Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-06-1984
..... ' has, therefore, to be so construed as not to negate or nullify the existing constitutional practice. law must glow, informed by the 'spirit of inquiry and reform'. judges as citizens have a 'fundamental duty' imposed on them by article 51a(h) of the constitution to carry on tirelessly this timeless process. however, even if article 141 is to be considered an embodiment of the preexisting common law rule as to precedents ..... matter of life or liberty of the citizen guaranteed by article 21.22. it is for the central government to revoke or not the detention order in exercise of its discretionary power under section 14(1) of the act, on receipt of the report from the state government; but to borrow the words of lord pearce in padfield's case 1968 1 all er 694, the central government cannot 'throw it unread into the waste paper basket'. the report is intended to be considered with reasonable expedition; any delay in ..... test the validity of any decision on a point of law when questioned. this can be, and is, done as its decisions manifest reasons which are reexamined in the light of emerging social, economic and political norms to dispense the multidimensional justice envisaged by the preamble. when the court is satisfied of its error and its baneful effect on the general interests of the public, it does not hesitate to review its own decisions see, bengal immunity v. state : [1955]2scr603 . the term 'law .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-19-1984
Reported in : 1985(2)BomCR190; (1984)86BOMLR673
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Standard Drum and Barrels Manufacturing Co. Bombay against the order passed by the Employees Insurance Court at Bombay in application (ESI) 38 of 1981 decided on 30th July, 1982 rejecting the application filed by the company under section 75 of the Act, i.e. Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, for setting aside the order passed by the Regional Director, E.S.I. Bombay levying damages under section 85-B of the Act.2. It is an admitted position that notices were issued to the appellant company under section 85-B of the Act. According to the corporation the appellant employer is a chronic defaulter in payment of contribution as per the provisions of section 40 of the E.S.I. Act read with Regulations Nos. 29, 31, 34 and 26 of the E.S.I. (General) Regulations, 1950. Therefore, the corporation issues 3 notices dated 7th January, 1980, 9th July, 1980 and 1st January, 1981 being notices Nos. 5, 6 and 7 for defaults Nos. 14 to 23 proposin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-14-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Ker69
Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J.1. The backdrop of the case and the basic questions of law in all the four Original Petitions being the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The challenge in O.P. No. 8517 of 1984 is directed against the Kerala Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance No. 69 of 1984), with particular reference to Section 3 thereof. A true copy of Ordinance No. 69 of 1984 published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary dated 30th September, 1984 has been produced and marked as Ext. P4. The challenge in O.P. No. 8953 of 1984 and 8630 of 1984 is directed against the Kerala Municipalities (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance No. 68 of 1984); a true copy of this has been marked as Ext. P2 in O,P. No. 8630 of 1984. The challenge in O.P. No. 8953 of 1984 is directed against the Kerala Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Ordinance of 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-13-1984
Reported in : ILR1985KAR2050
ORDERRama Jois, J.1.In this Petition presented by the Management of Senapathy Whiteley Ltd., Ramanagaram, Bangalore District, the following important question of law arises forconsideration :Whether the State Government has the power under Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) to withdraw a reference pending before the Labour Court and transfer the same dispute to an Industrial Tribunal?2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : (i) on 18-9-1981, the State Government made an order under Section 10(1) of the Act referring certain points of dispute between the Petitioner-Management and its workmen for industrial adjudication to the Additional Labour Court. In all sixteen points of dispute were referred for adjudication under this order.(ii) On the same date the Stale Government made another order (Annexure-B) by which another industrial dispute between the Petitioner-Management and its workmen was referred for industrial adjudication under Section 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-17-1984
Reported in : ILR1985KAR1
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. The validity of sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'); arises for our determination in the present Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals.2. The Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964, came into force in the State of Karnataka, on the 15th of March 1971. Section 19 of that Act empowered the StateGovernment to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of such rule making power, the State Government made the Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 98, the validity of which is under challenge, was subsequently inserted in the Rules, by Rule 11 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (First amendment) Rules, 1974. When that sub-rule was inserted in the Rules, a large number of touring cinemas exhibitors in the State challenged its validity, by filing Writ Petitions in this Court. Chandrashekar, J. (as he then was), who heard those Writ Petitions, dismissed them upholding the valid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-16-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Kant99; ILR1984KAR631
Venkatachaliah, J. 1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution raises an interesting question as to the scope of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). Petitioner seek a mandamus to the State Government to consider and dispose of their representation dt.10-4-1983 as to the question of declaring the 'Attara Cutcherry', a Government building in which the Karnataka High Court is housed, as a 'Protected monument' under S. 4 of the said Act. The petition is filed as sequel to the Government Order No. DPAR/188/SHC/82 dt. 24-3-1982 which has accorded administrative approval for the demolition of the existing 'Attara Cutcherry' and for the construction of a new High Court Building on the site. This petition is before us on its reference to a Division Bench by Swami, J.2. Petitioners in their efforts to avert the demolition of this ancient building, which they cherish as a cultural-heritage and as an enduring sour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-16-1984
Reported in : AIR1984SC684; AIR1984SC991; (1984)86BOMLR365; 1984CriLJ613; 1984CriLJ819; 1984(1)Crimes568(SC); 1984(1)Crimes926(SC); 1984(1)SCALE198; 1984(1)SCALE583; (1984)2SCC183; (1984
D.A. Desai, J.1. Respondent Abdul Rehman Antulay (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra from 1980 till he submitted his resignation on January 12, 1982, which became effective from January 20, 1982. He thus ceased to hold the office of the Chief Minister from January 20, 1982 but continues to be a sitting member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly till today.2. As the contentions canvassed before this Court are mainly questions of law, facts at this stage having a peripheral relevance in the course of discussion, it is unnecessary to set out the prosecution case as disclosed in the complaint filed by complainant Ramdas Shrinivas, Nayak (complainant for short) in detail save and except few a pertinent and relevant allegations. In the process the brief/history of the litigation may also be traced.3. The complainant moved the Governor of Maharashtra by his application dated September 1, 1981 requesting him to grant sanction to prose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-27-1984
Reported in : AIR1985SC167; 1985LabIC1196; 1984(2)SCALE87; (1984)4SCC251; [1985]1SCR216
Madon J.1. The principal question which arises for determination in his group of Appeals by Special Leave and Writ Petitions to the constitutional validity of two Uttar Pradesh Ordinances, namely; (1) the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers) Ordinance, 1978 (U.P. Ordinance No. 10 of 1978), and (2) its successor Ordinance-The Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teacher) (Second) Ordinance, 1978 (U.P.) Ordinance No. 22 of 1978), which had been struck down by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by its judgment delivered on December 22, 1973, in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 9174 of 1978-Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [1979] A.L.J. 178 on the ground that its provisions with violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India; the subsidiary questions being whether the termination of the services of the Appellants and Petitioners as secondary school ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-21-1984
Reported in : AIR1984SC667; 1985(1)ARBLR361(SC); (1984)1CompLJ362(SC); 1984(2)ECC142; 1984(1)SCALE338; (1984)2SCC534; [1984]2SCR664; 1984(16)LC475(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Nepal is our neighbour. Unfortunately Nepal is land-locked. Nepal's only access to the sea is across India. So, as one good neighbour to another with a view to 'maintain, develop and strengthen the friendly relations' between our two countries, by treaty and by International Convention, we allow a right of innocent passage in order to facilitate Nepal's international trade. One of the questions before us is the extent of this right : Does the right cover the transit of goods which may not be imported into India? May goods which may not be brought into India be taken across Indian territory? What does 'import' mean, more particularly what does 'import' mean in Section 53 of the Copyright Act? Can an unauthorised reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or a record embodying an unauthorised recording of a record (which, for short, adopting trade parlance, we may call a pirated work), whose importation into India may be prohibited, but whose ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-09-1984
Reported in : AIR1984Ori97; 1984(I)OLR547
P.C. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 216 of 1968 who is defendant No. 2 in O. S. No. 6 of 1969 is appellant in both these appeals. Both the aforesaid suits were heard analogously and were disposed of by a common judgment by the Munsif, Bhadrak in his judgment dated 25-2-1975. The defendants in O. S. No. 6 of 1969 preferred T. A. No. 10 of 1975 and the plaintiff in O. S. No. 216 of 1968 preferred T. A. No. 11 of 1975 and both the appeals were disposed of by the Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak by a common judgment. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 216 of 1968 has filed both these Second Appeals against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Badrak passed in both the appeals.2. In O. S. No. 216 of 1968, the plaintiff's suit was for a declaration of title, confirmation of possession, demarcation of the northern boundary line and for permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of a strip of land measuring Ac. 0.255 decimals appertaining to northern portion of Plot No. 76 under Khate ...
Tag this Judgment!