Court : US Supreme Court
Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n - 242 U.S. 255 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 242 U.S. 255 (1916) Vandalia Railroad Company v. Public Service Commission of Indiana No. 81 Submitted November 6, 1916 Decided December 11, 1916 242 U.S. 255 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA Syllabus Prior to the Act of March 4, 1915, c. 169, 38 Stat. 1192, and after the Act of February 17, 1911, c. 103, 36 Stat. 913, the state police power extended to the regulation of the character of headlights used on Page 242 U. S. 256 locomotives employed in interstate commerce. Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia, 234 U. S. 280 . A judgment which correctly refused injunctive relief against such state regulation may not be attacked on writ of error as a judgment infringing federal rights (Judicial Code, 237) upon the ground that the same field of regulation has since been occupied by tho federal government under an act of Congress enacted af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. The order taking cognizance dated December 8, 1995 under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 has been impugned by the petitioners by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. One Sachita Nand Singh, opposite party No. 2, being Factory Inspector of Ranchi Anchal No. 1. filed a complaint on July 5, 1995 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. showing the petitioner Nos. 1 to 9 as the members of the Board of Directors and petitioner No. 10 as Manager of the Factory, Foundry Forge Plant of H.E.G. Ltd. Ranehi. It is alleged that though the Bihar Government issued a notification dated February 13, 1989 to the effect that 'occupier' of the Foundry Forge Plant (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plant') should employ 5 qualified Safety Officers and even this Court by its order dated February 23, 1995 passed in CWCJ No. 8387/1994 (R) directed the Chief Inspector of Factories to take steps for appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1962All43
Desai, C.J.1. I respectfully differ from the judgments of ray brothers Mukerji find Dwivedi and consider that the appeal should be allowed and the suit bought against the appellants by the respondents should be dismissed. The findings of fact which cannot be challenged in second appeal are that the respondents were the owners of the constructions made on the land possessed by the appellants as their riyayas, that is as licensees, that they never abandoned the village, their rights as licensees and the constructions but continued to be the owners of the constructions and the licensees of the site and that during their absence the appellants unlawfully took possession of the constructions and their site, demolished, the constructions and included the site in their own cattle-shed or constructed a cattle-shed over it.On these findings the suit of the respondent was decreed by the trial court and they were ordered to be restored to possession over the sits of the constructions. There could...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1950]18ITR472(SC)
KANIA, C.J. - This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay upon a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The respondent firm, the assesses, carried on business of manufacturing and dealing in oil during the relevant accounting periods. They are a registered firm under the Income-tax Act and are residents in Bombay. They own three mills at Bombay and one at Raichur for manufacturing oil from groundnuts. The oil produced at Raichur is sold partly at Raichur and partly in Bombay. Their liability to pay income-tax in respect of their whole profits is not disputed under the Income-tax Act. The question is in respect of their liability under the Excess Profits Tax Act for the oil manufactured at Raichur, but sold in Bombay.The assessees contend that in respect of such oil a portion of the profits earned by them is attributable to their business manufacturing oil at Raichur and that portion ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order impugned dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2010 by which the prayer for bail made by the petitioner-juvenile was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribag on 09.12.2010 was affirmed in Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 70 of 2010, corresponding to G.R.No. 2980 of 2010 and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner was arrested but he was declared juvenile after determination of his age by the Juvenile Justice Board on 18.12.2010. The F.I.R. was lodged against as many as 11 named accused persons including the petitioner-juvenile for the alleged offence under Sections 376/354/306/509/511 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 66A/66B/67A/67B and 72 of the the Information and Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1981ACJ207; AIR1980Guj172; (1979)2GLR371
Nanavatl, J. 1. The question of law, and of some importance, which arises in these revision applications for our consideration is whether a consignor who is not an owner of a part of the goods consigned by him (whom we shall call 'consignor-non-owner' for the sake of convenience) along with his own goods and under the same parcel way bill, is competent to file a suit for recovery of compensation from the Railway administration for loss, destruction, deterioration or damage caused to the goods as a result of delay or detention on the part of the Railway administration in their carriage? This question being common ~to all these revision applications, they are all disposed of together by this common judgment.2. The acts in all these cases are similar; and, therefore, we will refer to the representative facts of Civil Revision Application No. 272 of 1977 wily. It arises out of Regular Civil Suit No. 3963 of 1970 filed in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad, by M/s.Tolaram, Hariram and K. A....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP.2. On 4.3.2007, Police Inspector Sanjay Pawar, attached to the Haweli Police Station, Pune, got information that 300 to 400 youngsters were enjoying a party called 'Rave Party' on the land of one Chandrakant Hagawane, police raided that place and some persons were arrested. The present petitioner was accused No. 4. A plastic bag containing Ganja and 15 grams of Charas were allegedly found with him. The weight of Ganja is not given. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police under different provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') against 15 persons. The accused Nos. 8 to 15 were discharged by the Court. By order dated 4.10.2008, the learned Special Judge under NDPS Act, Pune,directed to frame different charges against different accused. The learned Judge directed to frame charge against accused Nos. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1929All53; 113Ind.Cas.442
Boys, J.1. The following question has been referred to the Full Bench:Whether on a true interpretation of Sections 19 and 20 Agra Pre-emption Act of 1922 the defendant vendee can defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption, which undoubtedly existed at the date of the institution of the suit, by acquisition of an interest equal or superior to plaintiff's in the mahal after the institution of the suit but prior to the passing of the decree by the first Court2. The reference to Section 19 in the question is inserted in manuscript after the referring order was typed. This subsequent insertion we note only because the discussion of the question in the referring order is confined to the effect of Section 20 of the Act, and no opinion has been expressed in that referring order in regard to the effect of Section 19.3. We have, however, manifestly to consider both sections. In the present case the facts are that Ramsarup on 26th March 1924, sold a zamindari house to the defendant Ramsaran Das ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1980)15CTR(Mad)378; [1979]120ITR827(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. All these references raise a common point. In T.C. No. 842 of 1977, relating to the assessment year 1969-70, the following question has been referred to this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 35B in respect of expenses after February 29, 1968, incurred by the branches in Kulalumpur and Penang '2. In. T.C. No. 115 of 1976, relating to the assessment year 1970-71, the following question has been referred :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to weighted (sic) under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the overhead charges incurred by it for the maintenance of its branches at Penang and Kulalumpur for the assessment year 1970-71 ?'3. There is apparently an omission of the word ' deduction ' after the word ' weighted ', where we have added the expression ' sic '.4. In T.C. No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE8H DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.1167 OF2024(GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI.VINAY RAJASHEKARAPPA KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT54YEARS, MEMBER, LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, KARNATAKA STATE AND RESIDENT OF BARAKOTI SHIVAGIRI, DHARWAD 58 007. PETITIONER (BY SRI.C V NAGESH., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K RAGHAVENDRA.,ADVOCATE) AND: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 032. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S V RAJU., ASG A/W SRI. P PRASANNA KUMAR AND SRI. RAHUL REDDY., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) CALL FOR RECORDS IN SPL.C.C.NO.565/2021 WHICH IS PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH.NO.82), BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 2 - ORDER Petitioner, a former Cab...
Tag this Judgment!