Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1985Delhi318; 27(1985)DLT134; 1985RLR133
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) Many, years ago there lived a man called Ganga Sahai in village Bhartal near Delhi. He owned much land in the village. In 1913 he purchased land bearing. Khasra No. 1177 from Ranjit and Ram Singh, sons of Gulab Singh. They were the predecessors-in-interest of the present respondents 2 to 5 to this appeal. This land Ganga Sahai purchased without share in shamlet deh. In revenue record he got mutation effected in his name. Ganga Sahai had no son. He, thereforee, gifted the land to his daughter's son, Ram Sarup, the present appellant in 1928. This he did by means of a registered gift deed dated 15-3-1928. Mutation was accordingly effected in favor of Ram Sarup. On this land admeasuring 13 bighas-7 bids was Ganga Sahai had built a dharamshala, a well and a piao. (2) On 29tb May, 1932 before a gathering of the people of the village Ganga Sahai's daughter Mst. Khem Kaur, on behalf of her minor son, the present appellant, made a statement that there was no dharamsh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1946All457
Verma, J.1. There are twenty five appellants in this case. The first two, Hira Singh and Mahipat, have been convicted under Section 302, read with Section 149, Penal Code, and have been sentenced to death. They have also been convicted under Section 147 and sentenced to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment, with the direction that, if the death sentences are not confirmed, the sentences under Section 147 would run concurrently with the sentences passed by the High Court on these men under Section 302. Appellants 4, 5 and 6, Gorey Lal, Ram Charan and Chhadami, have also been convicted under the same sections as appellants 1 and 2, but they have been sentenced to transportation for life under Section 302/149 and the sentence under Section 147 passed on them is the same as that passed on appellants 1 and 2. Appellants 7 to 25-Zulman, Har Charan, Dulla Ahir, Gurbila, Kamla, Rati Ram, Pearey Lal, Ganga Prasad, Pancha, Munnun, Charna, Dhooram, Balloo, Ghasita, Sabdal, Tunda, Paragi Lal, Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1959]10STC459(Ker)
C.A. Vaidyalingam, J.1. O.P. 163 of 1953 and S.T.R. 1 of 1954 relate to the liability of the petitioners, Lipton & Company, Ltd., to be assessed to sales tax on certain transactions for the assessment year 1123 which is the same as the accounting period, being the year ended 15th August, 1948.2. O.P. 133 of 1955 is again by the same Lipton & Company Ltd., disputing their liability to be assessed to sales tax on some transactions for the assessment year 1952-53.3. As the questions arising in O.P. 133 of 1955 are slightly different from those arising in O.P. 163 of 1953 and S. T. R. 1 of 1954, we would consider O.P. 133 of 1955 after giving our decision in O. P. 163 of 1953 and the connected S. T. R. 1 of 1954.4. By order dated 6th August, 1952, the Municipal Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam, the first respondent in O.P. 163 of 1953 re-assesSed the petitioners, Liptons Ltd., for year of assessment 1123. It is seen from the said order that a final assessment was made on 21st June, 1949, on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Shapiro v. United States - 335 U.S. 1 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1 (1948) Shapiro v. United States No. 49 Argued October 23, 1947 Decided June 21, 1948 335 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. In obedience to an administrative subpoena, petitioner produced sales records which he had kept as required by a regulation of the Price Administrator, but claimed constitutional privilege. In a prosecution for violation of the Emergency Price Control Act based on evidence thus produced, he interposed a plea in bar, claiming that, under 202(g) of the Act, which incorporates by reference the provisions of the Compulsory Testimony Act of 1893, his production of these records gave him immunity from prosecution. Held: the plea in bar was properly overruled by the trial court. Pp. 335 U. S. 3 -36. 2. The language of the Act and its legislative history, viewed against the background of settled judicial c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2023 INSC920IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.1011 of 2022 Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. Petitioners Versus Union of India Respondent With Writ Petition (Civil) No.93 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.5 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.8 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.9 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.11 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.12 of 2023 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1020 of 2022 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1105 of 2022 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1141 of 2022 1 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1142 of 2022 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1150 of 2022 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.159 of 2023 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.129 of 2023 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.260 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.6 of 2023 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.319 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.7 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.10 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.13 of 2023 And with Writ Petition (Civil) No.478 of 2023 2 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)IILLJ277Cal
Manash Nath Roy, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated August 1, 1980, passed in Civil Rule No. 8989(W) of 1978, whereby an application dated June 21,1980, as filed by the appellant petitioner, was disposed of on certain terms. In fact, the prayers as made in the said application and more particularly the one relating to prayer (a) was allowed in entirety and the other prayers were not allowed in their entirety. The prayers as made would be indicated hereinafter.2. In or about November, 1940, the petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the services of the Imperial Bank of India which, since 1955 and on the coming into force of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, is known as State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Bank') arid he was confirmed in that post in May, 1941. It has been stated that thereafter, in or about July, 1952, the petitioner was promoted to the post of an Assistant and (Subsequently he was confirmed as Staff Assistant. It was the further c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1960CriLJ1625
Ramaswami, J. 1. On a reference made by our 'learned brother Somasundaram, J. whether Ch. III of the Indian Extradition Act, 1903 continues to be applicable to this case of extradition from India to Ceylon, this Full Bench has been constituted by the learned Chief Justice. 2. The" facts leading to this reference are ; The petitioner Chockalingam Chettiar, a native of Kandavarayanpettai village, Tirupattur taluk in Ramanathapuram District was employed as an agent of "Chetty" by the Gonakelle, El Teb and Demmeria Estates. The practice is for the Superintendents of these Estates to draw cheques in favour of this Chockalingam Chettiar on the Imperial Bank of India and the Mercantile Bank of India at Colombo and Chockalingam Chettiai would cash those cheques and disburse the amounts to the labourers employed in the said estates who apparently are mostly Tamilians. Three such cheques were issued by the respective Superintendents of these three Estates Messrs. Dealker, Percy and Horn for a to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1960)1MLJ257
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This appeal raises a question as to the sustainability of a. demand for contribution from an employer under the Employees' State Insurance Act (Act XXXIV of 1948) which, for the sake of brevity, will be referred to hereafter as the Act. The respondent was the proprietor of Pakshiraja Studios in Coimbatore. The studio was engaged in the production of cinematograph films. A number of buildings constituted this 'Studios' all of them being situate in the same compound. The work in the studio was done in the following departments:(1) Electrical, (2) Camera, (3) Sound, (4) Setting, (5) Moulding, (6) Carpentry (7) Laboratory, (8) Editing, (9) Office and Watch and Ward, (10) Art and (11) Makeup. Electric power was utilised in connection with some of these items of the work in the studio. If all the departments were taken into account, the number of persons employed would admittedly exceed 20. But the same could not be said, if each of the departments was taken by itself....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.229 OF2020RAJEEV SURI ...PETITIONER Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS with TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.230 OF2020CIVIL APPEAL No....... OF2020(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No../2020) (@ Diary No.8430/2020) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.510/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.638/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.681/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.845/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.853 OF2020WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.922/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.1041/2020 1 JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, J.TABLE OF CONTENTS S.No.TOPIC PARAS1 Introduction 1 2. Objectives of the Project 2-10 3. Proceedings and Contentions of the 11-123 Parties Consideration 4. Rule of Law 124-135 5. Democratic Due Process and 136-158 Judicial Review 6. Need for Heightened Judicial 159-167 Review 7. Constitutionalism 168-172 8. Participatory Democracy in India 173-198 9. Change in Land Use 199 a) What is Master Plan and Z...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No. 91 of 2012) Prabha Sridevan, Chairman 1. A line from Tom Stoppards play, Night and Day, reads thus, Im with you on the free press. It is the newspapers I cant stand. The two newspapers before us obviously cannot stand each other. Though they nearly came to marrying each other in a manner of speaking, they have now fallen apart and are fighting legal battles. 2. The details of the five matters are as follows: (i) TRA/6/2005/TM/DEL is for cancellation of the mark, Financial Times registered in the name of the respondent (FTL, in short), under No.468937 in class 16. (ii) ORA/112/2006/TM/DEL is a rectification application filed by FTL against the mark, Financial Times registered in the name of Times Publishing House Limited (TPHL, in short) under No.587870 in class 16. (iii) OA/4/2006/TM/DEL is an appeal, filed by TPHL against the suo motu order of the Registrar cancelling the registration granted in favour of TPHL under No.587870 in class 16. (iv) ORA/64/2007/TM/DEL is a rectif...
Tag this Judgment!