Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1288; [1962]Supp1SCR405
Sinha, C.J.1. The Petitioners in these Writ Petitions, under Art. 32 of the Constitution, complain of interference with their rights under the several Khor Posh grants, and pray for writs of certiorari or mandamus and further orders or directions to the respondents for the enforcement of their alleged rights. In Writ Petition No. 79 of 1957, the first respondent is the State of Orissa, and the Union of India is the second respondent. In all the other Writ Petitions, the State of Orissa is the sole respondent. As most of the questions of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution, or other laws hereinafter to be referred to, are common, the cases have been heard together. But in order to appreciate the points arising in these cases, it is necessary to state the facts of each case separately. I. Writ Petition No. 79 of 1957. 2. In Writ Petition 79 of 1957, the petitioner is the younger brother of the present Raja of Talcher, which was an independent sovereign State before its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1992]195ITR496(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. These are cross-references, two at the instance of the Department and one at the instance of the accountable person. The Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law for opinion under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 :R. A. No. 1246/(Bom) of 1975-76. At the instance of the Controller : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the trust properties consisting of the movable assets of the value of Rs. 22,29,444 and the immovable property known as 'Readymoney house' at Veer Nariman Road, Bombay, of the value of Rs. 4,64,000 did not pass on the death of the deceased under Section 5 or Section 7 or Section 11 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property known as 'Garden Reach' situated at Poona is not to be included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR156
H. Suresh, J.1. The petitioner Sharad Rao, a Member of the party of Janata Dal contested election to 42, Goregaon Legislative Assembly Constituency, held on February 27, 1990. Respondent No. 1, Subhash Desai, a Shiv-Sena Member, contested in the same constituency against the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 was declared as elected. There were other candidates from other parties who have all been made parties to the petition. The petitioner has filed this petition to set aside the election of respondent No. 1 on the ground of certain corrupt practices as provided under the representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1951). The charges are under section 123(1), bribery, by way of gift of various articles to the voters 123(3), appeal by respondent No. 1 or his agent or any other person with his consent to vote or refrain from voting on the ground of religion or community 123(3-A), promotion of or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(1)KCCR5(SN)
(This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the communication dated 6-12-2004 issued by the first respondent vide annexure-k, in so far as it recommends the grant of mining lease to respondents 4 and 5, and etc.)Writ petition is by a limited company, which has filed an application on 16-4-2003 [copy at Annexure-C to the writ petition] seeking for lease of an extent of 298.5 ha. of land for mining operation for a period of 30 years to exploit iron ore from the said government land and in response to a government notification dated 15-3-2003 [copy at Annexure-B to the writ petition] informing the general public that the areas mentioned in the annexure to the notification are available for regrant under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 [for short, the Rules]; that such an application will be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 [for short, the Act] ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001CriLJ3156; [2002(94)FLR928]; ILR2001KAR3683; 2001(4)KarLJ548
ORDER1. All these criminal petitions arise out of the similar orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hassan in C.C. Nos. 2512 to 2522 of 1992 dismissing the applications filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The Provident Fund Inspector, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation of Hassan Division filed complaints on 6-8-1991 for initiation of action under Section 14(1) and 14(1-A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against the accused persons who are the Directors of M/s. Hemayathi Coffee Curing Works (Private) Limited, Hassan on account of the default in contributing to the Provident Fund of its employees as required under the Act and the scheme. The petitioners are accused 2, 4 and 5. It appears one of the accused viz., accused 6, G.M. Rajendra was found absconding. Therefore, the case against accused 6 came to be split up. When the matter was at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 62(1996)DLT313
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) I had the advantage of reading the opinion of my learned Brother K. Ramamoorthy. I am in respectful agreement with the conclusions reached by brother Ramamoorthy that all the appeals and writ petitions deserve dismissal. In his judgment Brother Ramamoorthy has dealt with various aspects of the matter in great detail as also the decisions cited before us. Considering, however, the gravity of unauthorised construction and misuse and numerous cases which come up before Courts seeking injunction relating to such constructions, I would notice few salient facts of these cases. (2) The unauthorised construction and unauthorised user of residential building for commercial purposes in Delhi has gained alarming proportions and crossed all limits. At the very outset I may state that these activities are against the interests of the Society at large and need to be dealt with firmly. (3) The common questions of fact and law are involved in these batch of writ petitions and app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1955Bom363; (1955)57BOMLR367; ILR1955Bom467; (1955)ILLJ13Bom
Chagla, C.J. 1. A short question has been raised in this appeal which however interesting is really not capable of very great elaboration. The petitioners, which are two limited companies, submitted certain draft standing orders to the Commissioner of Labour and the Commissioner certified them with certain, modifications. The petitioners objected to the modifications made by the Commissioner and appealed against his decision.The Appellate, Authority confirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Labour, and the petitioners applied for a writ of 'certiorari' against the decision of the appellate authority, and Coyajee J. quashed the order of the appellate authority, and the Commissioner of Labour has come in appeal.2. In order to decide the rights of the parties we have to consider and construe a very short, and in our opinion a very simple Act passed by the Indian Legislature being the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act (20 of 1946). The Act is entitled: 'An Act to require empl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1951Bom137; (1951)53BOMLR539; ILR1952Bom54
Chagla, C.J.1. The pltf. filed a suit in the Court of the Second Class Subordirate Judge, Mudhol State, alleging that he was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Mudhol State Agriculturists' Relief Act & contending that a certain transaction he had entered into with the defts. on 12-8-1937, although ostensibly a sale, was in reality a mortgage & asking for accounts of this mortgage transaction. The trial Court held that the pltf. was not an agriculturist & dismissed his suit. In appeal the learned Dist. J. of Mudhol took a contrary view & held that the pltf. was an agriculturist & remanded the suit to the trial Court for disposal. It is from this decision that this appeal is preferred, & as the matter involved consideration of a rather important question of law, the matter has been referred to this Full Bench.1a. The Mudhol State Agriculturists' Relief Act came into force on 1-11-1940, & the suit was filed on 20-9-1943. The suit is under Section 14 of that Act which enables an ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1967Bom347; (1966)68BOMLR586
(1) This notice of motion raises a very interesting question -whether a Court has a power to grant interest on the principal sum adjudged by an award from the date of the award till payment and it arises in the following circumstances, By agreements dated 28th December 1956 and 27th June 1957 the construction work of the new Church gate station building in Fort, Bombay was entrusted by the President of India acting for the Western Railway Administration to M/s S. N. Srikantia & Co. (Plaintiffs) on terms and conditions contained therein and as per the specifications, plans and drawing annexed thereto. Pursuant to the said contract the plaintiffs firm carried out the said work, completed the same and the certificate of completion was issued but in connection with the plaintiffs' final bill disputes and differences arose between the parties and as provided for in the contract the same were referred to the joint arbitration of two arbitrators. However, since there was disagreement between ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All353
Agarwala, J.1. These are four connected appeals and arise in the following circumstances. The parties are closely related to each other. They were originally members of a joint Hindu family. Then there was a partition between them. They now own contiguous houses. Disputes, about easemen-tary rights regarding doors 'janalas parnalas' and walls cropped up and in connection with them there was some 'marpit' between them. Several litigations were pending in the civil and criminal courts in connection with these disputes, when on 11-12-1944 an agreement of reference was entered into between them by which they referred all these litigations as well as other disputes to arbitrators. The litigations then pending were four in number. One was an appeal No. 218 of 1944 arising out of suit No. 575 of 1943 (L. Moor Dhuj V. L. Bhumandal Dass), the second was Execution Appeal No. 111 of 1944, arising out of execution proceedings in connection with the decree in suit No. 196 of 1934, filed by Moradhwa...
Tag this Judgment!