Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD111
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. This appeal arises out of O.P. No. 718 of 1988 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram.2. This appeal is filed by the claimant having not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. His case was that he was working as a driver on a passenger bus bearing No. AP 35 T 3337, which was given on hire to A.P.S.R.T.C. On 21.6.1997 while the bus was going with passengers at about 6.00 a.m., a lorry bearing No. AP 31 T 7074 came in the opposite direction at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus near Dwarapudi Junction. As a result of the accident, the claimant (i.e.,) driver of the bus under hire to A.P.S.R.T.C. and the passengers travelling in his bus received injuries. As far as the claimant is concerned, he received fracture of femur on the right thigh and other simple injuries. Hence, he filed M.V.CP.No. 718 of 1998 claiming compensation of Rupees two lakhs by impleading the owner of the lorry, its insurer, owner of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC2138; (1989)2CompLJ95(SC); JT1989(2)SC338; 1989(1)SCALE1353; 1990Supp(1)SCC440; [1989]3SCR43
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In these transferred writ petitions and one suit, we are concerned with the powers, functions and the role of the Controller of Capital Issues. By an order dated 9th September, 1988 this Court had directed that the four writ petitions and one civil suit i.e., W.P. No. 1791/88 pending before the Delhi High Court, W.P. No. 2708/88 pending before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, W.P. No. 12176/88 pending before the Karnataka High Court, W.P. No. 4388/88 pending before the High Court of Bombay and Civil Suit No. 1172/88 pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division Bench, Baroda, Gujarat, be transferred to this Court for disposal. It would be appropriate to deal with the facts of one of these, i.e., W.P. No. 1791/ 88, which was filed in Delhi High Court in T.C. No. 161/88. The other writ petitions and the suit raise more or less identical problems and issues on more or less same facts. 2. The petitioner in that writ petition is one Narendra' Kumar M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 50(1993)DLT458
ORDERWhereas, the Election Commission in its Notification No. 464/91(1) dated 19/04/1991, issued under Section 30 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) had(i) fixed the 20/05/1991, as the date on which poll shall betaken in the Parliament Constituency of 35 Patna of Bihar and(ii) specified the 31/05/1991, as the date before which the election shall be completed in the above constituency:andWhereas, the Election Commission has received information based on the reports of the State Government, the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, the Returning Officer, the Observers and other relevant sources of information that on the date of polling, i.e.,20.5.1991 there had been large scale incidents of electoral malpractice involving booth capturing by seizure of polling stations, making polling authorities surrender the ballot papers, making forcible possession of polling stations and prevention of free access to for the purpose of voting, threatening electors and preventi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2003Mad41
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Since the issues involved in the above writ petitions are common, all the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common order.2. For better appreciation, the facts relating to W.P.No.14431 of 1994 may be referred to first in this order. The petitioner is Sri Kaleeswari Metal Powder Private Limited represented by its Managing Director, Sivakasi. The petitioner is the owner of the lands comprised in S.Nos.477/1 to 8, 479/1A, 1B and 2, 499, 500/2B1, 500/2B2, 500/5, 6, 8 and 9 at Injar Village, Virudhunagar. Before establishing the factory to manufacture aluminium powder at the above lands, the petitioner obtained permission from the first respondent panchayat on 6.6.91 for construction of factory buildings. Pursuant to the said permission, the petitioner completed the construction during February 1994. Before commencing the production, the petitioner applied for licence under the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 on 27.8.93. By a communicati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2772; 2009CriLJ3952; JT2009(8)SC250; 2009(8)SCALE642; (2009)7SCC480:2009AIRSCW4202
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court holding that the order dated 4.9.2006 passed by learned Special Judge in bail application No. 32 of 2006 filed in remand application No. 17 of 2006 suffers from no infirmity.3. Criminal Appeal No. 996 of 2006 was filed under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (in short the `Act').4. The bail application was preferred by the accused Nos. 5 to 8 challenging the order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Special Court thereby granting second extension of 15 days to complete the investigation and to file the charge-sheet. The bail application came to be rejected. It had been prayed in the appeal that the appellants be released on bail in LAC No. 3 of 2006 on default of the prosecution in completing the investigation within the extended period granted upto 21.8.2006. Whereas in Criminal Appeal No. 736 of 2006 filed by the original accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1991]83STC273(Kar)
M. Rama Jois, J.1. The question of law which arises for consideration in this revision petition resented under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, is whether or not safety fuse falls within entry 81-B of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and consequently liable to tax at the rate of 6 per cent single point. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are these : The petitioner is an assessee registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short). The assessment period is the year ending 30th June, 1984. The turnover of the petitioner relating to safety fuse during the assessment year was Rs. 97,470.90. The petitioner claimed exemption from payment of tax on the said turnover on the ground that he was a second and subsequent dealer and as safety fuse comes under entry 81-B of the Second Schedule to the Act only 6 per cent tax at single point was leviable and therefore this turnover should be exempted from payment of tax. The assessing authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1986Bom373; 1987(3)BomCR119; 1986MhLJ582
Shah, J.1. In all these matters a common question of law as to the correct interpretation of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Bombay City (Inami and Special Tenures) Abolition and Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') arises for consideration. Before turning to the controversy raised in these matters the facts which in so far as they are material and are not disputed need to be stated.2. In Appeal No. 24 of 1980 appellants (original petitioners in Misc. petition No. 1566 0f 1975) are the Trustees of the Behramji nowroji gamadiaParsi Hunnar Shala Trust which is a public trust constituted by a Trust Deed dated 26th September, 1933, made by Bai Navajibai Nowroji Gamadia. The trust is duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1960. The objects of the trusts include (a) the foundation, maintained and support of a Technological school or schools and institutes, Hunnar Shala, workshops and industrial and vocational chasses ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993AP229; 1993(1)ALT458
ORDERBhaskar Rao, J.1. These two appeals give rise to a similar point and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Writ petitioner is the appellant in W. A. 1161 of 1992. She was born in a Reddy caste family and married an ERUKALA boy, Dr. Swamy. ERUKALA tribe is one of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The marriage took place on 3-5-1990 at Luthern Church in Hyderabad and since then she is leading family life with him and his parents at Guntur. After the marriage, she sought for admission into M.Sc. (Home Science) course in the Agricultural University at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, under reserved quota for Scheduled Tribes. Inasmuch as the University Authorities were not considering her as one, entitled to the reservation available to Scheduled Tribes, she moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage by the learned single Judge holding that the marriage is ANULOMA for the gir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
M.L. Visa, J.1. These five appeals by five appellants, each filing separate appeal, on his behalf, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as all these appeals arise out of same judgment dated 30-8-1996 and order dated 31-8-1996 passed by the 2nd Addl;. Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 423/93 convicting and sentencing appellant Lallua alias Lallua Mian to life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC and remaining four appellants, namely, Piyaru alias Piyarua Mian, Lallu alias Masood Akhtar, Md. Chand and Md. Quaisar to life imprisonment under Section 302/34, IPC. All the five appellants have further been convicted and sentenced to RI for five years each under Section 3 and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and R.I. for two years under Section 27 of Arms Act. Besides this, appellants Lallua alias Lallua Mian and Piyaru alias Piyaraua Mian have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for five years each under Section 307, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Manohar Lal Visa, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4-6-1992 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah, in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1988/28 of 1982 convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo R. I, for 3 years under Section 25(A) of Arms Act, R I. for 5 years under Section 26 of Arms Act and R, I. for 7 years under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Appellants were convicted under Section 35 of Arms Act but no separate sentence was awarded under this count.2. Prosecution case, in short, is that informant Sureshwari Pandey (not examined) on 24-10-80 while investigating another case registered as Hasua P. S. Case No. 10/80 received secret information that appellants had kept stolen articles in their village. Informant entered this information in Station Diary as Entry No. 431 dated 24-10-80 and along with Sayabuddin and Md. Sayeed, both Executive-Magistrates (not examined), SI...
Tag this Judgment!