Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-24-1985
Reported in : (1985)IILLJ509Mad
1. This writ petition is for certiorari to quash G.O.Ms. No. 1482 (Labour) dated 4th July, 1984, in and by which the Government of Tamil Nadu directed a reference of the dispute between the workmen and the management of the Boiler Auxiliaries Project of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Ranipet, North Arcot District in respect of bonus for the accounting years 1981-82 and 1982-83. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The Supervisor Union, BHEL/BAP, Ranipet, raised an industrial dispute against the management of Boiler Auxiliaries Project of BHEL, Ranipet over the issue of payment of bonus for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. Conciliatory talks were held by the Commissioner of Labour in this dispute. The other unions functioning in the establishment, viz., Boiler Auxiliaries Project, Anna Workers Union, Ranipet also participated in the conciliatory talks. Since no settlement was possible the Commissioner of Labour sent a conciliation failure report to the Government. Thereupon, consider...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-03-1985
NFU Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe - 471 U.S. 845 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court NFU Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845 (1985) National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians No. 84-320 Argued April 16, 1985 Decided June 3, 1985 471 U.S. 845 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent Crow Indian minor was struck by a motorcycle in the parking lot of a school located within the Crow Indian Reservation but on land owned by the State of Montana. Through his guardian, the minor brought a damages action in the Crow Tribal Court against petitioner School District, a political subdivision of the State, and obtained a default judgment. Thereafter, the School District and its insurer, also a petitioner, brought an action in Federal District Court for injunctive relief, invoking as a basis for federal jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. 1331, which provides that a federal district court "shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-27-1985
Marek v. Chesney - 473 U.S. 1 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Marek v. Chesney, 473 U.S. 1 (1985) Marek v. Chesney No. 83-1437 Argued December 5, 1984 Decided June 27, 1985 473 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner police officers, in answering a call on a domestic disturbance, shot and killed respondent's adult son. Respondent, in his own behalf and as administrator of his son's estate, filed suit against petitioners in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state tort law. Prior to trial, petitioners made a timely offer of settlement of $100,000, expressly including accrued costs and attorney's fees, but respondent did not accept the offer. The case went to trial and respondent was awarded $5,000 on the state law claim, $52,000 for the 1983 violation, and $3,000 in punitive damages. Respondent then filed a request for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988, which provides that a prevailing party in a 1983 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : May-10-1985
Reported in : (1986)(6)LC168Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Ludhiana, authorised by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh, under Sub-section (2) of Section 35B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against the Order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The appellant is represented by S/Shri K.D. Tayal and V.Lakshmikumaran, SDRs, and the respondents are represented by Mrs.Shyamla Pappu, Senior Advocate, and Shri S.C. Mittal, Advocate.3. The Department claims that the correct classification of the products manufactured by the respondents is under Tariff Item 52 of Central Excise Tariff as nuts and bolts @ 15% ad valorem, whereas, as per the contention of the respondents, which has been upheld by the Appellate Collector, the products in question are unspecified motor vehicle parts, classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and chargeable to duty la) 10% ad valorem.4. On behalf of the appellants, it is stated that the respondents got...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-12-1985
Reported in : AIR1985SC1367; 1985LabIC1899; 1985(1)SCALE523; 1985Supp(1)SCC45; [1985]3SCR243; 1985(2)SLJ276(SC); 1985(17)LC744(SC)
1. These appeals by special leave arise out of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. The appeals are by the original petitioners before the learned single judge of the Rajasthan High Court and who having succeeded before the learned single judge became respondents in the appeals filed by the University before the Division Bench. The appellants in these appeals and other connected appeals were temporary lecturers and teachers on various subjects. They were appointed temporary lecturers by the Vice-Chancellor by virtue of Section 20A of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946.2. Section 4 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as 1974 University Act provides for regular selection by Selection Committees. Sections of the 1974 Act provides that no stopgap or part-time arrangement can be made for more than six months. The temporary appointments of lecturers by the Vice-Chancellor cannot be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-12-1985
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Guj)186; [1987]163ITR102(Guj)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The assessee, a resident of Africa at the relevant point of time, derived income from house property as well as interest on bank deposits during the assessment year 1973-74. Initially, he submitted a return disclosing a total income of Rs. 4,000 in the status of non-resident but revised it to 'resident, but not ordinarily resident' subsequently and disclosed an interest income of Rs. 33,410 plus income from house property of Rs. 3,710. The original return was filed on March 23, 1974, and the revised return was submitted on September 10, 1974. In the course of the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that he had received an amount of Rs. 92,958.92, i.e., Rs. 92,959, by way of interest and the same was credited in his accounts maintained with the Bank of India at Rajkot and Bombay as non-resident account. The year-wise break-up of the interest is as under : Assessment year Status Amount of interest1970-71 Non-resident Rs. 37,744.521971-72 Resident but not ordi- Rs. 17...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-03-1985
Reported in : AIR1986Ker144
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. This original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is by the Bar Council of Kerala to quash the proceedings of the Bar Council of India evidenced by Exts. P. 1 to P 3 and P 13.2. The Bar Council of Kerala is constituted under Section 3 of the Advocates Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Council has 21 members including 20 elected members and the Advocate General Ex-Officio, Election to the Bar Council of Kerala was held in July, 1980. The term of Office of the elected members of the Bar Council is for a period of five years from the date of publication of the results of the election. The 1st respondent is one of the members elected to the Bar Council of Kerala.3. The Bar Council of India is constituted under S. 4 of the Act, and its members are the Attorney General of India and the Solicitor-General of India Ex-Officio and one member each elected by each State Bar Council from among its members. The term of Office of a member o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-28-1985
Reported in : AIR1986MP122; 1985MPLJ786
J.S. Verma, Acg. C.J. 1. The challenge made in this petition is to the constitutional validity of Section 170-A and Section 170-B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) as well as the notification No. F-16-1-81-II-XXV, dated 15th April 1981 (Annexure-A) issued by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-para (1) of para 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India. This order shall also dispose of the entire batch of petitions in which the validity of these provisions has been challenged on account of which all these petitions were heard together. 2. The history of legislation together with the relevant provisions may be stated at the outset. The M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, came into force with effect from 2-10-1959. Section 165 relates to rights of transfer and in Sub-section (1) it says that a Bhumiswami may transfer any interest in his land subject to the other provisions of this section and the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-29-1985
Reported in : AIR1985SC1698; (1985)48CTR(SC)363; [1985]156ITR323(SC); (1985)4SCC343; [1985]Supp2SCR711; 1986(1)LC628(SC)
1. These appeals arise out of the orders of the High Court of Karnataka dated 10th August, 1973 for the assessment year 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 by certificate granted by the High Court under Section 66A(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.2. The assessee is an individual. He was carrying on business in the relevant assessment years in purchase and sale of ground-nut oil and was also running an oil mill. He was also an abkari contractor. On 1st June, 1957, he had gifted away a part of the oil mill machinery, viz., a solvent extraction plant, to his wife and three minor children. A firm was constituted by the assessee's wife and another person to the profits of which the three minor sons of the assessee were also admitted. The mill premises as well as the remaining machinery of the assessee were leased out to this firm which carried on the business of the manufacture and sale of ground-nut oil. The assessee had also entered into an agreement w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-08-1985
Reported in : AIR1986Delhi286; 29(1986)DLT442
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against order dated 15th January 1979 of an Additional District Judge disallowing certain interrogatories to be delivered to the plaintiff-respondent. 444 (2) The facts giving rise to this revision petition succinctly are that wayback in December 1977 the respondent instituted a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 47,51706 P on account of the price of goods of the total value of Rs 34,480.50 P which were dispatched by the plaintiff- respondent to Ahmedabad against 14 goods receipts issued by the defendant- petitioner, who carries on the business of a public carrir, during the period 5th May 1975 to 19th May 1975 as per annexure 'A' to the plaint. It was alleged that the said goods were consigned to Xx 'self and were to be delivered by the defendant-petitioner only on production of the goods receipts issued by them. the said goods receipts having been endorsed in blank by the plaintiff- respondent in favor of their banker ...
Tag this Judgment!