Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas126(Mad); (1984)IILLJ34Mad
Mohan, J.1. An important question arising in this batch of cases is whether the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Shops Act), is applicable to the Nationalised Banks and to the State Bank of India. 2. We would first note the facts leading to Writ Appeals Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983. They arise out of Writ Petitions Nos. 2013 and 2014 of 1979. Writ Petition No. 2013 of 1979 is for a mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispense of the preliminary objection raised by the Management of the Bank of India, Regional Office, Southern Region, represented by the Assistant General Manger, Madras, in regard to the maintainability of T.S.E. Case No. 49 of 1875, of the file of the Second Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in the appeal preferred by the employee, C. V. Raman, under section 41 of the Act. 3. Writ Petition No. 2014 of 1979 is for prohibition to prohibit the Additional Commissioner from proceeding to take up for pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1985)2MLJ439
ORDERMohan, J.1. An important question arising in this batch of cases is, whether the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Shops Act) is applicable to the Nationalised Banks and to the State Bank of Indian.2. We would first note the facts; relating to W.A. Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983. They arise out of W.P. Nos. 2013 and 2014 of 1979. W.P. No. 2013 of 1979 is for mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the preliminary objection raised by the Management of Bank of India, Regional Office, Southern Region, represented by the Assistant General Manager, Madras, in regard to the maintainability of T.S.E. Case No. 49 of 1975 on the file of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, II, Madras, in the appeal preferred by the employee, C.V. Raman under Section 41 of the Act. W.P. No. 2014 of 1979 is for prohibition to prohibit the Additional Commissioner from proceeding to take up for disposal T.S.E. Case No. 49 of 1975.3. The emp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1987(1)BomCR195
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. To fulfil construction activities on a plot in Juhu Parle Scheme in Vile Parle area of this metropolis the respondent herein who is owner of the said plot was in need of finance and thus was responsive to the willingness of the intending persons to offer loans with a stipulation that they would get the flats on rental basis after completion of the building. The petitioner herein is one of such needy persons who was on the look out for accommodation. After being posted with the knowledge of this project and having realised that the proposed building was to be located in the close proximity of the present residence the petitioner felt that it would be an ideal accommodation for himself and his brother. With this desire he approached the respondent in February 1980 and after negotiations between the plaintiff and his brother and the respondent an agreement was arrived at between the parties under which the respondent agreed to give on rent the second and the first floor ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2187; (1989)1CompLJ105(SC); JT1988(3)SC787; 1988(2)SCALE1574; 1989Supp(1)SCC504; [1988]Supp2SCR690; 1988(2)LC680(SC)
..... ' by describing it as the loftiest mountain on earth surface located on the north of the country. the himalayan ranges apart from operating as a natural seal on the northern border against intruders, have influenced the climate, culture, ecology and environment of the sub continent. these are the ranges from where originate several perennial rivers like the ganges and the yamuna .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC855; [1992]74CompCas482(SC); JT1990(3)SC417; 1990(2)SCALE200; (1990)4SCC406; [1990]3SCR649
ORDER1. The common question which arises for consideration in these appeals, by special leave, and the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is, whether a person who was inducted as a tenant in premises, which are public premises for the purpose of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Public Premises Act'), and whose tenancy has expired or has been terminated, can be evicted from the said premises as being a person in unauthorised occupation of the premises under the provisions of the Public Premises Act and whether such a person can invoke the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Control Act'). In short, the question is, whether the provisions of the Public Premises Act would override the provisions of the Rent Control Act in relation to premises which fall within the ambit of both the enactments.2. Civil Appeals Nos. 2368 and 2369 of 1986 relate to the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR213; 1990(3)KarLJ454
..... h.s. seshadri.17. in the case of gurucharan singh and ors. v. state (delhi administration) the accused were the d.i.g. of police, the superintendent of police and some police constables. they were alleged to be a party to a criminal conspiracy to kill one sunder and they alleged to have caused his death by drowning him ..... apprehension of the prosecution that there was likelihood of the accused persons tampering with the prosecution witnesses having regard to their status as two of them were highly placed police officers. the supreme court has declined tc interfere with the order of the high court in cancelling bail to the accused.18. in the then sensational and ..... 21 respondents by the sessions judge, tumkur (for short 'the sessions judge') in sc 13/1990 by order dated 30-3-1990. these respondents are charge-sheeted by kuniyal police for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 321, 326, 506, 307 and 302 read with section 114 ipc. as per charge-sheet allegations, these .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(3)ALT433
..... officer or managing committee appointed under section 34 or a liquidator appointed under section 65 of the act, may assume charge in a particular manner with the assistance of the police, if such person, officer, committee or liquidator is resisted in or prevented from doing so. no such procedure is adopted in these cases. no requisition was made of the erstwhile .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(1)BomCR485
..... that the petition is time-barred as it stands today.10. mr. tulzapurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, also relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of indo-pharma pharmaceuticals works private limited v. pharmaceutical company of india 80 bom.l.r. 87, where it was inter alia held as under:---'when the issue of prior continuous user .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1991)99CTR(Kar)269; ILR1991KAR3414; [1992]194ITR584(KAR); [1992]194ITR584(Karn)
S. Mohan, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment of our learned brother Rajasekhara Murthy J., dated April 19, 1991, rendered in Writ Petition No. 6655 of 1991. 2. We will refer to the facts in Writ Appeal No. 1318 of 1991 : Appellant entered into an agreement on November 28, 1990, with the third respondent for sale of an immovable property known as Mohan Buildings situate at Nos. 775 to 809, Old Taluk Cutchery Road, Chickpet, Bangalore. Both the appellant and the third respondent, i.e., the transferor and the transferee, filed Form No. 37-I prescribed by the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), framed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), with the appropriate authority on November 30, 1990. The appropriate authority, by exercising power under section 269UD(1) of the Act, passed an order on January 24, 1991, directing the purchase of the said immovable property by the Central Government and holding that the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(1)BomCR475
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. The petitioner is challenging by this writ filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal dated 13-6-1991 which has unsettled the judgment of the Addl. Rent Controller dated 26-2-1986 whereby he rejected with costs the respondent No. 1's (hereinafter called the respondent) application seeking for the recovery of possession of the suit house on the ground of bona fide personal requirement.2. It was the case of the respondent that the property called 'Galoum' situated at Mapusa and consisting of a residential house had been rented to the petitioner by his late father sometime in the year 1953. On his death the same was inherited in co-ownership by him and his three brothers who, by Deed dated 26-3-1976 effected the partition of the estate of their father and as a result whereof the suit house was allotted to him and to his brother Leonardo. Subsequently Leonardo gifted his rights to the house in favour of the responden...
Tag this Judgment!