Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant97; 1989(2)KarLJ202
ORDER1. Common prayer in these series is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to forbear respondents from interfering with their right to excavate, remove and transport granite found in his/their patta land/s.2. Most of the petitioners are from old State of Mysore and a few from Kollegal, which on re-organization has become part and parcel of Mysore District. They trace their right to excavate granite either to proviso to S. 38 of Mysore Land Revenue Code and notification issued thereunder or the Madras Board Standing Order. In support of their prayer, reliance is placed on catena of decisions of this Court to which a reference would be made a little later.3. Respondents in their statement of objections dispute their right to extract minor minerals except in accordance with the Rules framed under S. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') Specific reference is made to Ch. II of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC633; 1960CriLJ1002; [1960]2SCR821
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises the question of interpretation of the words 'in the interest of public order' in Art. 19(2) of the Constitution. 2. The facts are not in dispute and they lie in a small compass. The respondent, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, is the General Secretary of the Socialist Party of India. The U.P. Government enhanced the irrigation rates for water supplied from canals to cultivators. The party to which the respondent belongs resolved to start an agitation against the said enhancement for the alleged reason that it placed an unbearable burden upon the cultivators. Pursuant to the policy of his party, the respondent visited Farrukhabad and addressed two public meetings wherein he made speeches instigating the audience not to pay enhanced irrigation rates to the Government. On July 4, 1954, at 10 p.m. he was arrested and produced before the City Magistrate, Farrukhabad, who remanded him for two days. After investigation, the Station officer, Kaimganj, filed a charge-sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC809; 2008(2)ALD1(SC); 2008(56)BLJR181; (2008)1CALLT69(SC); (2008)1CompLJ1(SC); 2008(1)JKJ41[SC]; LC2008(1)56; (2008)1MLJ361(SC); 2008(36)PTC1(SC); 2007(14)SCALE1; 2008AIRSCW49; AIR2008SC809; 2008(1)SCC1; 2008(1)LH(SC)179; 2008(2)ICC206; 2008(4)KCCRSN237
1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi involving the analogous question and are, therefore, decided together by this judgment. 2. Appellant No. 1 Eastern Book Company is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of publishing law books. Appellant No. 2 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated and existing under the Companies Act, 1956. The said appellants are involved in the printing and publishing of various books relating to the field of law. One of the well-known publications of appellant No. 1 Eastern Book Company is the law report Supreme Court Cases (hereinafter called SCC ). The appellant publishes all reportable judgments along with non-reportable judgments of the Supreme Court of India. Yet another category included in SCC is short judgments, orders, practice directions and record of proceedings. The law report S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002VAD(Delhi)225; 98(2002)DLT764; 2002(64)DRJ68; (2002)IIILLJ447Del
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashment of the complaint filed on 29th October 1997 by the State (through Inspector of Factories), respondent No. 2 and the summons dated 18th November 1997 issued by a Metropolitan Magistrate, respondent No. 4. 2. Complaint (copy at pages 69 to 70 on the file) was filed by respondent No. 2 against N.K. Chaubey alleging that Container Corporation of India Ltd is a factory under section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') and N.K. Chaubey, accused being proprietor/ partner/director thereof is an occupier within the meaning of section 2(n) of the Act. Factory situated at Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi was inspected by the Inspector of Factories on 29th September 1997 at 12 noon and breaches as detailed in para 4 of the complaint were noticed. Accused was, thus, guilty of contravening Rule 11-A of Delhi Factories Rules, 1950 read with Sections 6 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.1411 OF2020G. MOHAN RAO & ORS. ...PETITIONER(S) versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) with WRIT PETITION (C) No.173 OF2021WRIT PETITION (C) No.174 OF2021JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. The Indian Constitution ordains a structure of governance wherein the three organs of the State are entrusted with independent functions. The Legislature legislates on the law, the Executive puts the law into execution and the Judiciary being the sentinel on the qui vive reviews and enforces the law in light of its primary role as the guardian of the Constitution. Thus, we the 1 people of India have embraced a system of separation of powers for securing checks and balances. Consequently, in daytoday functioning of the government institutions many a times a perception emerges about the overstepping between three organs. Similar grievance has been made in the case at hand. The extent and manner in whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3362; (2004)187CTR(SC)97; [2004]266ITR1(SC); JT2004(2)SC510; 2004(2)SCALE512; (2004)9SCC686
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These appeals revolve round the scope and ambit of Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), and are directed against a common judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which rejected the three writ petitions filed by the appellants in these two appeals. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Shimla filed a complaint in terms of Section 276CC of the Act in the Court of the CJM who had issued process of taking cognizance of the offence. In each of the writ applications, challenge was made to legality of the proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla (in short the 'CJM').2. The factual position is almost undisputed and needs to be noted in brief.3. The three appellants were partners of a firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Kailash Nath and Associates. Apart from the three appellants, two other persons were partners and one of them Shri Kailash Nath was t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)(80)ELT680TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order-in-Appeal No. 5/93, dated 31-3-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Hyderabad. The Revenue is aggrieved with the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector, who by his order dropped the proceedings initiated by the issue of L.C. Demand Notice dated 28-1-1987. The Asstt. Collector has held that Bill of Entry 280/31-10-1986 was correctly assessed to nil rate of duty by the Customs Department in terms of Notification No. 262/58, dated 11-10-1958 in respect of imported one bulk-carrier vessel M.V. MARATHA DEEP in Oct., 19"86 by the importer appellants herein. The facts of the case are that the said bulk carrier was imported by the appellants having been purchased from M/s. Bravo Enterprises Ind. Ltd., Liberia.The said vessel arrived in Visakhapatnam from Australia carrying a bulk consignment of 27,000 M.Ts. of Cocking Coal. The vessel discharged part of cargo (15,000 M.Ts.) at Visakhapatnam and left for Haldia to discharge the balance cargo of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1950SC134; (1950)52BOMLR719; [1950]181ITR472(SC); [1950]1SCR335
Kania, C.J. 1. 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 assessees, 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. 2. The assessees contend that in respect of such oil a portion of the profits earned by them is attributable to their business of manufacturing oil at Raichur and that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. On 7/12/2009, one Prashant Kapil, In-charge, Electronics Cell, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur lodged a First Information Report alleging that one Dhoom Singh in connivance with the appellant was collecting money from people on the pretext that he would get them recruited in the police department. After his arrest, one mobile phone was seized from Dhoom Singh. As the police wanted to verify whether the recorded conversation, which is in their possession, is between accused Dhoom Singh and the appellant, they needed voice sample of the appellant. The police, therefore, filed an application before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janpad Saharanpur, praying that the appellant be summoned to the court for recording the sample of his voice. On 8/1/2010, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur issued summons to the appellant to appear before the investigating officer and give his voice sample. The appellant approached the Alla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 18111812 OF2022VALLAL RCK ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. These appeals challenge the common judgment dated 28th January 2022 passed by the learned National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the NCLAT) in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Insolvency) Nos. 211 and 212 of 2021, thereby dismissing the appeals filed by the present appellant, which were in turn filed, challenging the two orders dated 12th August 2021 passed by the learned National Company Law Tribunal, Division BenchII, Chennai (hereinafter referred to 1 as the NCLT), thereby rejecting the application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP for short) under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC for short) read with Regulation 30A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Re...
Tag this Judgment!