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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC526; JT1988(1)SC36; 1988(1)SCALE10; 1988Supp(1)SCC176; [1988]2SCR511; 1988(1)LC433(SC)
K.N. Singh, J.1. These appeals and writ petitions involve two questions of law; (i) whether Rule 41-A of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulations) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed by the State Government under Section 19 of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act 23 of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been made 'for purposes of the Act', and (ii) whether Rule 41-A places unreasonable restrictions on the appellants' right to carry on their business of exhibiting cinematograph films in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.2. The appellants/petitioners hold licences for exhibiting cinematograph films in their cinema theatres under the Act and the Rules in Form F prescribed by the Rules. The Rules and conditions contained in the Licence (Form F) do not prescribe any restriction on the number of shows of films which a licensee can exhibit in his theatre. Condition No. 11 of the licence, however, provides that : 'No cinematograph e...
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 : 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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2328; (1977)GLR919; (1977)0GLR90; 1977LabIC1857; (1977)4SCC193; [1978]1SCR423
..... on the consolidated fund of the state: article 203(3)(d) [section 78(3)(d) g.i. act, 35] so that under article 203(1) they are not subject to a vote of the legislative assembly: [section 79(1), g.i. act, 35](c) the pensions of high court judges are charged on the consolidated fund of india: article 112(3)(d)(iii) [section 33(3)(d), g.i. act, 35] so that under article 113(3) such pensions are not subject to the vote of parliament ..... words used in a statute cannot be read in isolation; their colour and content are derived from their context and, therefore, every word in a statute must be examined in its context. and when i use word 'context', i mean it in its widest sense 'as including not only other enacting provisions of the same statute but its preamble, the existing state of the law, other statutes in para materia and the mischief which-the statute was intended to remedy'. the context is of the greatest importance in the interpretation of the words used in a ..... placing of their services at the disposal of the government for an ex-cadre post (state of orissa v. sudhansn sekhar misra 1968 12 scr 1 54; considering their fitness for being retained in service and recommending their discharge from service (ram gopal v. state of madhya pradesh : (1970)illj367sc exercise of complete disciplinary jurisdiction over them including initiation of disciplinary inquiries (punjab and haryana high court v. state of haryana) : [1975]3scr365 ; and their premature retirement (state of haryana v .....
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 : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL No.6677 OF2019(Arising out of SLP(C) No.36771 of 2016) STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. .Appellants VERSUS LORD NORTHBROOK AND ORS. .Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 17.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in DB Civil Writ Petition No.2713 of 1987 in and by which the High Court quashed the communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue, Govt. of Rajasthan, District Collector, Jhunjhunu and Tehsildar, Khetri respectively in the matter of taking over the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh by the State under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956. 1 3. Sh. Raja Sardar Singh expired on 28.01.1987 intestate and without any legal heirs. Sh. Raja Sardar Singh was a Bar at law from England, a member of the Constituent Assembly, a Rajya Sabha Member and also Ambass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant170; AIR1965Mys170; (1964)2MysLJ470
K.S. Hegde, J.(1) The petitioners, in these 54 petitions, who are building owners in this State, seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Mysore to refrain from enforcing on them the provisions of the Mysore Buildings Tax Act, 1962 (Mysore Act No. 4 of 1963)(to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). after declaring the same as void and inoperative.(2) The 'Act' received the assent of the Governor on the 8th of January 1963 and it came into force on the 1st January 1964. Under S. 4 of the 'Act' all buildings as defined in the 'Act', in the towns mentioned in Schedule I to the 'Act', stand charged with 'Building Tax' in accordance with the provisions contained in Schedule II to the 'Act'. The 'Act' provides a machinery for quantification of the charge and for the collection of the tax assessed. In the 'Act' there are provisions for appeal, second appeal and revision. The 'Act' confers on the Government power to make rules to carry out the purposes of the 'Act'. Accordingly rules...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1990)1MLJ163
..... view, the state has taken prompt action and has appointed the commission of inquiry headed by a sitting judge of this court to find out the cause and circumstances leading to riots and other disturbances of law and order in various places in madurai district, and it is perfectly valid.6. the contention of the learned counsel based on article 14 is unsustainable. as i have already stated the said commission of inquiry under the act is appointed only as a fact finding authority. it is open to the petitioner to take ..... supra i do not think that the said notification is bad in law. the terms of reference of the commission clearly shows that it is to inquire into and report the cause and circumstances leading to riots and other disturbances of law and order in various places in madurai district in september, 1989 and to inquire into and report whether the various instances of police firing were justified and also to recommend suitable measures to prevent such occurrence in future. though the preamble is shown as ..... in the years 1957,1968,1978,1988 and 1989 and inspite of stringent provisions of law under the criminal procedure code, and indian penal code, killing of scheduled caste people are going on day by day and as such they are forced to defend themselves by all means within their reach. it is further stated in the affidavit that in connection with the recent bodinaickanur communal clashes, the government of tamil nadu has appointed one member inquiry commission to be headed by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Rose v. Himeley - 8 U.S. 241 (1808) U.S. Supreme Court Rose v. Himeley, 8 U.S. 4 Cranch 241 241 (1808) Rose v. Himeley 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 241 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Syllabus If a claim be set up under the sentence of condemnation of a foreign court, this Court will examine into the jurisdiction of that court, and if that court cannot, consistently with the law of nations, exercise the jurisdiction which it has assumed, its sentence is to be disregarded; but of their own jurisdiction, so far as it depends upon municipal laws, the courts of every country are the exclusive judges. Every sentence of condemnation by a competent court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of its judgment is conclusive as to the title to the thing claimed under it. In every case of a foreign sentence condemning a vessel as prize of war, the authority of the tribunal to act as a prize court must be examinable. The question whether the vessel was in a situation...
Tag this Judgment!