of West Bengal while the contesting respondents are a firm called 'Sanchaita Investments' and its three partners, Swapan Kumar Guha, Sambhu Prasad Mukherjee and Beharilal Murarka. The two Matters in the Calcutta High Court were in the nature of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution which were filed by the firm and its partners for quashing an investigation commenced against the firm. Allowing t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC1171; 1969CriLJ1559; (1969)1SCC440; [1969]3SCR320
Shah J.1. In the course of investigation of offences Under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120B I.P. Code the Officer in charge of the investigation submitted an application before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for an order that a warrant for the arrest of Jugal Kishore More and certain other named persons be issued and that the warrant be forwarded with the relevant records and evidence to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, for securing extradition of More who was then believed to be in Hong Kong. It was stated in the application that More and others 'were parties to a criminal conspiracy in Calcutta between May 1961 and December 1962 to defraud the Government of India in respect of India's foreign exchange', and their presence was required for trial.2. The Chief Presidency Magistrate held an enquiry and recorded an order on July 19, 1965, that on the materials placed before him, a prima facie case was made out of a criminal conspiracy, was 'hatched in Calc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1274; 2000(2)ALT34(SC); 84(2000)DLT450(SC); [2000(85)FLR185]; JT2000(3)SC13; (2000)ILLJ846SC; (2000)125PLR371; RLW2000(2)SC329; 2000(2)SCALE269; (2000)3SCC224; [20
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. Female workers (muster roll), engaged by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short, 'the Corporation'), raised a demand for grant of maternity leave which was made available only to regular female workers but was denied to them on the ground that their services were not regularised and, therefore, they were not entitled to any maternity leave. Their case was espoused by the Delhi Municipal Workers Union (for short, 'the Union') and, consequently, the following question was referred by the Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication:Whether the female workers working on Muster Roll should be given any maternity benefit? If so, what directions are necessary in this regard?2. The Union filed a statement of claim in which it was stated that Municipal Corporation of Delhi employs a large number of persons including female workers on muster roll and they are made to work in that capacity for years together though they are rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1950; [2004(101)FLR198]; JT2004(3)SC510; (2004)IILLJ356SC; 2004(3)SCALE187; (2004)11SCC526; 2004(2)SLJ465(SC)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. In this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenge is to the constitutionality of paragraph 80(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The effect of the impugned paragraph is that the employees of newspaper industry, for the purposes of provident fond scheme, do not fall in the category of excluded employees despite their pay being above prescribed amount as notified by Government of India from time to time.2. In order to appreciate the question involved, it is necessary to examine certain provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the PF Act').3. The PF Act was passed by the Parliament in the year 1952 to, inter alia, provide for the institution of provident fund for employees in factories and other establishments. Sub-section (3) of Section 1, inter alia, provides that, the Act applies to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1716; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)828; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)142; 2001CriLJ2188; JT2001(5)SC31; 2001(3)SCALE370; (2001)4SCC516; [2001]3SCR1; 2001(2)LC1002(SC)
Pattanaik, J. 1. The Writ Petition and the Special Leave Petitions raised the common question, and as such were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. The grievance of the petitioner Daya Singh Lahoria, in the Writ Petition is, that the Criminal Courts in the country have no jurisdiction to try in respect of offences which do not form a part of extradition judgment by virtue of which the petitioner has been brought to this country and he can be tried only for the offences mentioned in the Extradition Decree. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the FIR and charge sheet against him which are not included in the extradition judgment of the USA Court. It appears, that the United States District of Texas Fort Worth Division issued the judgment of certification of Extra disability and the said decree certifies to sustain under Extradition Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland with the Government of Republic of India and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW2424; AIR2009SC1314; JT2009(5)SC17; (2009)5MLJ782(SC); 2009(4)SCALE547; 2009(3)LC1488(SC); 2009(3)LHSC1489;
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Whether respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have willfully disobeyed order dated 30.9.2007 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18879 of 2007 and thereby made themselves liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the 1971 Act') read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India and whether respondent No. 6 is guilty of criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the 1971 Act are the questions which arise for determination in this petition filed by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam through its Presidium Chairman Shri E. Madhusudhanan.2. Background facts;2.1 In an apparent bid to pressurize the Central Government to expedite implementation of Sethu Samudram Project, Democratic Progressive Alliance comprising Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Indian National Congress, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India and Pattali Makkal Katchi, passed a resolution on 24.9.2007 to resort to total cessa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2015; [1998(80)FLR894]; JT1998(7)SC353; (1999)ILLJ1SC; 1998(5)SCALE704; (1998)8SCC90; [1998]Supp2SCR482; 1999(2)SLJ1(SC)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. Both these appeals for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India have brought in challenge two orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing two Letters Patent Appeals arising out of the decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court who has considered identical questions of law. Consequently, both these appeals were heard together. Learned counsel for the respective parties were heard in support of their cases and thereafter both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The common question which falls for consideration of this Court in these appeals is as to whether the appellants which are carrying on the business of printing and publishing newspapers in the State of Punjab at Jalandhar are liable to remit contributions Under Section 6 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the 'Act') to the authorities functioning u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC809; 2008(2)ALD1(SC); 2008(56)BLJR181; (2008)1CALLT69(SC); (2008)1CompLJ1(SC); 2008(1)JKJ41[SC]; LC2008(1)56; (2008)1MLJ361(SC); 2008(36)PTC1(SC); 2007(14)SCALE1; 2008AIRSCW49; AIR2008SC809; 2008(1)SCC1; 2008(1)LH(SC)179; 2008(2)ICC206; 2008(4)KCCRSN237
1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi involving the analogous question and are, therefore, decided together by this judgment. 2. Appellant No. 1 Eastern Book Company is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of publishing law books. Appellant No. 2 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated and existing under the Companies Act, 1956. The said appellants are involved in the printing and publishing of various books relating to the field of law. One of the well-known publications of appellant No. 1 Eastern Book Company is the law report Supreme Court Cases (hereinafter called SCC ). The appellant publishes all reportable judgments along with non-reportable judgments of the Supreme Court of India. Yet another category included in SCC is short judgments, orders, practice directions and record of proceedings. The law report S...
Tag this Judgment!