Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-22-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Raj128; I(2006)DMC667; RLW2006(1)Raj612; 2006(1)WLC648
V.K. Bali, J. 1. Sudarshan Bhatia, born and brought up in the State of Rajas-than, but stated to be a Canadian citizen, died on 21.4.1989 in Germany leaving behind considerable movable and immovable properties. Poonam Bhati his wife and Smita Bhatia, minor daughters, said to have been born out of the wedlock of Sudarshan Bhatia and Poonam Bhatia, successfully sought succession certificate with regard to the movable properties of deceased Sudarshan Bhatia, details whereof have been given in the application under Section 372 of the Indian succession Act itself as the same was allowed vide orders dated 6.12.1999 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Whereas Surendra Bhatia brother of Sudarshan Bhatia resisted grant of succession certificate to Poonam Bhati and her daughter Smita on the basis of Will dated 17.4.1989 (Ex.A.l) said to have been executed by Sudarshan Bhati, his sister resisted the same on the ground that movable properties owned by Sudarshan Bhatia were made from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-18-2005
Reported in : (2006)IILLJ938Guj
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Payment of Gratuity Authority on 24.10.1997 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity on 28.10.1998.2. This Court has admitted the petition and rule was issued on 25.10.1999.3. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner had joined the respondent No. 3 Factory in the year 1962 and left the said organization on 31.07.1995 by tendering his resignation. The petitioner was employed as Works Manager of a factory at Surat owned by the respondent Company, registered office of which is at Bombay. The petitioner has applied for gratuity vide his application dated 02.09.1995. Since the respondent Company has not taken any concrete action except for giving assurances, the petitioner has preferred an application dated 25.02.1997 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-26-2005
Reported in : AIR2006SC3576; [2005]127CompCas787(SC); (2005)6CompLJ227(SC); [2005(107)FLR826]; JT2005(8)SC544; 2005(7)SCALE519; (2005)8SCC104; [2005]63SCL109(SC); 2006(1)SLJ24(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. All these appeals involve identical issues. By judgments rendered by Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, impugned in the appeals held that Directors of Jiyajirao Cotton Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') to be personally liable for the payment of wages to the workmen of the company under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short the 'Act'). However, the authorities under the Act could proceed against the assets of the company in the hands of the Directors or the assets acquired from income of the company by the Directors. The personal property of the Directors, however, could not be proceeded against if it acquired from the sources other than the income of the company. The Letters Patent Appeals filed against the judgments of the learned Single Judge were dismissed. It is to be noted that learned Single Judge had held that writ petitions were not maintainable as the writ petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-13-2005
Reported in : [2006]130CompCas295(Bom); [2006(106)FLR551]
N.A. Britto, J.1. This is a complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the accused.2. Shri V.S. Khatre who was the manager of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed a complaint under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short), against accused No. 1 which, according to him was an establishment under the Act having been allotted Code No. 32-28-67 and against accused No. 2 who was director and occupier of the said establishment named M/s. Cortalim Shipyard and Engineers P. Ltd.3. The complaint was filed for the failure to pay the contributions for the wage periods of October, 1992, to May, 1993, which were payable in terms of regulations 31, 39, and 40 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950.4. The complaint was filed after the sanction was accorded by the Regional Director of the said Corporation.5. Although the sanction was obtained to prosecute the principal employer, i.e., A2 and the said establishment M/s. Cortal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on : Apr-27-2005
Reported in : (2005)5CompLJ334TelecomDSAT
1. In this order we are going to deal with four matters, namely, (i) Petition No.9 of 2001 submitted under Section 14(a)(ii) read with Section 14(A) (1) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Act 1997 filed by Association of Basic Telecom Operators(ABTO) and Others against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), (ii) Petition No.12 of 2003 under Section 14(A)(1) of TRAI Act 1997 by ABTO and Others against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.(MTNL), (iii) Petition No.3 of 2002 submitted under the same provisions of the TRAI Act 1997 by the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), (iv) Appeal No.5 of 2002 under Section 14(b) and 14(A) (2) of the TRAI Act by BSNL against Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and Others.Although filed at different points of time there is almost a common history and background in the petitions and involves interpretation of Licenses issued at around the same ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jun-30-2005
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinions of my noble and learned friends Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. For the reasons they give I agree that the decision of Slade J in Siebe Gorman and Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd [1979] 2 Lloyd's Rep 142 was wrong and should be overruled. 2. The respondent bank had a second string to its bow. The bank contended that if the House considered Siebe Gorman was wrongly decided the House should overrule that decision only for the future. The bank submitted that the Siebe Gorman decision should continue to apply to all transactions entered into before your Lordships' decision in the present case, including the debenture under consideration on this appeal. 3. This submission raises a controversial issue of major importance concerning the power of your Lordships' House to give a ruling in this 'prospective only' form. The bank argued the House has this p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-07-2005
Reported in : 2005(6)ALD582; 2005(6)ALT364
Bilal Nazki, A.C.J. for himself and on behalf of Hon'ble Sri R. Subhash Reddy, J.1. I have the privilege of going through the elaborate opinions framed by my brother Judges Mr. Justice Goda Raghuram and Mr. Justice V.V.S. Rao. By and large, I am in agreement with them, but there are some areas, where I could not pursue myself to go along with the opinion of my brothers, though the fate of the cases would be the same and the writ petitions would have to be allowed. Facts have been mentioned in detail by my learned brothers in then judgments, but in order to frame my opinion, certain facts would have to be repeated.2. Andhra Pradesh Reservation of seats in the Educational Institutions and of appointments/posts in the Public Services under the State to Muslim Community Ordinance, 2005 (Ordinance No. 13 of 2005, dated 20-06-2005), is under challenge in these writ petitions. A battery of lawyers assisted us in these writ petitions. There are writ petitioners, respondents and the intervenes....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-20-2005
Reported in : 2006(1)CTC1; [2007(1)JCR423(Mad)]; (2006)1MLJ1
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The question referred for consideration of this Full Bench is as follows:'Whether Section 89-A of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 introduced through the amendment Act 12 of 2001 conferring powers on the Special Officer to admit new members in the Co-operative Society is arbitrary, unreasonable, ultra vires and unconstitutional, as it is the usurpation of judicial power-'2. Raising the said question several writ petitions had been filed before the learned single Judge. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in Kattappan's case : AIR2000SC2378 , held that the Special Officer has no power to admit the new members as it would affect the composition of the society and fundamental rights of the members and as such, the legislature would be incompetent to give statutory recognition to such a power being exercised by the Special Officer. However, the learned single Judge on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-13-2005
Reported in : II(2006)ACC406; 2006ACJ902; 2005(5)CTC433
P.K. Misra, J 1. The question in controversy relates to the extent of liability of the Insurance Company. Appeal has been preferred by the owner. There is a delay of about 900 days in filing the appeal. Notice has been served on the respondent/Insurance Company as well as the claimant/respondent.2. At the time when the petition for condonation of delay was listed, we had made it clear to the counsels appearing for all the parties that they should advance arguments not only on the question of delay but also on merit of the appeal itself. Accordingly, the learned counsels have been heard on the question of condonation of delay as well as on merit of the appeal. It is therefore necessary to first consider the question of condonation of delay and, if delay is condoned, the appeal itself would be disposed of on merits. However, if the delay is not condoned, it may not be necessary to deal with the questions raised in the appeal.3. In the petition for condonation of delay, the appellant has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-09-2005
Reported in : AIR2005All205
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. P. Singh appearing for the respondent no. 4 and the learned standing counsel. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 1.11.2004 passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the mining lease dated 21.6.2004 granted in favour of respondent No. 4. It has been further prayed that the order dated 21.6.2004 and the lease deed executed in pursuance thereof be quashed.3. Brief facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are:__________An application was made by the respondent No. 4 dated 18.10.2001 before the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar for grant of lease under the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 over plots No. 375, 386, 390, 400. 410, 377Ka, 377K...
Tag this Judgment!