Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker31
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In all these eleven writ petitions, the common question that arises for consideration is as to whether the levy of land cess under the provisions of the Madras District Boards Act, 1920, Madras Act 14 of 1920, as amended by the Madras District Boards (Amendment) Act, 1957, Kerala Act 4 of 1958, is valid and could be sustained.2. There are also, no doubt, some special points raised in some of these writ petitions; and I will advert to them, after I consider the main grounds of attack that have been made regarding the validity of Kerala Act 4 of 1958. According to- the petitioners, the levy of land cess at a uniform rate, irrespective of the quality of the lands, is 'illegal, discriminatory and void and therefore, Kerala Act 4 of 1958 is an invalid piece of legislation. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the State, has sustained the levy under the Act, in question, as a levy which is within the competence of the State Legislature a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR739
R.B. Mehta, J.His Lordship after stating the facts discussed the evidence and proceeded:1. This discussion now leads us to the question as to whether the confession made by the accused in the presence of Sardulsing Rohitlal and Vaijnathsinh is admissible in evidence. It is contended by Mr. Bhatt that a confession made in the presence of Sardulsing is a confession made to a police officer and that therefore under the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act it is not admissible in evidence. Mr. Bhatt says that Sardulsing is a superior officer and a member of the Railway Protection Force which is constituted under the Railway Protection Force Act 1957 that the duties of such officer are akin to the duties of a police officer and that therefore Sardulsing should be deemed to be a police officer as contemplated under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and that therefore the confession made to him cannot be admissible in evidence. For the purpose of his argument in regard to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1972)IILLJ482Raj; 1972()WLN171
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. These writ petitions are directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Bhilwara, dated 9th of November, 1970, whereby the appeal filed by the employer was dismissed and the order of the Payment of Wages Authority was upheld and the employer was directed to pay by way of compensation to those employees, the payment of whose wages was delayed, at the rate of Rs. 7 for those who were drawing more than Rs. 50 per month and Rs. 3 who were drawing less than Rs. 50 per month as wages.2. Since common question of law is involved in both these petitions. I propose to dispose them of by one judgment.3. The finding of the Payment of Wages Authority, Bhilwara, that the petitioner paid the wages to his employees late is not disputed. The complaint filed under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act was, however, contested by the employer on two grounds, namely, (1) that the wages had been paid before the reply was filed by the employer before the Payment of Wages Authority,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1896)6MLJ684
SMuthusami Aiyar, J.1. The first question referred for our decision is whether a suit to enforce the acceptance of a can be maintained in a Civil Court and I think it should be answered in the affirmative. So early as 1879, it was held By a Division Bench of this Court in Karim v. Muhammad Kadar I.L.R. (1879) M. 90 that the suit is cognizable by a Civil Court. In 1889, however, another Divisional Bench expressed a doubt in Narasimha v. Suryanarayana I.L.R. (1879) M. 481 as to whether the suit would lie in a Civil Court, in as much as the duty of accepting a patta and giving a muchilika was one imposed by statute, and a special remedy for enforcing it was prescribed by the same statute. It was, however, observed that the object of Act VIII of 1865 in requiring the exchange of patta and muchilika was to insure the existence of evidence of the terms of the holding, and as a landlord could, on a proper occasion arising, certainly maintain a declaratory suit, so, in such suit, he might obta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1965Mad484; (1965)2MLJ140
(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is from the judgment of Ramakrishnan J. in A. S. 208 of 1960, and involves a point of some interest and importance regarding the scheme, and the application of certain provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, as amended by Madras Act XIX of 1955, to the established facts. It is true that the point centrally in issue is virtually concluded by the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Vajrapani Naidu v. New Theatres Carnatic Talkies Ltd., C. A. No. 264 of 1962: . Still as it has been contended before us that the elucidation in that judgment of S. 12 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (hereafter termed the "Act") may nevertheless not affect the particular contention of the landlord or lessor (The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd. Madras) on the facts, the matter deserves careful scrutiny.(2) The background of the established facts may be set forth as follows: The plaintiffs are the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1964)1MLJ213
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This appeal from the Judgment and decree of the learned First Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, in O.S. No. 796 of 1958; raises a question regarding the application of the provisions of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, as amended by Madras Act XIX of 1955.2. The plaintiffs, the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd., represented by their Secretary, own the vacant land bearing No. 4/7, Ponnambala Vathiar Street, Mylapore, Madras. The defendant is a paper merchant and printer. A lease deed, Exhibit A-1, was executed between the parties on 30th April, 1947, in respect of the above-mentioned vacant land, for a period of 10 years commencing from 1st May, 1947. During the continuance of the above lease, in accordance with the stipulation made in the lease deed, the defendant put up a building on the land. The plaintiffs alleged that, under the terms of the lease deed, the defendant was to surrender possession of the land with the superstructure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This petition is directed against order dated 24.4.2011 passed by the Committee constituted by the Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) (for short, `the Chairman') under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (for short, “the Act”) rejecting the petitioner's prayer for supply of the details and documents enumerated in paragraph 4(a) to (m) of application dated 19.4.2011 and objections raised by him to the jurisdiction of the Committee to frame certain charges. 2. Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for removal of the petitioner, who was then posted as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India. The acts of misbehaviour allegedly committed by the petitioner were enumerated in the notice, which was accompanied by an explanatory note and documents in support of the allegations. For the sake of convenient ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3249 OF2016State of Gujarat and Another Appellant(s) Versus The I.R.C.G. and Others Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI The present appeal, by special leave, assails the judgment and order dated 8th February, 2012, passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.3023 of 2003 with Civil Application No.6115 of 2004.2. The essential facts that need to be stated are that the High Court was moved by way of a public interest litigation seeking direction/order directing the State and its functionaries to make detailed survey of the mosques, dargahs, graveyards, khankahs and other religious places and institutions desecrated, damaged and/or destroyed 2 during the period of communal riot in the State in the year 2002 under the supervision and guidance of the Court and to immediately repair and restore the same within specified time limit and further command the State Government to su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 13554-13555 OF2022Board of Control for Cricket in India Appellant(s) Versus Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr. Respondent(s) ORDER M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 24.06.2022 passed in First Appeal ST No.25980 of 2021 preferred by the appellant the Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as BCCI) by which the High Court has dismissed the said first appeal, which was filed against the judgment and order passed by the Employees Insurance Court at Bombay dated 09.09.2021, declaring that the BCCI is covered within the meaning of shop as per notification 1 dated 18.09.1978 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under the provisions of Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ESI Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.No.16378 of 2015 17-06-2015 Mangalagiri Sairam...Petitioner The Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University,Represented by its Registrar (Convener, EAMCET-2015),Hyderabad, Telangana State and others. ...Respondents Counsel for Petitioner: Sri Kiran Palakurthi Counsel for Respondents: G.P. for Home (TG) ?. Cases referred 1. AIR2000SC735(1) 2. (2011) 11 SCC1THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.16378 of 2015 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: To issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus -declaring the memo No.C No.5778 /A7/2013 dt. 28.1.2014 issued by 4th respondent in refusing to recognize the petitioner as the son of Police Martyr Late Shankar Jee and to grant Police Martyr Children Certificate to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and direct the respondents 3 and 4 to issue Police Martyr Children Certificate to th...
Tag this Judgment!