Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2004)187CTR(SC)219; [2004]266ITR721(SC); JT2004(1)SC375; 2004(1)SCALE425; (2004)10SCC201
CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 1532 of 1993PETITIONER:State of West BengalRESPONDENT:Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/01/2004BENCH:V.N.Khare CJI & R.C.Lahoti & B.N.Agarwal & S.B.Sinha & A.R.LakshmananJUDGMENT:JUDGMENTDELIVERED BY:R.C.LAHOTI, J.S.B.SINHA, J.WITHCivil Appeal Nos. 3518-3519 and 5149-54 of 1992, 1532-1533 and 2350 of 1993and 7614 of 1994 and C.A. Nos. 297, 298 and 299 of 2004 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3986 of 1993, 11596 and 17549 of 1994) with W.P. (C) Nos. 262,515, 641 and 642 of 1997, 347 and 360 of 1999, 50 and 553 of 2000, 207, 288and 389 of 2001 and 81 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 5027, 6643 to 6650 and6894 of 2000 and 1077 of 2001Decided On: 15.01.2004JUDGMENTR.C. Lahoti, J.This batch of matters, some appeals by special leave under Article 136 ofthe Constitution and some writ petitions filed in this Court, raise a fewquestions of constitutional significance centering around Entries 52, 54and 97 in List I and Entries 23, 49, 50 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR657
V. Gopalagowda, J.1. This review Petition is filed by respondents 5 to 7 in M.F.A. No. 5472/2001 requesting this Court to review the judgment dt. 8/8/2005 passed by this Court in M.F.A. No. 5472/2001 and further requested to set aside the same and dismiss the appeal with costs urging various legal contentions.2. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to, as has been assigned in the Misc. First Appeal.3. The first ground urged in this petition is that no appeal lies Under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the BPT Act) against the order dt. 24/9/2001 passed in Misc. No. 26/1998 on the file of the District Judge, Uttar Kannada District, Karwar, rejecting the claim of second appellant to appoint him as the Trustee of the Trust of SREE Vinayaka Devaru Temple, Idagunji. Therefore the order passed by this Court allowing the appeal is without jurisdiction, hence the judgment sought to be reviewed suffers f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1988P& H281
V. Ramaswami, C.J.1. In C. W. P. 736 of 1987, the petitioners. who are the tenants of the ground floor portion of H. N. 2135, Sector 38-C. Chandigarh. have filed this writ petition praying for quashing of the Notification No. GSR-1287(E) dated December 15, 1986 by which the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. 1966(Act No. 31 of 1966) have extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act. 1983, (Punjab Act 2 of 1985) as in force in the State of Punjab at the date of the notification subject to the modifications mentioned in the said notification. This Amendment Act 2 of 1985, which was extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh incorporated Section 13-A in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 3 of 1949, which conferred certain special rights in favour of 'specified landlord' which expression means 'a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a buildi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1640; 2008(3)ALD56; 2008(2)ALT100(SC); 2008(56)BLJR1550; [2008(3)JCR90(SC)]; 2008(3)SCALE45; (2008)4SCC720; 2008AIRSCW1826; 2008(3)LH(SC)2208; 2008(2)Supreme638
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 8.5.2001 in Writ Petition No. 12649 of 2000.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.The writ petition was filed in the High Court praying for a declaration that Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by A.P. Act 8 of 1998 which requires a party to deposit 50% deficit stamp duty as a condition precedent for a reference to the Collector under Section 47A is unconstitutional. By the impugned judgment the High Court has declared it unconstitutional. Hence, this appeal. 3. Under Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 certain instruments are chargeable with the duty mentioned in the Schedule to the Act. Item 23 in the Schedule to the Act mentions a `conveyance' as one of the documents requiring payment of stamp duty. A `conveyance' is defined in Section 2(10) of the Act and includes a sale deed. Since in the present case we a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2005All86; 2005(1)AWC682
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, and Sri Arvind Srivastava for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, District Gautam Budh Nagar (in short, the NOIDA).2. The petitioners are Welfare Societies/ Co-operative Housing Societies, and individual member of these societies. The writ petitions are directed against the letters issued by Additional Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA dated 13-11-2002 and 7-1-2003 by which the NOIDA has directed the individual members to execute a tripartite deed with the Welfare Societies/Co-operative Housing Societies as the lessees, and NOIDA, as the lessor, for sale of the superstructure and sub lease deed for the respective flats apartments, residential accommodations, allotted by the societies to its individual members; and for restraining the respondents from charging any stamp duty on the execution of such tripartite deed.3. The brief facts giving rise to these writ petitions are stated as below :--In Writ Petition N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1323a; (1986)2GLR1250; 1986(1)SCALE1133; 1986Supp(1)SCC20; [1986]1SCR479; 1986(2)LC301(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. This group of Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution and Appeals by certificate granted by the High Court of Gujarat and by Special Leave granted this Court raises questions relating to the constitutionality of Section 15(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act No. 67 of 1957), the power of the State Governments to make rules under the said Section 15 to enable them to charge dead rent and royalty in respect of leases of minor minerals granted by them and to enhance the rates of dead rent and royalty during the subsistence of such leases, the validity of Rule 21-B of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966, and of certain notifications issued by the Government of Gujarat under the said Section 15 amending the said Rules so as to enhance the, rates of royalty and dead rent in respect of leases of minor minerals. These Notifications are :(1). GU-74/121(A)/MCR-2173(49)7268/CHH dated November 29, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(6)ALT523; 2007(1)CTC97; AIR2007AP57; 2007(2)AIRKarR382(FB)
V.V.S. Rao, J.PART - IINTRODUCTION:1. Almost a century old Registration Act, 1908, which came into force on 01.01.1909, after about fifteen amendments, has now thrown up sea-saw situation played by human ingenuity. These cases have thrown up a couple of interesting questions of law having far reaching consequences. Whether a person can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed? Whether a registering officer, like District Registrar and/or Sub Registrar appointed by the State Government, is bound to refuse registration when a cancellation deed is presented? When cancellation deed is registered how the grievance, if any, is to be redressed in law? These and other incidental questions are required to be answered by this Full Bench.BACKGROUND FACTS:2. At the outset, brief reference may be made to the pleadings, in these petitions. W.P. No. 23005 of 2004 is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent (hereafter call...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC899; (1972)1SCC726; [1972]3SCR332
K.S. Hegde, J. 1. Both these appeals, the former by certificate and the later by special leave arise from the decision of the High Court of Bombay in a reference under Section 54 of the Bombay Stamp Act.2. When Civil Appeal No. 660 of 1967 came up for hearing on a previous occasion, objection was raised as to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the High Court was not competent to grant a certificate in the case under Article 133 of the Constitution. At that stage, the appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal so as to enable it to move this Court for special leave against the impugned decision. That prayer was allowed by this Court. Thereafter the appellant sought and obtained special leave of this Court to appeal against the decision in question. Hence Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1972 came to be filed. In view of this appeal, we may now proceed on the basis that Civil Appeal No. 660 of 1967 stands withdrawn and the same is disposed of accordingly. Hereafter we shall on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC450; 2006(1)ALD10(SC); 2005(3)ARBLR285(SC); 2006(1)AWC538(SC); 2006(1)BomCR585; [2005]128CompCas465(SC); (2006)2CompLJ7(SC); 2005(5)CTC302; (2006)3GLR2097; [2006(1
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 3205/2004, 14033-14034/2004, 21272-273/2002.1. What is the nature of the function of the Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is the question that is posed before us. The three judges bench decision in Konkan Rly. Corporation Ltd. v. Mehul Construction Co. : AIR2000SC2821 as approved by the Constitution Bench in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. : [2002]1SCR728 has taken the view that it is purely an administrative function, that it is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial and the Chief Justice or his nominee performing the function under Section 11(6) of the Act, cannot decide any contentious issue between the parties. The correctness of the said view is questioned in these appeals.2. Arbitration in India was earlier governed by the Indian Arbitration Act, 1859 with limited application and the Second Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 48(1992)DLT660; 1993(44)ECC101
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The petitioners, apart from other Ayurvedic medicines also prepare Mrit Sanjivni, Mrit Sanjivni Sura, Mrit Sanjivni Sudha and Vrihad (Maha) Darakshasav. These are stated to be medicinal drugs but it is an admitted fact that they contain more than 40 per cent proof alcohol and the same are also misused, by some persons, and taken as intoxicating beverages.(2) The anxiety not to be subjected to any control, even if it be for the benefit of the community at large, has led to the filing of a bunch of writ petitions by manufacturers of alcoholic medicinal preparations.(3) The challenge in these writ petitions is primarily to the two Notifications dated 3rd March, 1987 and 5th March. 1987 issued by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi and by the Commisisoner of Excise, respectively, the effect of which is that intoxicating spirituous preparations including Ayurvedic medicines, containing more than 25 per cent proof alcohol have been brought within the purview ...
Tag this Judgment!