Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2001KAR541; 2001(4)KarLJ5
ORDERThe petitioner has filed this petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to implement the Tatkal Scheme. Under the Tatkal Scheme a person paying Rs. 4,000/- would be given out of turn allotment of LPG cylinders for domestic use.2. The petitioner has averred in the petition that the marketing of LPG is being regulated by the first respondent through three Public Sector Companies and several private dealers. As there were many shortcomings in the marketing of LPG, a Committee under one Mrs. Sudha Joshi was appointed to study the problems of the LPG consumers and dealers and submit its recommendations. The Committee submitted its report and the first respondent accepted it. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the first respondent accepted it, it has not so far given effect to any of the recommendations of the Committee and on the other hand it has now come up with the impugned Tatkal Scheme for out of turn allotment of LPG connections to perso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(4)SC294; RLW2003(3)SC424; 2003(4)SCALE402; (2003)9SCC673; 2003(2)LC993(SC)
Santosh Hegde, J.1. All these appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Designate Judge at Ajmer, Rajasthan, made in TADA Special Case No. 8 of 1992. In the said case, the appellants herein along with some other accused were charged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIC.II, New Delhi for offences under Sections 3(3) and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA Act'), Section 120B IPC; and Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 9B and 9C of the Explosive Act. After trial the Designated Court held the appellants guilty of offences punishable under Section 120B IPC, Sections 3(3) and 6(1) of the TADA, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 120B of the IPC and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. Learned Judge also held A-5 guilty of offences punishable under Sections 9B(i)(b) and 9C of the Explosives Act. Based on the said conviction, he imposed a sentence of 5 y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1989Kant285; 1988(3)KarLJ95
ORDER1. In all these petitions, the petitioners who are dealers in fire-works, have questioned the legality of the orders made by the Commissioner of Police, City of Bangalore, and the District Magistrate of the concerned district requiring the petitioners to locate their shops for selling fire-works in temporary structures to be located at the specified open spaces.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow: All along both in the City of Bangalore and elsewhere, the dealers in fire-works were having their shops in their respective shops located in residential areas or in shopping centres. In the year 1979 there was a huge fire accident in the fire-works shops located in the busiest place in the City of Bangalore near Krishnarajendra Market, which resulted in huge loss of property and life. Thereafter, on 11-4-1980 the Government addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police and others. The relevant portion of that letter reads:' xxx xxxSub: Fire Accident at S. K. R. Market B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)ALD(Cri)903; 2004CriLJ4241; [2004(4)JCR156(SC)]; JT2004(8)SC226; 2004(7)SCALE644; (2004)7SCC566; 2005(1)LC82(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court upholding their conviction for offence punishable under Section 9B(i)(b) of the Explosive Act 1884 (in short the 'Act'). The Trial Court sentenced each of the appellants to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.2. In a nutshell the background facts are as follows:On 20.4.1988, the appellants came to Surat from Indore and were intercepted by the police at the bus stand. They were found to be in possession of 180 detonators. A criminal case No. 4 of 1990 was registered against the appellants-accused. They were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 9B(i)(b) of the Act and Section 5 of the Terrorists & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (in short the 'TADA'). By judgment and order dated 12.10.1998 of the Trial Court, the accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2006]144STC446(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short), engaged in the business of sale of LPG (liquid petroleum gas).2. The appellant purchases LPG in bulk from M/s. Reliance Industries Limited and fills it in small cylinders of different capacities and sells such gas in cylinders. It is stated that transferring gas from a bulk container into small cylinders is a complicated process involving use of compressors, evacuating systems, filling guns, etc. It is alleged that without the use of such machinery/equipment, it will not be possible to transfer gas which is received by it in bulk to small cylinders. It is submitted that machinery that are used by the appellant for this purpose fall under Entry 1(iii)(a) of Part M of the Second Schedule to the Act.3. The Government of Karnataka, by notification dated March 31, 2000 issued under Section 8A of the Act reduced the tax payable by a dealer under Section 5 of the Act in res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1988P&H95
D.S. Tewatia, C.J. 1. Petitioner Smt. Bimal Kaur Khalsa wife of Sardar Beant Sing deceased. has through Civil Writ Petition No. 3761 of 1986, question the vires of some of the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. 2. The vires of some of the provisions of the Said Act have similarly been challenged through Civil writ Petitions Nos. 1629 and 4074 of 1986 and Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 827, 884 and 888 of 1996. 3. The provisions of the said Act, the vires whereof had been challenged are Section 3(2)(i). S. 7, S. 8. sub-section (2) of S. 9, sub-section (2). sub-sec: (2) and sub-section (3) of S. 13, S. 16 and cls. (a) and (b) of sub-sec.(2), sub-section (3). sub-section (4) and clause (b) of sub-section (5) of S. 17 of the Act. 4. Soon after the judgment in this case was reserved. the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention Ordinance. 1987 hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance of 1987 was, promulgated, which came into force w.e.f. 24th ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995(2)ALT(Cri)11; 1994(4)BomCR51; (1994)96BOMLR239; 1994CriLJ1447
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner in this case is one Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed @ Hamid Chuva. He has preferred the present Writ Petition invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying for quashing the proceedings initiated against him under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (28 of 1987) (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA Act'), on the ground that the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the fact which are alleged against him. He has also prayed for grant of bail. On the night between 17/18th April, 1993 three persons, which included the petitioner, came to be arrested. The other two who were arrested were Mohamed Hussein Umer Merchant and Mohamed Farooq Mohamed Yusuf Batki. It was found that the three accused were connected with the property known as Picnic Guest House in Juhu. The accused Mohamed Hussein Umer Merchant is the owner of the said property. Apart from him one I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)502; AIR1996SC1744; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)207; (1996)98BOMLR513; 1996CriLJ2448; 1996(2)Crimes64(SC); JT1996(4)SC615; 1996(3)SCALE449; (1996)4SCC659; [1996]Supp1SCR189
ORDERHansaria, J.1. Bombay of yesterday, Mumbai of today : financial capital of the nation. It woke as usual on 12th March, 1993. People started for their places of work not knowing what was in their store. The terrorists and/or disruptionists, bent on breaking the backbone of the nation (for reasons which need not be gone into) had, however, hatched a well laid-out conspiracy to cripple the country by striking at its financial nerve. As Bombay set down to work, blasting of bombs, almost simultaneously, took place at important centers of commercial activities like Stock Exchange, Air India, Zaveri Bazar, Katha Bazar and many luxurious hotels. A shocked Bombay and a stunned nation first tried to provide succour to the victims as much as possible and then wanted to know the magnitude of the loss of life and property. It surpassed all imagination, as it was ultimately found that the blasts left more than 250 persons dead, 730 injured and property worth about Rs. 27 crores destroyed. By al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1062; 1981CriLJ588; 1981(1)SCALE445; (1981)2SCC443; 1981(Supp)SCC17; [1981]3SCR68
1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1976 has been preferred by two appellants, Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar (hereinafter 'Usman') and Mohammad Taufik Mohammad Hussain Maniyar (here zinafter 'Taufik') and Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 1976 has been preferred by Mohammad Hussain Fakhruddin Maniyar (hereinafter 'Fakhruddin) and Mohammad Rizwan Mohammad Hussain Maniyar (hereinafter 'Rizwan'). All of them were convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge as follows:(i) Under Section 120B of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years, each; (ii) Under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years, each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months, each; (iii) Under Section 5(3)(b) of the Explosives Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 97(2004)CLT489(SC); JT2003(Suppl1)SC586; 2003(8)SCALE107; (2003)12SCC257; 2004(1)LC62(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant was found guilty of offences punishable under Section 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short the 'TADA Act'), Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (in short the 'Explosive Act') and Section 9B of Explosives Act, 1884 (in short the 'Act') read with Rule 115 of the Explosives Rules, 1983 (in short the 'Rules'). 2. Prosecution case which led to the trial of the accused who was charge sheeted alongwith five others in a nutshell is as follows:3. On 19.11.1990 complainant Ram Niwas ((PN-7), S.H.O., P.S. Moti Dungri, Jaipur filed a written report Ex.P/10-A through Shri Sanwat Singh on the basis of which FIR Ex.P/138 was registered at police station Moti Dungri, Jaipur stating that on 19.11.1990 at about 8.15 a.m. complainant Ram Niwas Yadav along with the driver Ram Pratap of the official vehicle were patrolling. At 9.30 a.m. Ram Niwas received information from 'Mukhbir' that the appellant at his residence plo...
Tag this Judgment!