Court : Supreme Court of India
..... . opposite of that is a heterological word, i.e ..... an example of a heterological word is the word "long". ..... . the word is - is both autological and heterological ..... heterological words as indicated above are those which do not describe themselves or have the potential of developing into several forms or supporting multiple interpretations. ..... the word 'is'- is both autological and heterological. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1981)22GLR712
b.j. divan, c.j.1. in this case the petitioners challenge the validity of a notification issued by the government of gujarat under section 7 of the commissions of inquiry act, 1952 (herein-after refened to as the act), discontinuing the commission which the state government had appointed on september 9, 1979 under section 3 of the act.2. it may be pointed out that the notification under section 7 was issued on march 17, 1981 but the petition was filed on the same day earlier on 17th march 1981. the petition was filed on the basis that the government was about to issue the said notification under section 7 and in the petition as originally framed, the prayer was to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order permanently restraining the respondents, their agents and servants from winding up or obstructing or interfering with the proceedings of the commission. prayer (b) was to quash and declaretde notification or order, if issued, regarding winding up of the commission. prayer (c) was for interim relief pending admission. prayer (cc) and prayers (ccc) and (cccc) were all for interim relief. prayer (e) is the usual prayer seeking other and further reliefs as the nature of the case may require.3. the first petitioner is the consumer education & research centre (hereinafter referred for brevity sake as c.e.r.c.). it is a public trust registered under the bombay public trusts act, 1950. the second petitioner is the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3751; (2001)1GLR434; 2000(7)SCALE34; (2000)10SCC664; [2000]Supp4SCR94
b.n. kirpal, j.1. narmada is the fifth largest river in india and largest west flowing river of the indian peninsula. its annual flow approximates to the combined flow of the rivers sutlej, beas and ravi. originating from the maikala ranges at amarkantak in madhya pradesh, it flows westwards over a length of about 1312 km. before draining into the gulf of cambay, 50 km. west of bharuch city. the first 1077 km. stretch is in madhya pradesh and the next 35 km. stretch of the river forms the boundary between the states of madhya pradesh and maharashtra. again, the next 39 km. forms the boundary between maharasthra and gujarat and the last stretch of 161 km. lies in gujarat.2. the basin area of this river is about 1 lac sq. km. the utilisation of this river basin, however, is hardly about 4%. most of the water of this peninsula river goes into the sea. inspite of the huge potential, there was hardly any development of the narmada water resources prior to independence.3. in 1946, the then government of central provinces and berar and the then government of bombay requested the central waterways, irrigation and navigation commission (cwinc) to take up investigations on the narmada river system for basin-wise development of the river with flood control, irrigation, power and extension of navigation as the objectives in view. the study commenced in 1947 and most of the sites were inspected by engineers and geologists who recommended detailed investigation for seven projects. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1990)IILLJ577AP
order1. the questions that arise in this batch of writ petitions are whether m/s. national remote sensing agency, hereinafter described as 'nrsa' is an industry within the meaning of s. 2(j) of the industrial disputes act and whether the reference made by the state government can be said to be valid in view of the provisions of s. 2(a)(i) and (ii) of the said act. the questions also arises whether in the event of 'nrsa' being held to be an 'industry' relief can be granted to the petitioners under s. 25(f) of the said act without deciding whether the reference by the state government through labour court before the industrial tribunal was valid. sub. cl(bb) of s. 2(oo) also falls for consideration. each of the four writ petitions has been preferred against the awards of the labour court holding against the petitioner on two preliminary points. the first one related to the question whether 'nrsa' was an 'industry' and the second one was whether the state government which made the reference was competent to make the reference. the labour court held on the first question that 'nrsa' was not an industry and on the second question it was not competent for the state government to make the reference and that it was only the central government which should have made the reference. in view of those findings, the court also held that the third point whether the termination of the petitioners amounting to retrenchment did not survive and that therefore no relief can be granted under the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(5)ALD211; 2002(4)ALT788; [2002(95)FLR786]; (2002)IIILLJ741AP
orderb.sudershan reddy, j. 1. in this batch of writ petitions, the question that arises for consideration is: 'whether the national remote sensing agency is an 'industry' as defined in section 2(j) of the industrial disputes act, 1947?'factual matrix: 2. in order to decide the said question, we may have to notice the relevant facts leading to filing of these writ petitions and the events leading to the reference by a division bench of this court to a larger bench for resolution of the issue: 3. the respondents in this batch of writ petitions claiming to be the workmen in the petitioner-management invoked the jurisdiction of the additional industrial tribunal-cum-additional labour court, hyderabad under section 2-a(2) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (for short 'the act') seeking their reinstatement into service on the ground that they were retrenched by the petitioner-management without following the procedure prescribed under section 25-f of the act. 4. the petitioner-management filed a detailed counter opposing the claim of the workmen for their reinstatement into the service and inter alia pleaded that: (1) the petitioner-management is not an 'industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the act; and (2) the 'appropriate government' in respect of the petitioner-management under section 2 (a) (i) is the central government and so the petition under section 2-a(2) of the act, which is an amendment made and applicable by the state of andhra pradesh is not applicable to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1998Ker114
thulasidas, j. 1. we heard these original petitions together since common questions are involved. 2. w.p. (civil) no. 664 of 1993 was filed by the indian council for enviro legal action, a registered voluntary organisation, before the supreme court seeking orders or direction regarding the protection of ecology and for preventing irreversible ecological damage of the coastal areas of the country. the main grievance was that the notification dt. 19-2-1991 which regulated the activities in coastal regulation zones had not been implemented or enforced, that has resulted in continued degradation of ecology in coastal areas. there was also a challenge to the validity of the notification dt. 18-8-1991, whereby the earlier notification dt. 19-2-1991 was amended resulting in relaxation of certain provisions, which it was said, would defeat its scope and purpose. it was alleged that coastal areas have abundance of natural endowments, are highly complex and have dynamic eco-systems sensitive to development pressures if unchecked would cause serious irreversible damage of the flora and fauna, public health and environment. several other grounds were also urged, which have been dealt with in the judgment of the supreme court dt. 18-4-1996, in which certain comprehensive directions were given for compliance. the supreme court also specifically directed enforcement of the c.r.z. notification issued under the environment protection act, 1986, by the central government. la. nos. 21, 22 in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.5132 of2019 the oriental insurance co. ltd. ...appellant(s) versus malana power company ltd. ...respondent(s) judgment r.subhash reddy, j.1. this civil appeal is filed by the appellant/the oriental insurance company limited, aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2019 passed in o.p. no.53 of 2005, by the national consumer disputes redressal commission, new delhi. by the aforesaid order, the national commission has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant company and directed the appellant to pay a sum of rs.4,68,33,840/- towards the loss suffered by the respondent, in terms of insurance policy along with interest @ 6% 1 per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment.2. the respondent is a company which runs a hydro power project around malana nalah. the respondent was interested in securing an indemnity in respect of any shortfall that may take place in aggregate annual power generation at its hydro power plant due to failure of hydrology which depends upon vagaries of nature.3. for the year 2001-02, the respondent has obtained policies from m/s. iffco-tokio general insurance company. m/s.iffco-tokio general insurance company provided a package deal of the two insurance policies to the respondent. first one was industrial all risk insurance policy which covered material, damages due to fire and special perils, machinery breakdown, loss of profit etc., .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
-1- in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur. order d.b.civil writ petition no.6210/2003 mangal singh & ors.v.state of rajasthan & ors.date of order :: 18th december, 2015 p r e s e n t hon'ble mr.justice govind mathur hon'ble miss justice jaishree thakur mr.p.p.choudhary, senior advocate, assisted by mr.ankur mathur, for the petitioners.mr.k.l.thakur, additional advocate general. mr.m.s.singhvi, senior advocate, assisted by mr.hemant dutt ].mr.h.s.sidhu ].for the respondents. mr.a.k.rajvanshi, for the union of india...by the court : (per hon'ble mathur,j.) the petitioners.who happen to be marginal farmers of district jodhpur, are before us to have some remedial measures by the state of rajasthan to ensure adequate retention of water with jaswant sagar dam, a dam that was constituted much back in the year 1889 by the former rulers of jodhpur state. the allegations of the petitioners are that :- (1)in the catchment area of the dam several illegal constructions including construction of anicuts/check -2- dams made and that is obstructing free flow of water to the dam; (2)several tubewells have been digged on the bed of the dam by the farmers having farming rights on bed land and that has damaged water retention potency of the dam; and (3)the government of rajasthan is not taking adequate interest to provide drinking water to the residents of town bilara and other nearby towns through other water projects than extraction of water by installing tubewells in the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant39; ILR1989KAR3253; 1989(2)KarLJ438
order1. invalidation of communication no. ex. mpec : hngg: 89 dated may 12, 1989, of the bangalore university ('the university') issued to the principal of the b.m.s. college of engineering, bangalore ('the college'), by which the benefit of performance of 28 examinees in all their papers (theory and practical) of the iv year b.f. examination held by the university in february/ march, 1989 has been denied, is sought in these writ petitions.2. material facts and circumstances leading up to the communication, invalidation of which is sought, are :28. examinees named in the communication along with 10 other examinees were answering the hydrology and irrigation paper of three hours duration in room no. 101 of the college from 2-00 p.m., on march 13, 1989, under a sealing arrangement, which was as follows : entrancee83ba008e83ra081018401088e82ba001186089082962901830639235386893374310610340451081047652111105815711411091 (absent)58111125the university's examination vigilance flying squad ('the squad'), which made a surprise check of the said room at about 3.30 p.m., gave to university's registrar (evaluation) a report of its check by means of a letter dated march 13, 1989, the terms of which, omitting its formal parts, read :'sir, sub:-- large scale malpractice in room no. 1, rms (d) college of engineering. rcf: (a) c.4.04 hydrology and irrigation engineering iv year 8.e. (civil) exam. march, 1989 time 2-5 p.m. this is to inform you that, when the squad team entered room no. 1 of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.2453 of2007the state of karnataka by its chief secretary versus appellant(s) state of tamil nadu by its chief secretary & ors. respondent(s) with civil appeal no.2454 of 2007 state of kerala through the chief secretary to government state of tamil nadu through the chief secretary respondent(s) to government and others appellant(s) versus civil appeal no.2456 of2007state of tamil nadu through the secretary public works department state of karnataka by its chief secretary government of karnataka & ors. versus ...appellant(s) respondent(s) dipak misra, cji s. no.2 judgment i n d e x heading page no.a. the proceedings in this court in the present 6 appeals b. maintainability of the appeals by special 18 leave c. stand of all parties pertaining to remand of the matter to the tribunal after deliberation of the legal issues d. reference of the dispute to the tribunal e. the initial proceedings before the tribunal f. the issue of ordinance by the state of karnataka and the presidential reference g. the genesis of the controversy h. doctrine of paramountcy and its extinction indian force of the on coming independence act, 1947 into 21 24 29 34 50 74 i. infraction of article 363 and non- maintainability of the dispute on the basis of agreements 108 j.unconscionability of the 1892 and 1924 133 agreements k. status of the agreements after coming into force of the states reorganization act, 1956 147 3 l. .....
Tag this Judgment!