Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE29H DAY OF JULY20157TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 23511 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- 1. SUBASH K.V, AGED37YEARS S/O.K.V.VISWANATHAN (CONDUCTOR, KSRTC, PERUMBAVOOR) RESIDING AT KALLARAYIL HOUSE, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., 683 556 PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.2. BABU P.R., AGED45YEARS, S/O.P.K.RAJAN (CONDUCTOR, KSRTC, PERUMBAVOOR) RESIDING AT POTTACKAL PARAMBU, KANJURAKKAD RAYONPURAM P.O. 683 543 PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.3. JOBY JOSEPH, AGED39YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH U.D., (CONDUCTOR, KSRTC, ERNAKULAM) RESIDING AT UZHUNNUMKATTIL HOUSE, MANJUMMEL P.O. 683 501 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.4. SIJO MATHAI, AGED35YEARS, S/O.M.K.MATHAI (CONDUCTOR, KSRTC, PERUMBAVOOR) MALIKUDY HOUSE, IRINGOLE P.O., PERUMBAVOOR - 683 548 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.5. BINOY.P.B., AGED39YEARS, S/O.N.D.BABY (CONDUCTOR, KSRTC, VAIKOM) RESIDING AT NAMBUKATTIL HOUSE, KONATTU ROAD N.GATE, VAI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:13.08.2015 RESERVED ON:08.07.2015 DELIVERED ON:13.08.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12212 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 1.A.V.Bellarmin 2.S.Anthony 3.E.Chellaiya 4.N.Ganesan 5.T.Krishnan 6.S.Ramachandran 7.T.Maharajapillai 8.Sankaran 9.S.Pandian Asan ... Petitioners Vs. Mr.V.Santhakumaran Nair, Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Southern Railway,Nagercoil Junction, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent PRAYER Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the complaint in C.C.No.198 of 2009 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil filed by the Respondent and to quash the same as illegal. !For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lazjapathi Roy For Respondent : Mr.Manoharan Amicus Curiae : Mr.R.Alagumani Mr.G.R.Swaminathan Mr.A.Velan :ORDER The petitioners, arrayed as A1 to A4, A6 to A9 and A11, seek to qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Steelworkers v. United States - 361 U.S. 39 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Steelworkers v. United States, 361 U.S. 39 (1959) United Steelworkers of America v. United States No. 504 Argued November 3, 1959 Decided November 7, 1959 361 U.S. 39 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus Under 208 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, the United States sued in a Federal District Court to enjoin the continuation of an industry-wide strike in the steel industry. After considering affidavits filed by the parties and finding that the strike had closed down a substantial part of the Nation's steel production capacity and that its continuation would "imperil the national health and safety," the District Court enjoined continuation of the strike. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: The judgment is sustained. Pp. 361 U. S. 40 -44. 1. Once it determined that the statutory conditions of breadth of involvement and peril to the national health ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR659
Naik, J.1. [After narrating facts, not material to the report, his Lordship proceeded.] It was argued by Mr. Keshavdas that the Court has no power to grant temporary mandatory injunction and that in any event mandatory injunction could be granted only to maintain the status quo as on the date of the suit, for special reasons after proof of the prima facie case and the balance of convenience. In support of his submission that the Court has no power to grant inter-locutory mandatory injunction he has relied upon the observations of Bea-man J. which are made in Rasul v. Pirubhai : AIR1914Bom42 . Beaman J. who formed a division Bench with Shah J., no doubt observed as under (p. 291):.It has always been, in my opinion, a very open question whether in strictness a mandatory injunction can properly be made on interlocutory applications. In England whatever doubts may have existed on this point may be said to have been removed by Section 25 of the Judicature Act, and it has long been a common ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1993(1)BomCR586; (1993)95BOMLR28
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents through respective advocates waive service. By consent rule deemed to be on today's board for final hearing, called out and heard.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns an Order of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Patan, dated 19th August, 1992, by which the fourth respondent has been granted registration as a multi-purpose co-operative society.3. The petitioner is a registered multi-purpose co-operative society, and is carrying on its business within the area of village Kumbhargaon, Taluka Patan, District Satara.4. Sections 3 to 11 of The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, provide a detailed machinery for registration of different kinds of societies under the Act. Section 4 indicates the types of societies which are entitled to registration under the Act. Section 6 lays down the condition for registration of a society. Under section 8, the proposed society is required to apply to the Regi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(2)ALT519; 1994(2)AnWR551
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The appellant is the accused No. 3 in SC No. 259/93 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. He along with five other accused were prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 148, 302, 506 and 149 IPC, Section 27 of Indian Arms Act and Sections 3 and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TADA'). The case abated as against accused Nos. 1 and 2 as they died pending trial. The case was split up as between A4 and others as he was absconding. Thus, only accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 were tried for the charges as stated above. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and made the prosecution to produce occular evidence of PW1 to 16, documentary evidence of Exs.P 1 to P 36 and material objects 1 to 19. They were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and called upon to enter defence. The defence evidence did not come in. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the sides and on the material mentione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(2)ALT694
ORDERSivaraman Nair, J.1. There are six petitioners. The first three are brothers and the next three are their sisters. They challenge a common appellate order dated 22.5.1989 passed by the 1st respondent dismissing three appeals filed by petitioners 1 to 3 against the orders dt.26.6.1982 and 22.12.1988 which the 2nd respondent had made under Section 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). The orders related to Urban Land in old No. l42/C corresponding to Municipal numbers 1.8.161. to 164 on Penderghast Road, Secunderabad. Respondents found petitioners Ho 3 to have 706.34 Sq.metres each of surplus land above the ceiling limits fixed under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Petitioners submit that the above finding contained in the appellate order, which affirmed the order of the 2nd respondent, is illegal and unsustainable.2. Petitioners 1 to 3-the brothers, purchased 6794 Sq. metres of land consisting of a few resident...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : II(1994)ACC117; 1994ACJ138; AIR1994Ori65; [1994]80CompCas461(Orissa); 1994(I)OLR1
Hansaria, C.J. 1. These appeals by the insurer have raised the question of its liability to satisfy the awards which have been passed in proceedings under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter, 'the Act') claiming compensation for the death of three persons who were travelling in a goods vehicle, which had been hired by the deceased and who were travelling in the vehicle which got involved in an accident. When these appeals came before one of us (G. B. Patnaik, J.), reliance was placed on a bench decision of this Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Narayani Bai, 1984 Ace CJ 106 : (AIR 1984 Orissa 43) in which this question had been answered in affiramtive. This had been done following the decisions of Karnataka High Court in Channappa v. Laxman Bhimappa, AIR 1979 Karnataka 93; T. M. Renukappav. Fahmida, 1980 Acc CJ 86 : (AIR 1980 Karnataka 25) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gangamma, 1982 Acc CJ 357 : (AIR 1982 Karnataka 263). The l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1988)2GLR1390; (1988)2GLR594
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The appellant (original plaintiff), Wimco Ltd., is a public limited company, incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Indian Mercantile Chambers, Ramjibhai Kamani Marg, Bombay-38. It is carrying-on the business of manufacturing match boxes since last 65 years. It manufactures match boxes under the names 'Kapas' and 'Home Lites'. It is having its factories at different places in India.2. Defendant No. 1, Liberty Match Company is a registered partnership firm having its registered office at Kovilpatti in Tamil Nadu. It is also manufacturing match boxes since last two years under the trade name of 'Chameli' and 'Flying Horse'. Defendant No.2 is also a partnership firm and it is working as distributor and/or stockiest of defendant No.1 in the City of Ahmedabad and nearby markets, defendant No.5 is also a partnership firm of which defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the partners. Defendant No. 5 is also appointed as distributor and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1965Raj200
Kan Singh, J. 1. This second appeal before us raises a question about the liability of a common carrier in respect of the loss of goods in transit delivered to him for transport. 2. The appellant before us is the legal representative of one Mangilal Chopra of Mangrol who had commenced the action for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1134/6/6 from Kota Transport Company Limited for non-delivery of 24 maunds and 11 seers of cotton which was consigned from Kota to Mangrol by a truck run under the management and control of the defendant company. It is common ground between the parties that the defendant company had a monopoly to ply transport vehicles within the ex-Kota State in the year 1949, and was acting as common carrier of goods. It was averred that on 5-12-1949, Messrs. Madhay Das Hiralal of Kota, who were plaintiff's agents, delivered 27 maunds 11 seers and 4 chhataks of cotton valued at Rs. 1266/6/6 to the defendant company for being carried to Mangrol. This cotton was carried in a...
Tag this Judgment!