Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(5)KarLJ393; ILR2007(3)Kar3755; 2007(5)AIRKarR257; AIR2007NOC2234
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The first petitioner is the KSRTC Staff & Workers Federation and the 2nd petitioner is the Secretary of Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Fund and an employee of KSRTC. They have filed this writ petition seeking the following prayers:33. Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may, after calling for the records, be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other proper writ or order or direction quashing the Government Order dated 23/2/1997 bearing No. HTD 127 TRA 96 dated 22/2/1997 and RTD TRA 96 dated 7/8/1997 produced as Annexures-A and B respectively, and to direct the Government to take all other steps for improving the well being of the KSRTC, as pointed out by various Committees of Legislature. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue further direction quashing the Notification dt. 10/9/1997 bearing No. HTD 127 TRA 96; Notification dt.29/5/1999 bearing No. HTD 127 TRA 96 and the Notification dated 4/8/2000 bearing No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT256
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. These four appeals, three regular and one miscellaneous, arise out of three suits and one original petition. While A.S.Nos. 1499 of 1985, 1569 of 1985 and Tr.A.S.No. 299 of 1986 arise out of civil proceedings in O.S.Nos. 123 of 1977, 62 of 1976 and 3 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, C.M.A.No. 832 of 1984 arises out of divorce O.P.No. 160 of 1976. The above three suits and O.P.No. 80 of 1982, which was filed for the custody of minor boy, were tried together and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 24th December, 1984 by the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur. While appeals have been preferred as against the judgments and decrees rendered in O.S.No. 123 of 1977, 62 of 1977 and 3 of 1981, no appeal has been preferred against the judgment rendered in O.P.No. 80 of 1982 relating to the custody of the minor child Kolluru Nagabhushanam who was allowed to remain with his mother. O.P.No. 160 of 1976 inst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD725; 2007(5)ALT389; [2007(115)FLR130]; (2007)IIILLJ1018AP
P.S. Narayana, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed as against an order dated 29-10-2001 made in OP No. 118 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience).2. The first respondent as petitioner filed O.P. No. 118 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, under Sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Act praying for a declaration that the notices dated 18-8-1994 and 6-9-1994 issued by the appellant-first respondent are illegal, invalid and ultra vires of their powers and for a consequential injunction. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties having framed the points for consideration, appreciated the evidence of PW. 1, Exs. A1 to A8, RW. 1, Exs. B1 to B20 and came to the conclusion that the impugned demands are not in accordance wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)ALD768
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the order Rc. No. D.330/2207 dated 9.7.2007 issued by the Tahsildar, Indukurpet, the 2nd respondent herein, whereunder the authorization of the petitioner is suspended pending finalization of the case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, before the Joint Collector, Nellore and further action of the 1st respondent in not passing any orders either on stay petition or on appeal filed by the petitioner on 21.7.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, and set aside the order of the 2nd respondent and to pass such other suitable orders.3. Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had placed strong reli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(3)ALD159; 2003(2)ALT377
ORDERT. Meena Kumari, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Tenancy Act') against the orders of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.F2/2013/ 2000 dated 3-3-2001.2. This Court while ordering Notice before admission of the CRP on 25-6-2001 granted status quo as to possession as on that day in CMP No. 11676 of 2001. Later, on 3-10-200], the CRP was admitted. The petitioners alleging that the fourth respondent in the CRP has violated the said status quo orders granted by this Court, they have filed CC No.829 of 2002. Along with said Contempt Case, the CRP has also been posted before me for hearing. Both the Counsel advanced their arguments in the CRP also.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioners herein have filed the above appeal in Case No. F2/2013/2000 dated 3-3-2001 before the first respondent questioning the orders of the second re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC719; [1961]43ITR352(SC); [1962]2SCR871
S.K. Das, J.1. These three appeals, with special leave of this Court, have been heard together. They arise out of three Income-tax References made to the High Court of Bombay, namely, Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1957, Income-tax Reference No. 30 of 1957 and Income-tax Reference No. 37 of 1957. The facts are similar in the three cases and the question of law which the High Court had to answer was the same in each of the cases. the High Court gave its answer in its leading judgment in Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1957, and the other two References were disposed of in accordance with that answer. For the purposes of these appeals, it would be enough if we state the facts of Reference No. 29 and then indicate the question which arose for decision and the answer which the High Court gave to it. 2. One Nanalal Haridas was the karta of a Hindu undivided family which admittedly was the beneficiary of 1842 shares in a company called the Cotton Export and Import Limited (hereinafter referre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC239; JT1988(4)SC193; 1988(2)KLT937(SC); 1988(2)SCALE1025; (1989)1SCC113; [1988]Supp3SCR648; 1989(1)LC1(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. A piece of land measuring ten and a half cents situated at Kozhippathi Village of Chittur Taluk, Palghat District, State of Kerala originally belonged to Indrani, wife of the petitioner and it now belongs to the petitioner. Under a preliminary notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act on 24.2.1981 the said piece of land along with some other lands was proposed to be acquired for a certain public purpose. Both Indrani and the petitioner filed objections to the proposed acquisition. After overruling the objections the State Government published a declaration under Section 6 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act on 19.1.1984. On 24.9.1984 the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 passed by Parliament came into force in the State of Kerala and some other parts of India to which it applies. By Section 9 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 a new section, i.e. Section 11-A was introduced into the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1120; JT1997(3)SC255; 1997(2)SCALE189; (1997)3SCC90; [1997]2SCR186; 1997(1)LC458(SC); (1997)2UPLBEC981
ORDERSuhas C. Sen, J.1. The petitioners are medical graduates. They are desirous of getting admitted to Post Graduate Courses. Some of the petitioners took the test conducted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in January, 1995 for admission to Post Graduate Courses in Medicine and Surgery. The others wanted to take the examination to be held in January, 1996. They have moved this Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge a notification issued by the U.P. Government providing for reservation for SC/ST/OBC candidates in Post Graduate Speciality and Super-specialty Courses such as M.D. and M.S. The main contention is that this notification violates the fundamental right of the petitioners under Articles 14 15 and 21 of the Constitution.2. It may be noted that a similar Writ Petition was earlier moved challenging the reservation of seats for SC/ST/OBC candidates for admission to Post Graduate Courses in Medicine by some other persons. That Writ Petition (W.P. No. 771 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)Crimes92(SC); (1994)2GLR1392; JT1994(3)SC250; 1994(2)SCALE534; (1994)4SCC353; [1994]3SCR471
A.S. Anand, J. 1. Twelve persons namely, Bharatsinh Patubha Gohil, Dhruvansinh Bharatsinh Gohil. Antruddsinh Bharatsinh Gohil, Jodha Khoda Rabari, Bhikhubha Shivubha Gohil, Bhupatsinh Bahadursinh Gohil, Kuvarsinh Ajitsinh Gohil, Nirubha, Ajitsinh, Baldevsinh Alias Bablubha Sajubha Gohil, Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil and Mohansinh Alias Nathabhai Ranchhodbhai Thaker Alias Selanki Alias Parma were tried for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 302, 307, 148 IPC read with Section 149, Section 143 and in the alternative under Section 302, 307/34 IPC and Section 25A of the Arms Act by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, (For the sake of convenience and brevity we shall refer to the No. of the accused. Al to A12, in the same order in which their names appear in the Trial Court).2. The Trial Court found that all the accused, as members of an unlawful assembly, under the leadership of accused No. 11 responsible for the death of deceased Diwaliben. It also held all the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1859; JT2007(6)SC482; 2007(6)SCALE621; (2007)5SCC161
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal under the provisions of Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'TADA Act') challenging the judgment and order dated 5.10.1995 passed by the Additional Judge, Designated Court for Greater Bombay in TADA Special Case No. 10 of 1995.2. Twelve persons, as accused Nos. 1-12, were charged and prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 302 r/w 120B, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 120B, 307 r/w 149, 392, 392 r/w 120B, 392 r/w 149, 397 r/w 120B, 397 r/w 149, 379, 379 r/w 149, 379 r/w 120B, 468, 468 r/w 120B, 468 r/w 149, 471, 471 r/w 120B, 471 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and under Section 3 r/w 25, 7 r/w 27 (2 and 3) of the Arms Act, 1959 and under Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), 3(5), 5 and 6 of the TADA Act by the Designated Court. During the trial before the Designated Court, accused No. 2, viz., Fero...
Tag this Judgment!