Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2001KAR1341; (2002)IVLLJ370Kant
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. These Writ Petitions are inter-connected, inasmuch as they are concerned with the Standing Orders of the institutions which are common in nature and therefore they are dealt with under a common judgment.2. W.P. 20302/1991 is filed by the workmen of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (hereinafter referred to as HAL in brevity) praying to quash the order dated August 5, 1991 bearing No. IE-5/5/6/85/LS-1 passed by the second respondent appellate authority, namely, the Joint Chief Labour Commissioner, Government of India.3. W.P. 12533/1992 is by the workmen of Indian Telephone Industries (hereinafter referred to as ITI in brevity), wherein the prayer is to quash the order dated August 6, 1991 bearing No. IE-5/4/861LS-1 passed by the very same second appellate authority, namely, the Joint Chief Labour Commissioner.4. W.P. 12787/1992 is filed by the Management of HAL seeking to quash the order of the same Joint Chief Labour Commissioner dated August 5, 1991 in No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3672; 2006(5)ALD18(SC); 2007(1)AWC299(SC); 2006(5)BomCR574; [2006]132CompCas479(SC); (2006)5CompLJ203(SC); (2006)3GLR2495; JT2006(6)SC253; (2006)4MLJ174(SC); 2006(
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.3.2000 of a Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat by which the appeal preferred against the order dated 12.3.1996 of the learned Company Judge, was dismissed and the order of the learned Company Judge dismissing the Company Petition No. 35 of 1988, was affirmed.2. The appellants had filed the Company Petition No. 35 of 1988 for rectification of the register of the company M/s. Sayaji Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred as to 'the Company') as provided by Section 155 of the Companies Act. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2, viz., Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Priyambhai Bipinbhai Mehta moved Company Application No. 113 of 1995 before the learned Company Judge to dismiss the Company Petition No. 35 of 1988, without going into the merits of the petition, on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. This application was allowed by the learned Company Judge by the judgment and order da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)3MLJ335
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. Aggrieved over the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, made in I.A.No:167 of 2006 in O.S. No. 40 of 2006, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is the second defendant in the suit. The suit property belongs to the second defendant. On 23.4.1995, the second defendant executed a power of attorney in favour of the first defendant to deal with his property. In pursuance of the said power of attorney, the first defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the respondents 1 and 2, the plaintiffs on 15.7.1996 by paying Rs. 10 Lakhs as advance. Thereafter, periodical payments to a total amount of Rs. 17,25,000/= have been paid upto 14.9.2002. Since the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for specific performance. 3. The petitioner has not yet filed his written statement. But he filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC to rejec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1031; (1976)1SCC466; [1976]1SCR552
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The validity of the Kerala State Electricity Supply (Kerala State Electricity Board and Licensees Areas) Surcharge Order 1968 is in question in these appeals. That order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Kerala Essential Articles Control (Temporary Powers) Act, 1961. It obliges the Board to collect surcharges from non-licensee consumers of electricity even though the Board may have entered into long-term contracts with them with regard to the rate at which electricity is to be supplied to them. The Act is one to provide, in the interest of the general public for the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in certain articles. Section 2(a) of the Act defines 'essential article' as meaning any article (not being an essential commodity as defined in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955) which may be declared by the Government by notified order to be an essential article. Section 3 enables the Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1982)ILLJ123Mad
1. The plaintiff-Indian Bank, Madras is the applicant herein and respondents 1 and 2 are the Federation of the Indian Bank Employees Unions and the Indian Bank Employees Union. The reliefs claimed in this application are for passing an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from holding any meeting or staging any demonstration or resorting to any other similar form of direct action within the premises of the plaintiff Bank's Central office or any of its offices and branches in Tamil Nadu, and within a radius 50 meters of these places and obstructing directly or other wise officers, employees, members of the public, etc., from entering such places and preventing the officers, employees, etc., from attending to their normal duties and putting up hand-bills, placards, flags etc., by affixing them on the walls or in any other place in the buildings except in places which have been specifically allotted to the first defendant, and affixing posters, hand-bills and the like o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(133)ELT26(Bom)
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. Petitioner, a Private Limited Company, is doing the business through its factory at E-5, M.I.D.C. Industrial Area, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. It deals in boilers and boiler parts falling under Chapter sub-headings 8402 and 8404 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short the Act of 1985). Needless to mention, the petitioner holds a valid licence as required under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the purposes of brevity).2. By Notification bearing No. 120/81-C.E., dated 15-5-1981, which was amended by Notification No. 209/82-C.E., dated 9-8-1982 and a subsequent Notification No. 80/86-CE., dated 10-2-1986, necessary exemption from the whole of the excise duty leviable on the goods as specified in the table to the said notifications was granted. Prior to the abovesaid notifications, no doubt, the items included in the notification happened to be covered in tariff Item No. 68 (NES) of the First Schedule to the Act of 1985. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP234
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The object of all these petitions is to prevent the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation from levying octroi duty on some of the commodities that are brought into the city.2. All the petitioners, except those in Writ Petitions NOS. 1351 of 1957, 74,174, 176, 676 and 789 of 1958 and 193/59 are excise contractors, who have taken contracts for the sale of toddy and sendhi under the group system in auctions held in the year 1956. Under the terms of the contract, toddy and sendhi were to be sold in the Secunderubad abkari limits in certain places. These petitioners were allotted for tapping toddy and sendhi trees situated in several districts of the quondam Hyderabad State including those which were merged in the States of Bombay and Mysore.They were also given necessary permits to import and transport to the depots situated within the municipal limits of Secunderabad. They started business on 1st October 1956 and the toddy and sendhi were carried in lorries to their depots...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALT589; [2007]7SCL548(AP)
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The petitioner company seeks sanction of the scheme of arrangement under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act.2. M/s. Spartek Ceramices India Limited, the petitioner company was incorporated on 09-03-1983 with its Registered Office at Mittapalem in Chittoor District, with the object of carrying on the business of ceramic and stoneware glazed and unglazed tiles; ceramic electronic components and powerline insulators, spark plug and industrial ceramic components; and to deal in frits and glazes, colour stains, chinaware and glassware articles of industrial and domestic application. The authorized, issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the company as on 31-03-2003 was Rs. 17,30,11,100/-. The audited balance sheet of the company as on 31 -03-2003 has been annexed to the petition. The company is also a registered company having its stock listed in three stock exchanges at Mumbai, Madras and Hyderabad. For the purpose of its business, the petitioner comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2420; (2009)8MLJ897(SC); 2009(II)OLR(SC)348; (2009)8SCC366; [2009]94SCL73(SC); 2009(7)LC3168(SC):2009AIRSCW4949
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted in both the Special leave petitions.2. The respondent firm and its sister concern, M/s. Ashok Woodworks, which is also a partnership firm, availed of various loans from the appellant Bank which were secured by movable and immovable assets. The loanee firms having defaulted in repayment of the loans and since their accounts became Non Performing Assets (hereinafter referred to as `NPA'), the Bank initiated action against them under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as `the SARFAESI Act') and issued separate demand notices to the respondent partnership firm and its sister concern under Section 13(2) thereof on 17th September, 2002, and 21st September, 2002, for the recovery of Rs. 1,56,47,638/and Rs. 1,40,18,468.36, respectively.3. As the respondent and its sister concern did not respond to the said demand notices, the appellant Bank invoked ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(112)BomLR154
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties and at the request of the counsel, taken up for hearing.2. The applicant, who is an advocate, is the author of a book entitled 'Islam - A concept of Political World Invasion By Muslims' ('the book'). The book was published in 2003 by National Publications, 76, Bajaj Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai of which the applicant claims to be the proprietor. The book was translated into Hindi by Dr. Anil Misr.3. In exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code') the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification dated 9/3/2007 ('the Notification') and declared that every copy of the book as well as of the translation thereof shall be banned and forfeited to Government. The Notification is as follows:NOTIFICATIONGeneral Administration DepartmentMantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032Dated the 9th March, 2007Code ofCriminalProcedure, 1973.No. PUB2007-C.N.15/07...
Tag this Judgment!