Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1982)2MLJ9
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. The interesting point of law arising in this appeal is whether Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (XXXIV of 1948) is to be in consonance with the preamble of the said Act or is it that Section 2(12) of the Act has to be interpreted in the strict sense of the rules of interpretation so as to saddle the responsibility of paying the contribution contemplated for the benefit of the employees in the factory.2. The factory in question is a partnership concern dealing in mosaic industries known as 'Madurai Mosaic Industries'. According to the petitioner and which is also admitted by the respondents that action had been taken for the period commencing from 28th August, 1967 to 11th May, 1972 during which time, it is submitted by the respondents that the concern in question, namely, the partnership firm, though it is represented by G. Ramakrishnan, one of the partners, the said partnership consisted of two partners, that they are to come under the defi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1965Cal252
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant, Indian Airlines Corporation, from the judgment and decree of P. C. Mallick, J. decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and another sum of Rs. 5000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and with costs. 2. The suit arises out of an unfortunate and tragic air crash at Nagpur when a Dakota air plane VT-CHF crashed soon after it started flying from Nagpur to Madras. All the passengers and the crew were killed and the only person who escaped with severe injuries and burns was the Pilot, Desmond Arthur James Cartner. This accident took place on the 12th December, 1953 at about 3-25 a.m. 3. In that Aircraft travelled one Sunil Baran Chowdhury, a young man of about 28 years of age, a business man from Calcutta, who had flown from Calcutta to Nagpur and was taking his journey in that ill-fated Aircraft from Nagpur to Madras at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs in this suit arc (1) the widow of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal311
1. The plaintiffs are the widow and minor children of one Sanat Kumar Dutta-Gupta who was killed in an air crash. They have instituted this suit under the Fatal Accidents Act for the recovery of damages against the defendant Corporation. It is pleaded in the plaint that the deceased Sanat Kumar purchased a ticket as a passenger from Dum Dum Airport to Jorhat on the defendant's scheduled route known as the Calcutta-Mohonbari route. On March 21, 1956 at about eleven o'clock in the morning the aircraft crashed while landing at Salami Airport. Sanat Kumar was killed in the crash. The plaintiffs' case is that the death of Sanat Kumar was caused by the negligence of the defendant Corporation or its employees. The particular of negligence are set out in paragraph 5 of the plaint. Leave to furnish further particulars of negligence and/or misconduct however was reserved after discovery. Such further particulars were furnished at the time of the opening of the case by Mr. Dutt Roy the learned co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1492
P.K. Chanda, J.1. This revisional application has been filed for quashing of the proceeding being Case No. 312C of 1974 Under Sections 147/323/325/307 I. P. Code including the orders dated September 24, 1974, October 17, 1974 and November 22, 1974.2. A petition of complaint was filed by O. P. No. 2 Biswanath Santra in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal in the district of Midna-pore on 23-9-74. It appears that B. K. Mitra, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal was absent on that date and R. K. Ghosh a Judicial Magistrate was dealing with his files. Apropos of the filing of the complaint the complainant and two witnesses were examined and on the prayer of the complainant time to examine further witnesses was allowed till 24-9-74.In the petition of complaint it was stated that besides 9 witnesses named therein, there were other witnesses. On 24-9-74 three other witnesses were examined. After examination of three witnesses the learned Magistrate R. K. Ghosh is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
By the present petition, the petitioners have put to challenge the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the State Government in Revision No. FLR-1310/RA-46/SE-2, by which the revisional authority has set aside the orders dated 20.2.2010 and 22.6.2010 passed by the Collector, Nagpur, and Commissioner, State Excise respectively; and after allowing the revision preferred by respondent no.4 directed the Collector, Nagpur, to grant him FL-III licence, in the housing or residential colony, namely Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur. 2. FACTS: Petitioners are residents of Vidarbha Housing Board Colony, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur. The residential houses in this colony are located on the road which is interior in the sense that the same is not a road with full commercial activities but falls on a side of the main road where commercial activity with a few liquor Bars and shops is carried out. Respondent no.4 Atul Jaiswal somewhere in the year 1997 purchased a residential house in the said Vidarbha Housing Board colony...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 26TH POUSHA 193 OP (MACT).No. 3467 of 2012 (O) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 05 06.2012 OF MACT, OTTAPPALAM IN IA NOS. 3573, 3574, 3575 & 3576 OF 201.IN OPMV.1298/2007 IA NOS. 3577, 3578, 3579 & 3580 OF 201.IN OPMV.1299/2007 IA NOS. 3581, 3582, 3583 & 3584 OF 201.IN OPMV.1300/2007 IA NOS. 3585, 3586, 3587 & 3588 OF 201.IN OPMV.1301/2007 PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. MATHEW JOHN AGED 5 YEARS S/O. LATE M.K.JOHN,KIZHAKAMBALAM PLANTATION SHOLAYOOR AMSOM,MANNARKADU TALUK,SHOLAYOOR P.O. PIN-678581.2. JOHN ZACHARIA AGED 4 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER,M/S. UNITEK POWER SYSTEMS MASJID ROAD,ALUVA P.O.,PIN-683101. BY ADVS.SRI.V.K.ISSAC SRI.ISAC SANJAY RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. PATTAMANA BUILDING,PUMP JUNCTION RAILWAY STATION ROAD,ALUVA,PIN-683101.2. MRS. MOLY ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013 12TH MAGHA 193 Bail Appl..No. 607 of 2013 (A) ----------------------------------------- [CRIME NO. 1827/2012 OF MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION ,MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD] ................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------ MADHU.P.R, AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAJENDRAN VAIDYAR, PERUMBILLIL BUILDING, M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM, SMT.NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S, SRI.P.N.SAIBEN NIKKISH. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION, MANNARKKAD,PALAKKAD, PIN582. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,PIN031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA. T.Y. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J.---------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.A. 805/2010 % Judgment reserved on:25. h July, 2013 Judgment delivered on:4th October,2013 SANTOSH CHHABRA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr. Jatinder Advocate. Kamra, Versus ABHISHEK GUREJA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 26.07.2010, whereby, ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.29,31,837/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.2. While granting the aforesaid compensation, ld. Tribunal has directed respondent No.2, insured / owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation and has exonerated the Insurance Company from any liability.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued only one ground that the deceased Yashpal Chh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5387 OF2014(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11686 of 2007) Animal Welfare Board of India . Appellant Versus A. Nagaraja & Ors. . Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5388 OF2014(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10281 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5389-5390 OF2014(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.18804-18805 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL No.5391 OF2014(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13199 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.5392 OF2014(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13200 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.5393 OF2014(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4598 of 2013) CIVIL APPEAL No.5394 OF2014(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12789 of 2014) (@ SLP(C) CC4268 of 2013) WRIT PETITION (C) NO.145 OF2011AND T.C. (C) Nos.84, 85, 86, 97, 98 and 127 of 2013 K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are, in these cases, concerned with an issue of seminal importance with regard to the Rights of Animals under our Const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Considering the nature of controversy and as requested by the parties, matters have been heard finally at the stage of admission by issuing Rule, and making it returnable forthwith. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners before this Court are dealers within the meaning of said term as defined in Section 2[16A] of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, (Act No. LIX of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation Act? for short). The Local Body Tax (LBT) is being charged on goods imported by them within city limits of respondent no.2 Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The tax is assessed on goods imported by them for use, consumption or sale within the city limits. As they are dealers whose annual turnover exceeds Rs. 50 Crores, the tax is being recovered from them. Other dealers whose annual turnover is less than Rs.50 Crores, are exempted from paying any tax on such goods. 3. Petitioners state that they are required to pay the local body tax at 8.5% and hence,...
Tag this Judgment!