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 : 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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1082; 1993CriLJ859; 1992(3)SCALE396; 1993Supp(4)SCC260; [1992]Supp3SCR594
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The above appeal is preferred before this Court challenging the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 2nd September 1992 rendered in Criminal Writ No. 501/91 knocking down the very registration of the First Information Report and all the proceedings arising thereon including the issue of letters rogatory in the second round of the bout of this litigation.2. The first round of the litigation came before this Court on an appeal preferred by Sh. H.S. Chowdhary challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, Justice M.K. Chawla of the High Court of Delhi dated 19th December, 1990 dismissing his petition on the ground that he has no locus standi to file his petition and a few other appeals preferred by the Union of India and some political parties which had been seriously litigated before this Court on the earlier occasion and resulted in the pronouncement of an order dated 27th August 1991, giving only the conclusions and the final judgment on 28th Aug...
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 : 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 : Allahabad
Reported in : [1990(60)FLR608]; (1991)IILLJ154All
S.K. Dhaon, J.1. In this and the companion Writ Petition Nos. 8214 of 1986,3294 of 1985,13015 of 1984 and 9948 of 1983 the employers feel aggrieved by the refusal of the State of Uttar Pradesh to accord them permission to close down either undertakings or units.2. In this petition the material averments of Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd., a public limited company, are these. Amongst other businesses, the company has an establishment of Jay Shree Tyres and Rubber Products at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Allahabad Unit). Each business run by the company is a separate establishment having a separate finance, management and control. The Allahabad unit has been suffering huge losses year after year. It has suffered losses from its very inception. In 1976-77 its loss was of Rs. 1.68 lacs, in 1977-78 the loss was of Rs. 49.98 lacs, in 1978-79 the loss was of Rs. 44.37 lacs, in 1979-80 the loss was Rs. 92.08 lacs, in 1980-81 the loss was of Rs 114.5 lacs, in 1981-82 the loss was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC68; (1977)4SCC608; [1978]2SCR1
Beg, C.J.1. 'India, that is Bharat, shall be union of States'. The very first mandate of the first article of our Constitution to which we owe allegiance thus prohibits, by necessary implication, according to the plaintiff in the original suit now before us under Article 121 of the Constitution of India, any constitutionally unjustifiable trespass by the Union Government upon the domain of the powers of the States. The State of Karnataka, has, therefore, sued for a declaration that a notification dated 23-5-1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Central Notification') constituting a Commission of Inquiry in purported exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is illegal and ultra-vires. This declaration is sought on one of two alternative grounds : firstly, that the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, does not 'authorise the Central Government to constitute a Commission of Inquiry in regard to matters falling excl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)1GLR527
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard the learned advocate Mr. D.S. Vasavada appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Textiles Labour Association and learned advocate Mr. A.K. Clerk appearing on behalf of the respondent - workman.2. The petitioner - Textiles Labour Association has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference No.1048 of 1985 dated 31st August 1996. The Labour Court, Ahmedabad has partly allowed the reference granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 70% back wages of interim period. This Court, while issuing rule, has granted interim relief against the implementation of the award subject to compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by order dated 18th March 1997. From the record of the petition, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner by one Mahendrakumar A. Maniar, office bearer of petitioner Association, to bring on record the certain events and facts which have occurred during the pendency of petition. There ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. These references for confirmation under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code (the Code for short) arise from the separate order of conviction and sentence passed on 26/5/2009 by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2005 and Sessions Case No. 5 of 2005. In the said Sessions Case in all seven accused came to be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364A, 394, 397, 404, 201(I), 201(II), 212, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 5, 6 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 25/5/2009, was pleased to acquit accused nos.4 and 7 on all the charges and on 26/5/2009, he passed an order convicting accused no.1, accused no.2, accused no. 3 and accused no.6 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364A read with Section 120B of IPC for having murdered four members of Mali family i.e. Sanjay Kerubhai Mali, Rajesh Kerubhai Mali, Anita Kerubhai Ma...
Tag this Judgment!