Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-29-1976
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
Decided on : Jul-05-1976
Reported in : [1979]49CompCas686(Bom)
..... the concentration of economic power to the common detriment. 15. the government acts in public interest. the commission acts in public interest. public interest is writ large in every act and function of the commission and the government. reference to 'common' here, i mean in the preamble, i suppose, is to the common man, the weaker section of society, the have-nots, the consumer, but it does not intend to include the manufacturer, supplier and distributor. 16. the monopolies inquiry commission had taken a bird's eye view of the special ..... , e.g., s. 11. these are his functions. thereafter, some other people should take over the matter, the reason being that the director of investigation had already made a report. some one who is independent should be the judge. the judge and the prosecutor become the same person. he should have no audience with the commission. the registrar can prosecute because he is an independent person and he has taken independent decisions in the past. 10. as against ..... . the words 'be brought on record' in regln. 21 indicate that the report does not form a part of the record and can be brought on record. mr. divan referred to the case of union of india v. angle afghan agencies. air 1968 sc 718. in that case. under the export promotion scheme for woollen textile as extended to exports to afghanistan, the exporters were invited to get themselves registered with the textile commissioner for exporting woollen goods, and it was represented that the exporters .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-28-1976
Reported in : AIR1976SC1207; 1976CriLJ945; (1976)2SCC521; [1976]SuppSCR172; 1976(8)LC610(SC)
..... system of government with certain objectives before it without which real democracy is a mirage. hence, they provided us not only with an inspiring preamble to the, constitution and basic fundamental rights to citizens, but also with directive principles of state policy so as to indicate how not only a political, but, what ..... officer out of 'malice in fact' and for reasons completely outside the purview of the act itself. that sort of inquiry is not open, during the emergency, in proceedings under article 226.330. on the view i take, for reasons which will be still clearer after a consideration of the remaining questions discussed below., i think that, even the issue that the detention order is vitiated by 'malice in fact ..... u.s. 579, 655, quoted with approval by this court, in chief settlement commissioner, rehabilitation department punjab and ors. etc. v. om parkcish and ors. : [1968]3scr655 @ 661 etc. (at page 661):with all its defects delays and inconveniences men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except ..... to foreign constitutionalists. such principles, moreover, as you can discover in the english constitution are, like all maxims established by judicial legislation, mere generalisations drawn either from the decisions or dicta of judges, or from statutes which, being passed to meet special grievances, bear a close resemblance to judicial decisions, and are in effect judgments pronounced by the high court of parliament. to put what is really the same .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-17-1976
Reported in : AIR1981Mad104
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Ramanujarn J. dated 20-11-1975, rendered in W.-P. No. 2956 of 1972. The learned Judge disposed of two writ petitions, one W. P. No. 2956 of 1972, filed by the appellant herein and the other W. P. No. 4576, of 1975 (Pararnasivam Pillai v. Angammal and others) filed by the 4th respondent herein, by a common judgment. For the purpose of understanding the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to refer to certain facts.2. The appellant was the original owner of S. Nos. 163/1 and 163/3 of an extent of 3.20 and 0.20 acres respectively in Ariyamangalam village, Tiruchirapalli taluk. She had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1600/- on 21-10-1957 from the Government for the installation of a pump set in the well situated in those lands under Taluk L. No. 22 of 1967. She had earlier borrowed two loans from two creditors on the security of her lands. One of the creditors filed 0. S. 660 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif Court. Tiruchirapalli for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-18-1976
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 : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-14-1976
Reported in : AIR1978Mad14; (1977)IILLJ312Mad
1. This petition is filed by the Management of the Safire Theatre against the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and nine workmen for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in T.S.E. Appeals Nos. 75 to 88 of 1973.2. Respondents 2 to 10 in the petition, were employed in the Snack Bar and Maintenance Section of the Safire Theatre. The Management decided to close down the Snack Bar and the Maintenance Section, and in pursuance of that decision, fourteen workers, including respondents 2 to 10 were retrenched with effect from 10th October, 1972. The required formalities in effecting retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act were complied with, but the workers refused to receive the notice, pay and compensation etc., offered at the time of retrenchment. In October-November, 1972, the Union raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer challenging the retrenchment as illegal and unjustified w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-20-1976
Reported in : AIR1977SC1848; (1977)1SCC525; [1977]1SCR889
..... 1. this appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment of the high court of mysore dated august 30, 1968, upholding the order of district judge, south kanara, dated november 9, 1956. by that order the district judge set aside the decision of the board of commissioners for hindu religious endowments, madras, hereinafter referred to as the board, that the institution known as sri manjunatha temple at dharmasthal, puttur taluk, south kanara district, was a 'temple' as defined in clause (12) of section 9 of the madras hindu religious endowments act, 1926 (madras act ..... costs.8. the commissioner has obtained special leave, and this is how the appeal has come up here for consideration.9. as the controversy in this case relates to the applicability of the act to the manjunatha temple, it will be convenient to examine its relevant provisions.10. the preamble of the act states, inter alia, that it is meant to provide for the better administration and governance of 'certain hindu religious endowments' described in it. section 2 makes it clear ..... management, whether good or bad and section 3, for the extension of the provisions of the act to particular jain religious and charitable institutions, in cases of mismanagement, after due inquiry. these powers are not, in any way, affected by the dispute which has been brought before us under the provisions of an act repealed long ago.65. for the reasons given above, i concur with the order proposed by my learned brother shinghal that this appeal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-06-1976
Reported in : AIR1976SC1810; (1976)3SCC602; [1976]SuppSCR595; 1976(8)LC581(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a Judgment of the Calcutta High Court setting aside in revision the finding of the trial court on the issue whether the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the parties in a suit for ejectment. The issue which arises on the interaction of two statutes, the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which repeals the earlier Act but keeps it alive for proceedings pending on the date of repeal, involves the question,--is the right conferred on the sub-tenant by the 1956 Act of being declared a tenant directly under the superior landlord available to a sub-tenant against whom a suit for ejectment was pending when that Act came into force The appeal turns on the answer to this question.2. The material facts leading to the impugned order are these. The respondent was a tenant of premises No. 17/1E Gopal Nagar Road, Alipore, Calcutta, and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-01-1976
Reported in : AIR1976SC1830; (1976)4SCC20; [1976]3SCR983; 1976(8)LC541(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1.This is an appeal on certificate from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.2. The two plaintiffs in the original suit are the appellants. They brought a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge. Rajahmundry for evicting defendants 1 to 3 from the properties in Schedule A, B and C and for delivery of possession of A and C Schedule properties either to the first plaintiff or to the second plaintiff. The suit properties were owned and possessed by Meenavalli Subbarayudu of Vedurupaka (hereinafter to be described as Subbarayudu). Subbarayudu was the husband of the second plaintiff and father of the first plaintiff. He had no male issue. He had only two daughters plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 4 who was the elder of the two Subbarayudu made various dispositions of his property by executing several documents during his life time in favour of his daughters. So did his wife the second plaintiff. While nuking such dispositions he was careful enough to make provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-09-1976
Reported in : AIR1976All328
ORDERM.P. Saxena, J. 1. The petitioners are the owners of building No. D-39/119 situate in Hauz Katra, Varanasi, and are carrying on sole selling agency business of Cinni Fans, Tullu and Shiva Water pumps in the first, second and third floors of it. The respondent No. 3 are tenants of a shop in the ground floor of the same building. As the petitioners require accommodation on the ground floor for a show-room for their products they requested the respondent No. 3 to vacate the shop but in vain. Therefore, on 7th September, 1971, the petitioners filed an application under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) for permission to file a suit for ejectment of respondent No. 3. The latter filed objections. During the pendency of the said application the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the new Act) came into force. The petitioners got their application ame...
Tag this Judgment!