Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hind cycles and sen raleigh limited nationalisation act 1980 section 27 penalties Court: supreme court of india Page 1 of about 142 results (0.186 seconds)

Jan 15 2004 (SC)

The State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and ors.

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!

Jul 11 1997 (SC)

Samatha Vs. State of A.P. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1997SC3297; JT1997(6)SC449; 1997(4)SCALE746; (1997)8SCC191; [1997]Supp2SCR305

..... . vegetation regenerates in the abandoned area and after a lapse of 8 to 10 years the area is against cleared and burnt and, this, shifting cultivation is carried on. this cycle repeatedly goes on. due to pressure on land this shifting cultivation has now been abandoned and the tribes are settling to cultivate crops in fixed holdings. 17 plight of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2004 (SC)

M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2004SC4016; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)353; (2004)3CompLJ199(SC); JT2004(4)SC181; 2004(3)SCALE396; (2004)12SCC118

..... , it has been, inter alia, suggested that in order to draw water resource management plan, it is essential to assess the water quality of the various components of the hydrologic cycle, i.e., stream, ground water, surface water etc. it has been pointed out that since the surface water potential is, not promising in the district there is increased dependence on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 1982 (SC)

Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1983SC239; 1982(2)SCALE1193; (1983)1SCC147; [1983]1SCR1000

..... things which are capable of producing wealth for the community. there is no warrant for interpreting the expression in so narrow a fashion as suggested by shri sen and confine it to public-owned material resources, and exclude private-owned material resources. the expression involves no dichotomy. the words must be understood in the ..... but clearly, the first would frustrate and the second would advance the broader egalitarian principle. we are, therefore, not prepared to accept the submission of shri sen, that any law seeking the protection of article 31c must not be a law founded on discrimination.18. the next question for consideration is whether the coking ..... thereby ipso facto destroyed the basic structure of the constitution. the decision of the court in minerva mills' was strongly relied upon by shri a.k. sen, learned counsel for the petitioners to support his submissions regarding what he claimed was the true content and interpretation of article 31c.10. we have some misgivings .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 2012 (SC)

Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Others. Vs. Securitie ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (2013)1SCC1

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. We are, in these appeals, primarily concerned with the powers of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short 'SEBI') under Section 55A(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 to administer various provisions relating to issue and transfer of securities to the public by listed companies or companies which intend to get their securities listed on any recognized stock exchange in India and also the question whether Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (for short 'OFCDs') offered by the appellants should have been listed on any recognized stock exchange in India, being Public Issue under Section 73 read with Section 60B and allied provisions of the Companies Act and whether they had violated the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000 [for short 'DIP Guidelines'] and various regulations of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Re...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1984 (SC)

Ajoy Kumar Banerjee and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1984SC127; [1984(48)FLR448]; 1984LabIC691; (1984)ILLJ368SC; 1984(1)SCALE539; (1984)3SCC127; [1984]3SCR252; 1984(16)LC500(SC)

Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution are filed by the employees of the General Insurance Companies and the All India Insurance Employees Association. The respondents are, Union of India, the General Insurance Corporation of India and four General Insurance companies.2. The petitioners challenge the Notification dated 30th September, 1980 of The Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) (Insurance) introducing what is called General Insurance (Nationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Second Amendment Scheme, 1980 as being illegal and violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 31 of the Constitution of India. 3. Prior to 1972, there were 106 General Insurance companies Indian and foreign. Conditions of service of these employees were governed by the respective contracts of service between the companies and the employees. On 13th...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 2005 (SC)

Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Ram Lal and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2005SC851; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)405; [2005(104)FLR820]; JT2005(1)SC449; (2005)ILLJ853SC; (2005)2SCC638; 2005(2)SLJ358(SC); (2005)2UPLBEC1470

S.B. Sinha, J.1. Maruti Udyog Limited, the Appellant herein, is a Government company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956. In terms of a notification issued under Section 6 of the Maruti Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') the undertakings of the Maruti Limited (the Company) has vested in the Appellant. It is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 837 of 1995 whereby and whereunder a judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge dated 19.4.1995 passed in C.W.P No. 15728 of 1993 questioning an Award dated 28.7.1993 passed by the Labour Court in Reference Nos. 437, 438 and 166 of 1988, was set aside.BACKGROUND FACTS:2. The Respondents herein who are three in number were appointed by Maruti Limited as Electrician, Helper and Assistant Fitter with effect from 274 1974, 8.11.1973 and 8.4.1974 respectiv...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1990 (SC)

Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Another Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1991SC855; [1992]74CompCas482(SC); JT1990(3)SC417; 1990(2)SCALE200; (1990)4SCC406; [1990]3SCR649

..... fall outside the purview of the public premises act. we have carefully perused the said decision and we are unable to agree with shri ganguli. in that case a.p. sen, j. has observed that the new building had been constructed by the express newspapers pvt. ltd. after the grant of permission by the lessor, and, therefore, the express newspapers pvt ..... any assistance from the decision of the bombay high court in brigadier k.k. verma's case (supra).32. shri ganguli has placed reliance on the decision of a.p. sen, j. in express newspapers pvt. ltd. and ors. v. union of india and ors. [1985] su. 3 s.c.r. 382 and has submitted that in that case the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 1990 (SC)

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1991SC101; (1991)1CompLJ1(SC); JT1990(3)SC725; 1991LabIC91; (1991)ILLJ395SC; 1991Supp(1)SCC600; [1990]Supp1SCR142; 1991(1)SLJ56(SC)

ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, CJ.1. These civil appeals, special leave petitions and civil miscellaneous petitions deal with the question of constitutional validity of the right of the employer to terminate the services of permanent employees without holding any inquiry in certain circumstances by reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice. The facts involved in these matters are diverse but the central question involved in all these is one, i.e. whether the clauses permitting the employers or the authorities concerned to terminate the employment of the employees by giving reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice but without holding any inquiry, are constitutionally valid and, if not, what would be the consequences of termination by virtue of such clauses or powers, and further whether such powers and clauses could be so read with such conditions which would make such powers constitutionally and legally valid? In order to appreciate the question the factual matrix of these cases so far a...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2011 (SC)

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

1. Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd. (`LSCL' for short) is a company incorporated under the laws of Bangladesh. It has set up a cross-border cement manufacturing project at Chhatak in Bangladesh, which inter-alia has a captive limestone mine of 100Ha located at Phlangkaruh, Nongtrai, East Khasi Hills District in the State of Meghalaya. The mine is leased out in favour of Lafarge Umium Mining Pvt. Ltd. (`LUMPL' for short), which is an incorporated company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and which is a wholly owned subsidiary of LSCL. The entire produce of the said mine is used for production of cement at the manufacturing plant at Chhatak, Bangladesh under the agreement/arrangement between Government of India and Government of Bangladesh. There is no other source of limestone for LSCL except for the captive limestone mine situated at Nongtrai, East Khasi Hills District in the State of Meghalaya. The limestone as mined by LUMPL is conveyed from the mine situated at Nongtrai after crushing i...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //