Court : Kerala
Basant, J. (i) Is Entry No.13 of the Schedule of the Kerala Head Load workers Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') valid, legal and constitutional? Is there objectionable transgression by the State legislature into the legislative province earmarked exclusively for the Parliament under Entry Nos.5 and 53 of List 1 of Schedule 7 of the Constitution? (ii) Are the trained employees (distribution boys) of the petitioners performing the work of loading and unloading of LPG cylinders in the godowns of the petitioners only as incidental and ancillary to their work as distribution boys? Can they be held to be workers answering the definition of 'headload worker' under Sec.2(m) of the Act? (iii) Are the headload workers represented by the respondents/unions entitled to demand such work of loading and unloading of LPG cylinders in the godowns of the petitioners? (iv) Are directions liable to be issued under Art.226 of the Constitution obliging the respondents/police officials to afford police protect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1994CriLJ2786
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. The petitioner is Shri. T.A. Abdul Nazar Madhani, Chairman of the Islamic Seva Sangh (hereinafter called the 'ISS'). The Writ Petition is filed questioning the notification, Ext. P2, issued by the Central Government dated 10-12-1992 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), and also the further notification Ext. P4 dated 12-12-1992 issued by the State of Kerala delegating its powers to the all District Collector, Commissioner of Police, Superintendents of Police and District Magistrate Under section 19 of the Act to takae action Under sections 7 and 8 of the said Act. During the course of the arguments, however, the attack was confined to Ext. P2 notification issued by the Union of India, and no arguments were advanced in regard to Ext. P4 notification.2. The petitioner is the Chairman of the ISS. He also claims to be the Principal of the Anvarul Islam Charitable Society at Sasthan-cotta. According to him, the ISS is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1191; JT2003(1)SC594; 2003(2)MPHT377; 2003MPLJ37(SC); 2003(1)SCALE689; (2003)3SCC1; [2003]1SCR906; 2003(2)LC828(SC)
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against judgment dated 16.1.2001 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 3603 of 1999. By placing reliance on two Judges Bench decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Sadhu Saran Shukla : (1994)2SCC445 the High Court has held that Rule 3(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules, 1964 is ultra vires Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh Prisoner's Release on Probation Act 1954 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' and 'the Act' respectively].2. The two-Judges Bench of this Court in the case Sadhu Saran (Supra) declared similar Rule 3(a) of U.P. Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules as ultra vires Section 9 and Section 2 of the U.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1938 [hereinafter shortly referred to as 'the U.P. Rules' and 'the U.P. Act' respectively].3. This appeal was listed before a two-Judges Bench of this Court on 21.8.2002 and it had referred this case t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2000]101CompCas38(Kar); 1999(2)KarLJ38
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Feeling personally aggrieved by notice dated 9-9-1996 issued by the City Civil Court (CCH No. 18), District Courts, Bangalore, the petitioner has ignited the process of this Court in the name of public interest litigation praying for quashing of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Central Act No. 68 of 1986) (hereinafter called as 'Act'). The Act has been termed to be unconstitutional being violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. It is, further, submitted that the Act has been passed without jurisdiction. It is contended that the enactment of the Act amounts to changing the basic features of the Constitution inasmuch as attempt has allegedly been made to constitute parallel Courts to the hierarchy of Courts established under the Constitution viz., District Courts, High Courts and Supreme Court. According to the petitioner such a law could not be enacted without amending Constitution in accordance with the procedure as laid down unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)1GLR589
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. The question that stands referred to us, as a Full Bench, for our consideration and answer, runs as follows:Whether the cases for the offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the I.P.C. and Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959, pending investigation can be taken into consideration for arriving at the subjective satisfaction as to whether a person is a 'dangerous person' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985The need for the reference arose, because, B.S. Kapadia and N.J. Pandya, JJ., who have made the reference, found themselves not in a position to agree with the view of the Bench of C.V. Jani and (one of us), S.D. Dave, JJ., in Shamjibhai Manjibhai Patel v. Commissioner of Police, City of Ahmedabad and Anr. 1992 (2) XXXIII (2) GLR 1360, wherein it was opined:.it shall have to be accepted that the detaining authority could not have utilised the registration of the abovesaid 4 Criminal Cases again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1988CriLJ1011
N.D. Ojha, C.J.1. The three petitioners of this writ petition have been convicted Under Sections 304 (Part II) and 460 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 5 years. At present, they are undergoing the imprisonment aforesaid.2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 3 of the M.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), in so far as it provides that prisoners who have been convicted Under Section 460 of the I.P.C., shall not be released under the M.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that when prisoners who have been convicted even for a much serious offence Under Section 302 of the I.P.C. are entitled to be released under the Act, Rule 3, in so far as it excludes prisoners convicted Under Section 460 I.P.C. for being released under the Act, is ultra vires on the ground o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR484
Naik, J.1. The appellant, who would hereafter be called the accused, was convicted under Section 471 read with Section 394(1)(a)(ii) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 201, in default, to undergo 15 days' rigorous imprisonment. The accused has preferred an appeal from the order of conviction and sentence. It was noticed that the vires of Section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was called in question, and, therefore, a notice was issued to the Advocate-General. The learned Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the State as also on behalf of the Advocate-General. 'When the matter came up for hearing before me sitting singly, a request was made by Mr, Ganatra on behalf of the accused, and also by the learned Government Pleader that, in view of the importance of. the question involved, the case may be referred to a Division Bench. Accordingly, the criminal appeal has been referred to a Division Bench, and, that is how, the matter h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2(1986)ACC559
G.M. Lodha, Acting C.J.1. A rickshaw-puller (rickshaw-chalak) Kanhaiyalal, was knocked down by the State Roadways Corporation Bus No. RRG 8694 in an accident which took place on 27-11-80 on the way between Chhoti Chopar and Chandpole Gate of Jaipur City. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is a public undertaking of the State of Rajasthan. The Corporation has got separate funds for the payment of compensation as they are exempted from insurance of the vehicles. The Corporation instead of making payment of compensation to the widow of rickshaw-chalak and his kids, entered into litigation and dragged poor widow to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for filing claim petition.2. The socio-economic pragmatic approach exhibited by accident claims laws, expressly provides for compensation. It is customary and traditional for the State or its functionaries, on such occasions to act on humanitarian grounds and grand ex gratia monetary relief to the deceased's family. But as an anti-thesi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1987Raj68; 1986(2)WLN632
G.M. Lodha, Actg. C.J.1. A rickshaw-puller (rickshaw-chalak) Kanhaiyalat, was knocked down by the State Roadways Corporation bus No. RRG 8694 in an accident which took i place on 27-11-80 on the way between Chhoti Chopar and Chandpole Gate of Jaipur City. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is a Public undertaking of the State of Rajasthan. The Corporation has got separate funds for the payment of compensation as they are exempted from insurance of the vehicles. The Corporation instead of making payment of compensation to the widow of rickshaw-chalak and his kids, entered into litigation and dragged poor widow to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for filing claim petition.2. The socio-economic pragmatic -approach exhibited by accident claims laws, expressly provides for compensation. It is customary and traditional for the State or its functionaries, on such occasions to act on humanitarian grounds and grant ex gratia monetary relief to the deceased's family. But as an anti-the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC144; (1951)53BOMLR472; (1951)IMLJ314(SC); [1950]1SCR979; [1950]SuppSCR979
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay. Although the record is heavy and many points were argued in the trial court and in the court of appeal at Bombay, the important point argued before us is only one. 2. The appellants (plaintiffs) are a firm of commission agents in Bombay. The respondents (defendants) were their constituents. Accounts between the parties in respect of their dealings were made up and settled up to the 30th of October, 1943. Piecegoods and yarn continued to be purchased and consigned by the plaintiffs to the defendants' joint family firm thereafter. One bale of piecegoods was purchased and despatched in November, 1943. In January, 1944, restrictions were imposed against the consignment of piecegoods and/or yarn outside Bombay by rail without obtaining the necessary previous permit from the Textile Commissioner at Bombay. On or about the 6th February, 1944, Mohanlal of the defendants' joint family firm came to Bombay and the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!