Court : Kolkata
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 28th September, 2011. The appellants have challenged the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) and the rules framed thereunder before the Hon’ble Single Judge and prayed for a declaration that the said Act and all consequences following from the Act is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and/or void. A writ of certiorari is prayed for calling upon the Respondents to produce all Records including documents and/or decision of and/or Records of State Government in connection therewith. 2. The grounds for assailing the said Act the writ petitioner put forwarded the grounds are that the said Act of 2011 is a colourable piece of legislation and constitutes a fraud on the Constitution of India and violates the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 3. It is further stated tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson 1. M/s. Karamchand Thaper and Bros. (C.S.) Ltd is the Appellant herein. M/S. M P Power Trading Co. Ltd is the First Respondent. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the Second Respondent. 2. The Appellant has filed this Appeal challenging the impugned order dated 21.2.2012 passed by the State Commission as against the Appellant upholding the contention of M.P State Trading Company Ltd (R-1) that the contract between them was a concluded contract. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Appeal are as follows:- (a) M/s.MP Power Trading Company Limited (R-1) invited tenders through the Expression of Interest on 16.4.2009 for the sale of power on firm basis for the period from 16.7.2009 to 30.9.2009. In response to the same, M/s. Karamchand Thaper and Brothers (C.S ) Limited , the Appellant through its letter dated 21.4.2009 made the offer for purchase of the said power. Accepting the said offer, the M P Power Tra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD HOPE In 2006 and 2007 a number of London local authorities entered into arrangements for mutual insurance against various classes of risk, including property, liability and terrorism. Mutual insurance occurs where a group of similarly placed persons or organisations agree to insure each other against risks in which they all have an interest. It relieves its members of the profit element which is built into an ordinary commercial premium. The criteria for membership may also reduce the level of risk, and thus the overall cost of cover, in comparison with the level of premium that is needed where risks are accepted from a large number of policy holders, some of whom represent a greater risk than others. The aim of the arrangements that the London local authorities entered into was to reduce the cost of premiums to its members and to raise the standard of risk management. In pursuing these objectives they were acting solely in the public interest. The insurance was to be provided b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10620 OF2013Dr. Subramanian Swamy Appellant Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO.10621 OF2013Sabhayanagar Temple Appellant Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO.10622 OF2013T. Sivaraman & Ors. Appellants Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.1. All these appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.9.2009 passed in Writ Appeal No.181 of 2009 by the High Court of Madras affirming the judgment and order dated 2.2.2009 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.18248 of 2006 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner Podhu Dikshitars to administer the Temple. In Civil Appeal No.10620/2013, the appellant has raised the issue of violation of the constitutional rights protected under Article 26 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:04. 10.2018 Pronounced on:07. 01.2019 versus SHOBHA AGGARWAL & ORS. UOI & ANR. + W.P.(C) 516/2010 & CM APPL. 26668/2018 + W.P.(C) 7489/2012 + W.P.(C) 4951/2014 HARSH KUMAR AGARWAL UNION OF INDIA AND ORS MAHENDER YADAV UOI & ANR versus versus ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS + W.P.(C) 917/2018 CHAUDHARY KISHAN CHAND & SONS (HUF)........ Petitioner UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS versus + CS(OS) 3518/2012, I.A. 3927/2013 & 15957/2013 RAGHUBIR SARAN CHARITABLE TRUST RAYMOND LTD & ANR versus ..... Plaintiff ..... Defendants Through:... Petitioner No.1 in person in W.P.(C) 516/2010 with Sh. Pranav Jain, Advocate, for... Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) 516/2010. Ms. Shalini Kapoor, Ms. Rhea. G. Munjal, Ms. Bindita Chaturvedi and Sh. Dikshant Khanna, Advocates, for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4951/2014. Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj with Ms. Ananya Mukh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. These three appeals and Misc. applications have been filed by M/s.Alkali Manufacturers Association of India, M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited and M/s. National Aluminium Co. Ltd. 2. M/s Alkali Manufacturers Association of India (hereinafter referred to as AMAI) filed a petition before the Designated authority on behalf of the Domestic Industry alleging dumping of Sodium Hydroxide commonly known as Caustic Soda originated in or exported from people's republic of China & Korea PR. Public notice dated 14th May, 2002 was published in Gazette of India Extraordinary, initiating anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Caustic Soda from the subject countries. Preliminary findings were notified by the Designated Authority under Notification dated 21st September, 2002 and the interested parties were requested to make their views known in writing.A copy of the preliminary findings was also sent Page 279 to known exporters, importers and embassies of subject countries in India request...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Reported in : (2003)4CompLJ148SAT
1. The present appeal is directed against the Respondent's order dated 16.9.2002. By the said order the Respondent suspended the certificate of registration granted to the Appellant, for a period of nine months from 1.10.2002 holding the Appellant guilty of violating clause A(2) of Schedule II of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) Regulations, 1992. The Appellant is a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE).2. The background in which the Respondent issued the impugned order, has been stated in the impugned order as follows: 3. Market witnessed abnormal price and volume movement in the shares of Amara Raja Batteries Ltd (ARBL) traded on Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE)and National Stock Exchange (NSE), in February - March, 2001. The Respondent received complaints alleging market manipulation/ irregularities in the trading of ARBL's shares. In that context the Respondent ordered investigation to ascertain the role played by various persons/intermedia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Per Hon’ble Shri Rakesh Nath, Technical Member: 1. These Appeals 121 of 2007 and 51 of 2009 have been filed by U.P. Power Corporation Limited, the bulk power supplier and the successor of U.P. State Electricity Board after its restructuring. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission is Respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 121 of 2007 and Respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 51 of 2009. NOIDA Power Company Limited (NPCL), a distribution licensee in the area of Greater NOIDA is the other respondent. NPCL is a joint venture company of CESCON, a private sector company and Greater Noida Development Authority. 2. In Appeal No. 121 of 2007 the Appellant has challenged the order of the State Commission dated 26.6.2007 determining bulk supply tariff for supply of power by the Appellant to NPCL for the FY 2005-06 and FY 2006-07. Similarly, Appeal No. 51 of 2009 is against the order of State Commission dated 01.09.2008 determining the bulk supply tariff for the FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09. Though the impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD COLLINS I Introduction: the anti-deprivation rule and the pari passu principle 1. The anti-deprivation rule and the rule that it is contrary to public policy to contract out of pari passu distribution are two sub-rules of the general principle that parties cannot contract out of the insolvency legislation. Although there is some overlap, they are aimed at different mischiefs: Goode "Perpetual Trustee and Flip Clauses in Swap Transactions" (2011) 127 LQR 1, 3-4. The anti-deprivation rule is aimed at attempts to withdraw an asset on bankruptcy or liquidation or administration, thereby reducing the value of the insolvent estate to the detriment of creditors. The pari passu rule reflects the principle that statutory provisions for pro rata distribution may not be excluded by a contract which gives one creditor more than its proper share. The anti-deprivation rule 2. What is now described as the anti-deprivation principle dates from the 18th century, although the expression "deprivat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD WALKER The limited nature of the issue 1. The members of the Court are well aware of the limited nature of the issue which we have to decide in this appeal. But many of the general public (who are understandably taking a close interest in the matter) are not so well aware of its limited scope. It is therefore appropriate to spell out at the outset that the Court does not have the task of deciding whether the system of charging personal current account customers adopted by United Kingdom banks is fair. The appellants are seven of the largest banks in the United Kingdom and one building society (but I shall for convenience refer to them all as œthe banks?). The appellants accept that the system of œfree if in credit? banking prevalent in this country involves a significant cross-subsidy (amounting to about 30 per cent of the banks total revenue stream from current account customers) provided by those customers who regularly incur charges for unauthorised overdrafts (a co...
Tag this Judgment!