Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1952)54BOMLR451
Gajendragadkar, J. [1] This appeal arises from a dispute between the Pratap Spinning, Weaving & Manufacturing Company, Limited, Amalner and the Borough Municipality of Amalner. The Pratap Spinning, Weaving & Manufacturing Company, Limited, had sued the Municipality in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Dhulia, for a declaration that the claim made by it on 3-11-1948, by its bill No. 3 and Rule 3 (9) of its General Property Tax Rules on which the said bill was based were ultra vires, illegal and void and for an injunction restraining the Municipality from making any claim or demand on the strength of the said rule. The company had also claimed a refund of Rs. 18,931-11-0 which had been paid by the company under protest on 20-11-1948, in pur-suancea of the aforesaid bill. To the suit filed by the company the Borough Municipality of Amalner was impleaded as defendant 1 and the Province of Bombay defendant 2. [2] The plaintiff is a company registered under the Indian Compani...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR3865; 2001(3)KarLJ308
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. The writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties.2. The short but interesting question before the Court is whether a person who is elected as a member of the Committee of Management of the Co-operative Society prior to the amendment and subsequently elected after the amendment as the President of the Co-operative Society shall hold office as President for one year or two and a half years.3. The Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, before the amendment was to the effect that the tenure of the Committee of Management shall be 3 years and the tenure of the office of the President was 1 year. By Karnataka Act 25 of 1998 which came into effect on 15-8-1998, the statutory term of the Committee of Management was enhanced from 3 years to 5 years. Equally, the statutory term of the President was enhanced from 1 year to 2 1/2 years.4. In this case, the election to the committee of Management of the 2nd respondent-Bank was held on 29-6-1998. The amended Act c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant269; AIR1965Mys269; (1965)1MysLJ269
Hegde, J. (1) These petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution raise identical questions of law. Therefore, they can be disposed of in one order.(2) In these petitions, this court is asked to quash the acquisition proceedings commencing with the government Notification No. RDH 4 LCI 60 dated 18-2-1960 issued under S. 4(1) of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act (Act VII of 1894), to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', and all consequential proceedings taken thereupon including the Notification No. RDH 4 LCI 60 dated 22-11-1960 issued under S. 6 of the Act, in respect of the petitioner's lands bearing Survey Numbers 50/1, 62 and 50/2 of Haralapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Harihar Taluk Chitradurga District.(3) The material facts are not in dispute and they may be stated thus : The joint family of the petitioners in W.P. 2350/63 is the owner of S.No. 50/2 of that village. The Mysore Kirloskar Ltd., (3rd respondent in these petitions) wanted these lands for the extension of its factory. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2Ind.Cas.963
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Madura (East). The plaintiff is the minor Rajah of Ramnad. The 1st defendant was a creditor of the late Rajah and is the party in whose favour the three instruments which the plaintiff seeks to have set aside were made. The 2nd defendant is the trustee appointed under a deed of settlement (Exhibit 1 page 398) executed by the late Rajah on the 12th July 1895. The suit is brought for a declaration that an agreement of the 16th January 1899 between the 1st and 2nd defendants (Exhibit XLIX pages 514) and two mortgages of the 6th and 13th July 1899 (Exhibits (LXXXIII and LXXII pages 670 and 668) executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant are invalid and for an order that a sum of Rs. 43,000 paid under these instruments should be paid by the 1st defendant to the credit of the trust estate.2. The circumstances in which the suit is brought are as follows:The late Rajah, who had contracted debts to the amount of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1944PC7
Lord Atkin: This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario who by a majority (Gillanders J., dissenting) dismissed the appeal of the appellant from an order of Middleton J. A. which, ordered that all the property of the company should be sold by public auction. The question in the case is the validity of Acts of the Ontario Legislature, the Abitibi Power and Paper Co. Ltd. Moratorium Act, 1941, and a further Act the Abitibi Power and Paper Co. Ltd. Moratorium Act, 1942. The Acts were passed in the following circumstances. The appellant company was incorporated in 1914 by Letters Patent of the Dominion of Canada to acquire the undertaking of the existing company The Abitibi Pulp and Paper Co. In 1928 it made an issue of first mortgage gold bonds due 1953, of which in the year 1932 $48,267,000 with interest at 5 per cent were outstanding. The bonds were charged on the whole property and undertaking of the company. There were also issued $1,000,000 in 10,000 shares of 7 per cent, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1241; [1964]1SCR371
Sinha, C.J.1. This is a suit by the State of West Bengal against the Union of India for a declaration that Parliament is not competent to make a law authorising the Union Government to acquire land and rights in or over land, which are vested in a State, and that the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act (XX of 1957) - which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act - enacted by the Parliament, and particularly Sections 4 and 7 thereof, were ultra vires the legislative competence of Parliament, as also for an injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding under the provisions of these sections of the Act in respect of the coal bearing lands vested in the plaintiff. As will presently appear, the suit raises questions of great public importance, bearing on the interpretation of quite a large number of the Articles of the Constitution. In view of the importance of the questions raised in this litigation, notices were issued by this Court to all the Advocates-General ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC1395; (1969)71BOMLR141; 1969MhLJ17(SC); [1968]3SCR712
Sikri, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal No. 694 of 1967 and Civil Appeals Nos. 2239-2250 of 1966. 2. In September 1963, the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 694 of 1967 filed a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution (Special Civil Application No. 1642 of 1963) in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the validity of the Maharashtra State Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Maharashtra Act XXVII of 1961) as amended by Maharashtra Act XIII of 1962 - hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act. The first appellant is a public limited company and owns two factories for the manufacture of sugar and allied products situate at Taluka Kopergaon in Ahmednagar District of the State of Maharashtra. The first appellant also held large areas of land in several villages in Taluka Kopergaon for the purpose of cultivation of sugarcane for its factories. In the proceedings under the impugned Act large areas held by the first appellant were declare...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The only question involved herein is as to whether during the period 24-9-1984 and 27-11-1991, the Deputy Commissioners had the competence to issue notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'principal Act') as amended and extended to the State of Karnataka by the Land Acquisition (Karnataka Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 (in short the 'State Amending Act')2. The appellants are the owners of land bearing Sy. No. 565/4 of Mallavalli Village, measuring one acre six guntas. The respondent-Deputy Commissioner, published a notification in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 15-3-1993 proposing to acquire the said land for public purpose, namely for construction of a primary school. The appellants questioned the competence of the Deputy Commissioner to issue notification in view of the amendment to the Central Act as effected by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 made by the Parliament. This amending Act, came into force on 24-9-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)ILR45Bom463
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. As a preliminary question to the hearing of this reference, it has been argued by Mr. Bahadurji for the third party that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter referred because Section 12 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act only deals with claims or objections which, but for the passing of the Act, might have been tried or investigated by a civil Court. The meaning the earned Counsel gives to those words is this, that if there was any claim or objection which was excluded before the passing of the Act from the cognizance of the civil Courts, then it could not be said to have been within the cognizance of the civil Courts but for the passing of the Act. Speaking for myself, I do not think that is a proper interpretation to be put on Section 12. Act X of 1876, (Revenue Jurisdiction Act) was a consolidating Act passed, by the Government of India, and the object of it appears in the preamble which states 'Whereas in certain parts of the Presidency ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All272
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench for decision is, whether the U.P. Regularization of Remissions Act (14 of 1938) is or is not intra vires the Legislature of the United Provinces. The reference arises under the following circumstances: A suit for arrears of theka money with respect to the years 1339 to 1341 Fasli (1932 to 1934 A.D.) was brought by the plaintiffs-appellants against the defendants-respondents under Section 132, Agra Tenancy Act (3 of 1926). The plaintiffs claimed the arrears at the rate of the annual rent reserved by the lease. The defendants inter alia pleaded that remissions in rent were allowed by the local Government in the years in suit and that, in calculating the amount due to the plaintiffs, the remissions should be taken into account. The plaintiffs, while admitting that in pursuance of the directions issued by the local Government remissions in rent were granted to the tenants in the years in question, maintained that the orders as to r...
Tag this Judgment!