Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973AP1
ORDER1. In this revision petition, the order of the Rent Controller, appealed against, was the direction given to the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 758 /- as arrears of rent as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. The contention of the respondent tenant was that the petitioner was not his landlord. But on the landlord filing the sale deed in his favour for the premises concerned and rental agreements alleged to have been executed by the tenant prima facie found that there was the relationship of landlord and tenant and therefore he should deposit the arrears as per the provisions of Section 11. This is an order affecting the rights and liabilities of the parties and a mere procedural one, however summary the enquiry had been. Therefore this order is appealable.2. This leads us to the merits of the order passed in appeal by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court. The Chief Judge held that there was no proper enquiry regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant and remanded th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Jenkins v. McKeithen - 395 U.S. 411 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411 (1969) Jenkins v. McKeithen No. 548 Argued March 25, 1969 Decided June 9, 1969 395 U.S. 411 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus Appellant, a labor union member, filed this suit in the District Court for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging as violative of due process and equal protection the Louisiana statute that creates a body called the Labor-Management Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of investigating and finding facts relating to violations of state or federal criminal laws in the labor-management relations field. The Commission, appointed by the Governor, is to hold public hearings concerning such alleged violations, and its powers include making rules, employing investigators, compelling the attendance of witnesses, and requiring the production of records. The Commission is required to make public findi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1980)2SCC665; 1980Supp(1)SCC249
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. These two criminal appeals are directed against a judgment dated 27th February 1979 of the Sessions Judge, Delhi by which the accused (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) have been convicted under various Sections of the Penal Code and awarded sentences of various terms of imprisonment not exceeding two years (which have been ordered to run concurrently) in addition to fines2. Both the appeals were originally filed before the Delhi High Court and were admitted by it on the 21st March 1979 when the sentences of the appellants were suspended and they were released on bail. On the 17th May. 1979, the State also filed an appeal to the Delhi High Court for enhancement of the sentences. The Special Courts Act (No. 22 of 1979 and hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') was passed by Parliament and received the assent of the President on 16th May 1979. On the 27th June 1979, the Central Government made a declaration Under Section 5(1) of the Act as a conse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC962; 1980CriLJ690; 1980Supp(1)SCC92; [1980]2SCR380
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 1979. From the order dated 17-9-1979 of the Special Court at New Delhi in Criminal Case No. 1/79. P. R. Mridul, and O. P. Sharma for the Appellant. Soli J. Sorabjee, Solicitor General of India, R. N. Sachthey, Girish Chandra, Bipin Behari Lal and Miss Niklam Grover for the Respondent. The Judgment of S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and A. P. Sen, JJ. was delivered by Fazal Ali, J. D. A. Desai gave a separate opinion and P. N. Shinghal, J. gave a dissenting opinion. FAZAL ALI, J.-This appeal is directed against an order dated 17th September 1979 passed by Justice Joshi, Special Judge appointed under the Special Courts Act, 1979 (No. 22 of 1979) (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') by which the learned Judge directed a charge to be framed against the appellant under s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with s. 5 ( 1 ) (d) and s. 5 (2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1947 and also under s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1)(d) of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1969Bom333; (1969)71BOMLR168; ILR1969Bom837; 1969MhLJ383
Patel, J.1. The petitioners in these two petitioners in these two petitions are tenants of the Housing Board. The competent officer in each case after issuing a show cause notice indicating the breaches of the terms of allotment of tenancies, and hearing the petitioners passed eviction orders. Petitioners filed appeals to the State Government. These appeals were heard by the Deputy Minister and the appeals were then dismissed by the State Government. The petitioners challenge the vires of the provisions of Chapter VA of the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948, which permit eviction after a summary enquiry by a competent officer.2. Section 53-A of the said Act authorises the State Government to appoint as competent authority an officer who holds or has held an office no lower in rank than that of a Deputy Collector or an Executive Engineer. Section 53-A enables a competent authority, if satisfied, to evict (a) an authorised occupier if he has (I) not paid rent lawfully due from him in respec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : [1975]101ITR721(J& K)
Jaswant Singh, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, has referred for our decision the following question of law arising from its,order dated December 11, 1970, passed in Income-tax Appeal No. 3078 of 1969-70 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material on record to justify the addition of Rs. 2,27,354 to the trading result and was the Tribunal right in law in sustaining this addition ?'2. The facts leading to this reference are :The assessee, M/s. International Forest Co., Srinagar, which is a firm registered under Section 185 of the Act, and carries on business as a forest lessee in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, tendered for and obtained in December, 1958, a lease of compartment No. 28 in Mewar Range of Langet Forest Division, Kashmir, against a royalty of Rs. 25,55,555. In the first year of its working the lease, the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1977Mad192
1. This petition is filed by Mr. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Notification No. SO-74(E) dated 3-2-1976, issued by the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms, Government of India, under S. 3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1952, and quash the same. The affidavit filed in support of this petition, after setting out the history of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which was running the Government from 1967 upto 31st January 1976, refers to the proclamation issued by the President of India on 31-1-1976 under Art. 356 of the Constitution of India assuming to himself the functions of the Government of the State of Tamil Nadu and the powers of the Government of the State, suspending the provisions of the Constitution relating to the Council of Ministers in the State and dissolving the Legislative Assembly. The Proclamation im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(4)ALLMR807; (2002)104BOMLR561
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Shri Golegaonkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.2. The petition was heard by us on 27th and 28th of March, 2002 as well as on 1st April, 2002.3. Rule, Shri Sawant, learned Government Pleader waives service for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6, Shri Shelke, learned Advocate waives service for Respondent No. 4 and Shri Soman, learned Advocate waives service for Respondent No. 5. Rule made returnable forthwith.4. The Petitioner claims that he belongs to the 'Kunbi' caste which is listed in Other Backward Classes at Serial No. 83 in the list, as published by the State Government, and the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad had issued to him a Caste Certificate to that effect on 15th June, 1996/2nd July, 1996. On the basis of the said Caste Certificate he contested the elections of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation from Ward No. 42 which was reserved for the Other Backward Classes. He was declared elected sometimes in April, 2000. The Commissioner of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1979]49CompCas686(Bom)
R.L. Aggarwal, J.1. This writ petition arises under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter refereed to as 'the MRTP Act'). The petitioner seeks withdrawal, cancellation and annulment of the Notice of Enquiry dated 6th December, 1974, and quashing of the order dated 25th February, 1975, passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the petitioner's application for disclosure of information, copy of the complaint and the report of the Director of Investigation, and for further and better particulars. A writ of prohibition is sought prevent the 1st and 2nd respondents from proceeding further pursuant to the said impugned Notice of Enquiry and the impugned order and from taking further steps in the matter of Restrictive Trade Practice Enquiry No. 27 of 1974. An order directing the 2nd respondent not to participate in the said enquiry and also an order directing the 1st respondent to disclose the complaint and report and to give particulars and inspection are also so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1910)ILR37Cal439
Stephen and Carnduff, JJ.1. This matter has been referred to us by the Sessions Judge of Hooghly in the following circumstances. Four persons were arrested in February last on a charge of having committed an offence under Section 400 of the Indian Penal Code by belonging to a gang of dacoits. Part I of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, has been applied to proceedings in respect of this offence by the Local Government, at what time is not stated, but no doubt on the 5th February. On that day one of the petitioners applied to the District Magistrate of Howrah, who had taken cognizance of the offence, for bail, which was refused. On the 8th February he and two others of the accused applied, no doubt in pursuance of the provisions of Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to be admitted to bail by the Sessions Judge, who directed that the papers of the case should be called for and fixed a day for hearing the applications. Before the date so fixed the District Magistrate declin...
Tag this Judgment!