Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(4)KLT662
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Are Exts. P-2 and P-3 orders passed by the statutory authorities suspending the licence issued to the petitioner under the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short, 'the Act') legally valid and sustainable2. The above question has arisen for consideration in this Writ Petition in the following facts and circumstances.3. The petitioner was granted Ext.PI licence by the competent authority in February 2002, to manufacture explosives. It is the admitted position that the said licence was renewed for a further period of two years which was due to expire on March 31,2004. On January 26, 2004 at about 3.30 P.M. a massive explosion took place in the work site where the petitioner was engaged in manufacture of explosives. Three persons lost their lives in the explosion. One of the victims was a 12 year old boy. Ponnani Police registered Crime No.34/2004 in this connection against the petitioner and two others for offences punishable under Sections 286 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2006]147STC231(Orissa)
A.K. Parichha, J.1. Both the S.J.C and the S.T. REV. arise out of references made by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short, 'the Act'). Since identical disputes are involved in the references, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The cases relate to assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the years 1976-77, 1977-78 to 1983-84, 1989-90 and 1990-91 in respect of assessee, M/s. IDL Industries (formerly IDL Chemicals Ltd.), a company under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Kukatpalli, Andhra Pradesh, engaged in manufacturing explosives, detonators and accessories and holding licence under the Explosives Act, 1884. It has a manufacturing unit at Sonaparbat near Rourkela in Orissa which is also registered under both the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle, Rourkela. M/s. IDL is a regular supplier of its products to differ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992CriLJ955; 1992(1)WLC76; 1991(2)WLN212; 1991(2)WLN259
V.S. Dave, J.1. This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioners praying that the order granting remand to judicial custody to accused SVS Kuldeep Jain, Meethalal and Khajulal by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, be declared illegal and consequently the detention to be unlawful. They further prayed that they be directed to be released forthwith.2. The main ground of challenge is that mandatory provisions of Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. have been grossly violated and the order granting remand to judicial custody has been passed in the absence of any prayer by the police or production of the case diary. The petitioners' case is that the Station House Officer, Police Station Motidoongri, Jaipur submitted a written report at the said police station on 19-11-1990 on which F.I.R. No. 275/90 was registered against one Shri D.P. Gupta at whose residential place as well as business premises a search was carried out revealing a sizable stock of explosives. The case was registered fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2012)9SCC1; JT2012(8)SC4; 2012(4)KCCR271(SN); 2012AIRSCW4942; AIR2012SC3565; 2012(7)SCALE553
Aftab Alam, J.1. The appellant, Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’ or as ‘Kasab’), who is a Pakistani national, has earned for himself five death penalties and an equal number of life terms in prison for committing multiple crimes of a horrendous kind in this country. Some of the major charges against him were: conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India; collecting arms with the intention of waging war against the Government of India; waging and abetting the waging of war against the Government of India; commission of terrorist acts; criminal conspiracy to commit murder; criminal conspiracy, common intention and abetment to commit murder; committing murder of a number of persons; attempt to murder with common intention; criminal conspiracy and abetment; abduction for murder; robbery/dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt; and causing explosions punishable under the Explosive S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(2)ALD228; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)565; 1999(2)ALT325; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)9; 1999CriLJ3566
1. One M. Balakrishna Reddy who was the husband of the petitioner in Crl. RC No.630 of 1998. M. Venkata Lakshmi and M. Radhakrishna Reddy were facing prosecution in Crime No.33 of 1995 under Section 498-A and 406 of 1PC when a Government order being G.O. Rt. No.2087 was issued by the Home Department on 7th August, 1997. Acting on this order the Public Prosecutor moved an application before the trial Court for withdrawal from the prosecution and the trial Court passed an order on 19-9-1997 permitting withdrawal of prosecution. The order of trial Court has been challenged in Crl. RC No.630 of 1998. After the Government order dated 7-8-1997 had been acted upon and the trial Court had permitted withdrawal of the prosecution, the Government passed another order being G.O. Rt. No.2717 dated 21st October, 1997 withdrawing the earlier Government Order. This Government Order has been challenged in WP No.28309 of 1997 by the persons who are respondents in the revision petition.2. Counters have b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2001Delhi455; 93(2001)DLT28; 2001(60)DRJ297
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This is a petition filed on behalf of an association of public activists in public interest. Main grievance in this petition is that as a result of display of fire works and use thereof during festivals and marriages, physical and mental hazard is suffered by adults as well as children. Noise pollution is caused due to use of high-sounding explosive fire works and other blaring sound-producing devices and the effect of the same results in pollution in sound, which is hazardous. It is also submitted that because of indiscriminate use of loudspeakers, noise pollution has become a routine affair affecting mental as well as physical health of citizens. There is noise pollution notwithstanding specific instructions issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Delhi. It is highlighted that manner in which sound pollution is being caused and the impact of such sound pollution on the health of the people, is a cause for great concern.2. 'Pollution' i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1997AP20; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)628; 1996(3)ALT901
ORDER1. The petitioner applied for a licence, to possess and sell explosives by establishing a Magazine for the storage of explosives, to the third respondent who is the competent authority for grant of such licence. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition that the petitioner had purchased land in Sy. Nos. 756 to 766 of Ankireddipally village, Keesara Mandal, Rangareddy District. The petitioner hadnever carried on the business in explosive earlier and there has been no complaint against the petitioner under the Explosives Act, 1984 or under the Explosives Substances Act, 1988. However, the petitioner's brother Sri A. Indrasena Reddy has been carrying on business in explosives under the name and style of M/s. Vijaya Associates which was a proprietory concern and that the petitioner has nothing to do with the aforesaid business. It appears that a case is pending against the petitioner's brother under the Explosives Act and on that ground the Superintend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1971]27STC548(Guj)
Desai, J.1. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred to this court under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law arising out of its judgment and order dated 31st December, 1968 :- 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Bengal light matches and paper caps are 'fireworks' covered by entry 44E of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, or covered by the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E to the said Act ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference may be briefly stated : The assessee is a firm carrying on business as a dealer in sewing thread, cutlery, fireworks, Bengal light matches, paper caps etc. The assessee was assessed to sales tax for the period Kartak Sud 1 of S.Y. 2019 to Aso Vad 30 of S.Y. 2020. The assessee had undertaken the sales of Bengal light matches and paper caps during the said assessment period and the Sales Tax Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2005CriLJ4494
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Order of conviction of the petitioners under Section 395, I.P.C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayagada in the combined trial of Sessions Case No. 7 of 1993 and 11 of 1993, was upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore as per the common judgment delivered in Criminal Appeal , Nos. 26 to 30 of 1994 of the said Court. Being aggrieved by. such order of conviction and sentence the six convicted accused persons not only preferred Criminal Revisions in the following indicated manner but also three of them send applications from the Jail which were registered in this Court as Jail Criminal Revisions. To get a clear picture about their status, the total numbers of accused who faced the trial, the accused persons who were acquitted and convicted and the appeals and the revisions which were preferred are indicated below. (The names of the accused persons are described according to the serial numbers assigned to them ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2881; 2003(5)ALD26(SC); 2003(2)ARBLR666(SC); 2003(4)AWC2674(SC); 2003(3)BLJR2433; (2003)4CompLJ311(SC); 2003(3)CTC438; [2003(4)JCR140(SC)]; JT2003(6)SC1; (2003)135
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh delivered in Civil Revision No. 1688 of 2002 on 1.7.2002 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant herein against an order made by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Rewari, Haryana, dated 19.2.2002 dismissing the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') in a suit pending before it seeking reference of the suit pending before it to an arbitrator as contemplated under Clause 40 of the Dealership Agreement between the parties.4. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:5. The appellant herein is a company carrying on the business of manufacture, sale and distribution of petroleum products which it does through dealers and distributors appointed by it. The re...
Tag this Judgment!