Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1992Cal250,(1992)1CALLT335(HC),[1993]76CompCas292(Cal)
ORDERAltamas Kabir, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th October, 1985, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on an application filed on behalf of the defendant No. 5 in Suit No. 296 of 1980, dismissing the said application, upon holding that the point sought to be raised by the defendant No. 5 could well be taken in his written statement and the trial Court could decide the point, if urged, at the hearing of the suit.2. Certain interesting points of law have been raised in this appeal, which has been preferred by the defendant No. 5 in the suit, which makes it necessary for us to set out the material facts leading to the filing of the above-mentioned application in the suit.3. The defendant No. 1 in the suit, National Rubber ., is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. The defendant No. 5 claims to be the Managing Director of the defendant No. 1 company.4. The defendant No. ! owned two factories and/or undertakings,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1998Cal218
ORDERSamaresh Banerjea, J.1. This is an application under An. 227 of the Constitution challenging the order No. 63 dated April 28, 1997 passed by the learned Judge, Second Court, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Commercial Execution Case No. 24 of 1989 issuing prohibitory order upon garnishee.2. The opposite party No. 1 obtained a decree for money in Commercial Suit No. 8 of 1984 on 19th of Sept. 1985 against Inchek Tyres Limited and National Rubber Manufacturers Limited and thereafter in that execution case the present petitioner Tyre Corporation of Indi a Limited was added as (sic) present Corporation after nationalisation of the aforesaid Inchek Tyre and National Rubber Manufacturers Limited is the successor of the aforesaid two companies, in the aforesaid Execution case, being Commercial Case No. 8 of 1984, the present petitioner made an application on 15th of March, 1995 for suspension of the Execution case, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner company had been declared sic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(2)ALLMR110; 2007(1)BomCR329
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The creative judicial interpretation of Article 21 by our constitutional Courts, has broadened our vision, in understanding the expression 'right to life'. Preventing degradation of our ecology and protection of our environment, including the right to clean drinking water and pollutant free atmosphere are some of its facets. Ecological factors as judicially understood, indisputably are relevant considerations in Town and Country Planning Statutes. Courts to preserve the environment and ecology of 'Earth' our home for the present and future generations whilst interpreting environmental laws, lean in favour of protection. The questions raised by the petitioners and which fall for our consideration, give rise to a host of legal issues. Can the State, citing its financial inability to provide housing to encroachers on public and private lands residing in structures which came up before 1-1-1995 to whom it has granted protection from eviction or its inability to free RG a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(6)BomCR574; (2005)107BOMLR337; (2006)4CompLJ117(Bom)
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The above Petition has been filed in larger public interest, to protect the interests of residents of Mumbai and to improve the quality of life in Mumbai, which has drastically deteriorated during the last fifteen years. The above Petition is prevent further serious damage to the town Planning and ecology so as to avoid an irretrievable breakdown of the city. Recent deluge during the last week of July this year, exposed as to how the city's sewerage and drainage system was unable to cope up and for almost a week the entire city was completely crippled.2. The first Petitioner Bombay Environmental Action Group is a public charitable trust duly registered and also a registered society. Its aims and objects are, inter alia, to look after the environment in all aspects. On a number of occasions, the above Petitioner has initiated and/or participated in matters of environmental importance for the preservation and improvement of the environment in furtherance of the pub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 128(2006)DLT238; 2006(32)PTC157(Del)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff's grievance of violation of its copyright in the artistic works applied to upholstery fabrics and the allegation of an attempt to pass off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff has given rise to the present litigation.2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of the USA and is stated to be engaged worldwide in the business relating to manufacturing, marketing, selling and exporting of upholstery fabrics directly or through its subsidiaries and affiliates. The brand name of the plaintiff is stated to be Microforms. The business of the plaintiff is stated to have commenced in the year 1926 and the plaint states that on the upholstery fabrics are printed, unique and original artistic works which are conceptualized and drawn/printed by either its employees or other persons who have assigned the copyright in the works to the plaintiff. More than 1000 people are stated to be employed by the plaintiff and a global annual tu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)CTLJ1(SC); JT2007(1)SC125; 2006(13)SCALE102; (2007)2SCC640; 2007(2)KCCRSN91
S.B. Sinha, J.Introduction:1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.2. The validity and/or legality of a scheme framed by the Coal India Limited for sale of coal by Electronic Auction (E-Auction) is in question in these appeals and transferred applications. 3. 'Coal' indisputably plays an important role in the development of economy of the country. It had been the subject-matter of regulatory measures even under the Defence of India Rules. Production, distribution, supply and price of coal were controlled and regulated under the Colliery Control Order, 1945 (1945 Order) framed under the said Rules. The said Order was continued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under the Colliery Control Order, the Coal Controller was even authorised to allot quotas of coal to the Central Government as well as the State Governments; although the said procedure is now not in vogue in view of decontrolling notifications issued thereunder by the Central Government from time to time. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by three petitioners for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated December 28, 1998 (annexure 5), issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (respondent No. 1), whereby it has in terms of Section 7(3) of the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 (4 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), exercised its right to renew the lease with the petitioners for the land in question for a further period of 33 years commencing from March 1, 1999, on the same terms and conditions on which the lessee held the lease immediately before March 13, 1974. 2. Petitioner No. 1 (Jagmohan Mehrotra), being the karta of family which owns the plot of land in question, had entered into a registered deed of lease on October 11, 1966 (annexure 1), with Esso Standard Eastern Inc., incorporated in the United States of America, having an office in the city of New York, State of New York, and branch offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC892; 1993CriLJ600; 1992(3)Crimes199(SC); JT1992(5)SC213; 1992(2)SCALE338; (1992)4SCC305; [1992]Supp1SCR226
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. We gave our conclusions in our earlier Order dated 27th August 1991 reserving the reasons to be given later. Accordingly, we render our reasons in the present judgment.2. We feel that a prefatory note, though not the detailed facts of the case, is necessary for disposal of these appeals and writ petition. The facts culled out from various documents placed before this Court are as follows:3. The Ministry of Defence, Government of India approved in August 1980 a proposal forwarded by Army Headquarters (HQ) recommending, inter-alia, the introduction of 155 mm calibre medium gun both towed and self-propelled to meet its defence operational requirements. The choice for obtaining the said gun system/guns was short listed in December, 1982 to (1) M/s. Sofma of France (2) M/s. A.B. Before of Sweden (briefly called 'Before') (3) M/s. International Military Services of U.K. and (4) M/s. Voest Alpine of Austria. In November 1985, there was a further short listing of Sofm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2677; (2005)4CompLJ283(SC); JT2005(2)SC8; (2005)4SCC649
N. Santosh Hegde, J. 1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of Sinha, J. I regret I cannot persuade myself to agree with the conclusions recorded in the said judgment hence this separate opinion. The Judgment of Sinha, J. has elaborately, dealt with the facts, relevant rules and bye-laws of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (the Board). Hence, I consider it not necessary for me to reproduce the same including the lengthy arguments advanced on behalf of the parties except to make reference to the same to the extent necessary in the course of this judgment.2. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the Board has raised the preliminary issue in regard to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that under Article 32, a petition is not maintainable against the Board since the same is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is this issue which is being considered in this judgment.3. In support of his argumen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1984)IILLJ140AP
Chennakesav Reddi, J.1. A controversy of considerable interest and public importance is aroused by this Writ Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. It is (a) whether right to employment is a fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 16 of the Constitution and (b) whether past prejudicial conduct and antecedents of a person relating to his subversive political activity prescribed as a disqualification for employment under Government of India in Office Memoranda dated 27th September, 1967 and 1st August, 1975 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, amounts to an infraction of the provisions of Art. 16 of the Constitution. 2. The controversy in this case grew out of the denial of employment to one Kalluri Vasayya, to a Civil post - a post of Time-Scale Clerk in the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department, Government of India. Vasayya, a Science Graduate, applied for the post of Time-Scale Clerk in the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!