Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-29-1978
City of Lafayette v. Louisiana P&L; Co. - 435 U.S. 389 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court City of Lafayette v. Louisiana P&L; Co., 435 U.S. 389 (1978) City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. No. 76-864 Argued October 4, 1977 Decided March 29, 1978 435 U.S. 389 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner cities, which own and operate electric utility systems both within and beyond their respective city limits as authorized by Louisiana law, brought an action in District Court against respondent investor-owned electric utility with which petitioners compete, alleging that it committed various federal antitrust offenses that injured petitioners in the operation of their electric utility systems. Respondent counterclaimed, alleging that petitioners had committed various antitrust offenses that injured respondent in its business and property. Petitioners moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the ground that, as cities and subdivision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-02-1978
Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)134
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner, who was employed in the Indian Air Force, was discharged from service w.e.f. June 20, 1972 and his grievance is that the order of his discharge is illegal and deserves to be quashed. The petitioner was initially enrolled in the Indian Air Force as a Combatant Airman on November 18, 1963 and he subsequently worked there in various capacities, such as Air craftsman Class II, Aircraftsman Class I, leading Air craftsman and Corporal His original appointment was for a period of nine years as a regular Airman and thereafter for six years as a reserved personnel According to the petitioner, the regular period of his engagement was subsequently enlarged to 15 years. On April 8, 1972, a discharge order was passed authorizing the Station Commander Indian Air Force Station, Sambra, to discharge the petitioner from service after allowing him to avail of the full leave which might be due to him In pursuance of the aforesaid order, a discharge certificate was issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-09-1978
Reported in : AIR1978SC344; [1978(36)FLR236]; 1978LabIC184; (1978)1SCC498; [1978]2SCR507; 1978(10)LC73(SC)
Jaswant Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated January 18, 1977 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 22 of 1975 purporting to have been preferred under Sub-section(3) of Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by Kunj Behari Lal, respondent No. 2 herein.2. It appears that respondent No. 2 who is an M. Com. but does not possess a Training Degree or a recognised Diploma in Education or three years' experience of teaching intermediate or higher classes or a recognised training certificate was appointed as Commerce Teacher on two years probation in the pay scale of Rs. 418-10-438-15-513-20-613-25-788-32-820 in the N. C. Jindal Public School, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the School') vide Memorandum dated July 26, 1972 to teach the subject of Commerce to 9th and 10th classes. The terms and conditions governing the appoi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-10-1978
Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States - 434 U.S. 275 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275 (1978) Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States No. 76-911 Argued October 11, 1977 Decided January 10, 1978 434 U.S. 275 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Clean Air Act authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate "emission standards" for hazardous air pollutants. The emission of an air pollutant in violation of an applicable emission standard is prohibited by 112(c)(1)(b), the knowing violation of which is made a criminal offense by 113(c)(1)(C). Section 307(b)(1) provides that a petition for review of the Administrator's action in promulgating an emission standard may be filed only in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and under 307(b)(2) such action is not subject to judicial review in a civil or criminal enforcement proceeding. Peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-12-1978
Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR397
R.M. Kantawal, C.J.1. Union of India and others have filed this appeal against the order of Vimadalal J. inter alia issuing a writ of mandamus directing the appellants to withdraw and cancel a circular dated January 11, 1967 and granting other ancillary reliefs. Indian Gem House, the respondents, (original petitioners) are the members of an association known as 'The Precious Stone Importers' & Exporters' Association'. They were registered as exporters under the Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Scheme notified by the Government from time to time. The import trade control policy for the year April 1966 to March 1967 was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on March 30, 1966. Appendix 23 is the said import trade control policy containing provisions about Export Promotion Scheme. On June 6, 1966 a public notice was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section I under the signature of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports informing the public that it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-12-1978
Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)190
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the Border Commissions, Rajasthan Jodhpur keeping in abeyance the temporary promotion of the petitioner to the post of Office Assistant in the Office of the Collector Jaisalmer and the order passed by the Collector Jaisalmer finally setting aside the same The petitioner, who was working as a select ion grade Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Collector, Jaisalmer was promoted to the post of Office Assistant in a temporary capacity by the order of the Collector, Jaislamer dated August 29, 1968. But on a complaint made by some other employee, the Border Commissioner Rajasthan, Jodhpur by his order dated March 3, 1969 directed that the order of the Collector, Jaislamer regarding the temporary promotion of the petitioner be kept in abeyance till further orders. The matter was alternately referred to the Board of Revenue & the Secretary of the Board by his letter dated November 12, 1971 intimated to the Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-13-1978
Reported in : 1979CriLJ102
ORDER1. In this writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the five petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other writ for quashing an order dated 9th June, 1977, passed in revision by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Co--operation Department. By that order election to the Managing Committee of Ghungrali Sewak Co--operative Agricultural Service Society had been set aside. The petitioners had been elected without a contest, as the nomination papers of respondents Nos. 3 to 15 had been rejected by the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny. This defect was found common to all these respondents that the name of the Society to whose Managing committee election was sought was missing. The order about the rejection of nomination papers was upheld in appeal by the Deputy Registrar, Co--operative Societies, Ludhiana, through an order passed on 12th July, 1976. There was a further appeal under S. 62 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-13-1978
Reported in : AIR1978SC351; (1978)1SCC504; [1978]2SCR524; 1978(10)LC102(SC)
Jaswant Singh, J.1. These appeals Nos. 41 and 42 of 1977 by special leave are directed against a common judgment and order dated December 16, 1975 ml by the Commissioner, Pune, Division Poona, in Election Petitions I. COP/81 (43) and COP/81(42) presented under Section 144-T of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') read with Rule 74 of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971 setting aside the election of the appellants to the Board of Directors of the Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sangh')on the ground that they were guilty of corrupt practice as envisaged by Section 144-T(3) of the Act in that Special buses were procured on payment from the Kolhapur Municipal Transport with the appellants' knowledge and consent and used for the whole day on November 20, 1973 i.e. the day of poll for the free transport of the voters from the Sangh's head office in Bhawani ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-13-1978
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1023; 15(1979)DLT209
(1) This criminal revision is directed against the conviction of the petitioners for offences under S. 29 (2) of the Delhi Development Act. The petitioners are the Indian Bank South Extension, Part Ii, New Delhi and its Manager. The case of the prosecution was that a branch of the Indian Bank was functioning at D-4, Ring Road, N.D.S.E. Part Ii, New Delhi which led to the allegation that the bank was functioning contrary to Sec. 14 of the Delhi Development Act. A complaint was accordingly filed under Section 29 (2) of the Act. The sanction for the prosecution was given by the Secretary, of the Delhi Development Authority. The Magistrate convicted the conviction was maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge, who however reduced the sentence on the managar to Rs. 500.00 fine and on the Bank to Rs. 1000.00 fine. The fines have been paid but the petitioners have moved this Court.(2) In support of the contention that the conviction is unfounded the learned counsel for the petitioners has u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-13-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Delhi40; 14(1978)DLT95; 1978RLR552
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court passed on the Original Side dismissing an application moved by the appellant under Order Xxi rule 58 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure objecting to attachment of land belonging to the judgment debtors, Messrs. Arden Farms and Shri P. K. Padmanabhan.(2) MESSRS. Rallies India Ltd., respondent No. 1, obtained a decree for Rs. 1,46,038 with interest rendente lite, future interest and costs in suit No. 351 of 1969 brought by the said company against M/s. Arden Farms and its proprietor Shri P. K. Padmanabhan. In execution of the said decree in Execution case No. 92 of 1973 M/s. Rallies India Limited obtained orders for attachment of agricultural land belonging to the judgment debtors known as M/s. Arden Farms in Mehrauli. These attachment orders were passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on the Original Side on February 21, 1974. The attachment was duly effected...
Tag this Judgment!