Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-12-1990
Reported in : AIR1991Ori19
Pasayat, J. 1. Determination of area to be surplus and in excess of the retainable limit, by the competent authority and the affirmation thereof by the appellate authority under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act') is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ application.2. The factual backdrop is rather simple. The cursory manner of disposal of the return filed by the petitioner indicating his status to be an individual, has unnecessarily complicated the matter. The conduct of the petitioner is also not without blemish. Properties which he claims to have been parted with much prior to the relevant date under the Act were included in the details of 'land held' and the details of land which ought to have been legally included were not so done. The petitioner came to hold lands from two sources, i.e., by way of gift evidenced by deed dated 31-5-1955, from his father and by partition of ancestral properties on 5-8-1970. Some am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-17-1990
Reported in : 1991ACJ904; (1991)1GLR361; (1993)IIILLJ611Guj
Bhatt, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'Act' for short), the appellant has assailed the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('Commissioner' for short, hereinafter), at Bhavnagar, on 10.8.1982, in an application for compensation being Workmen Compensation Application No. 10 of 1982. Various interesting points are raised and a multi prolonged attack is also made against the claim of compensation. Therefore, the appeal was heard at a marathon length. Since various significant points are raised and with a view to appreciate the merits of the present appeal and challenge against it, it would be pertinent at this juncture to set out relevant and material facts. 2. The present appellant is the original claimant who preferred an application for compensation for personal injuries sustained by him, under Section 3 of the Act. The claimant made the application for compensation of Rs. 3528/-unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-19-1990
Reported in : II(1991)ACC342
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'Act' for short), the appellant has assailed the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('Commissioner' for short, hereinafter), at Bhavnagar 10.8.1982, in an application for compensation being workman compensation Application No. 10 of 1982.2. Various interesting points are raised and a multi prolonged attack is also made against the claim of compensation. Therefore, the appeal was heard at a marathon length. Since various significant points are raised and with a view to appreciate the merits of the present appeal and challenge against it, it would be pertinent at this juncture to set out relevant and material facts.3. The present appellant is the original claimant who preferred an application for compensation for personal injuries sustained by him, under Section 3 of the Act. The claimant made the application for compensation of Rs. 3528/- under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-29-1990
Reported in : [1991(62)FLR627]; (1999)IIILLJ151AP; (1999)IIILLJ151SC
Jagannadha Rao, J.1. The appellant, Karachi Bakery, has filed this writ appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition and in accepting the correctness of the orders of the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner (hereinafter called the Provident Funds Commissioner) by applying the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act), for the period April 1, 1977 to March 21, 1979, and levying a Contribution and administrative charges of Rs. 20,384.25.2. The view of the Provident Funds Commissioner was that if the appellant was having 6 regular and 5 part-time employees (in all 11), and if the appellant had entered into contracts with Devandas Bakery and Ram Bakery for supplying certain bakery products to the appellant, the employees of the said two firms- who are 18 in number-- should be treated as employees of the appellant-firm inasmuch as the said contracts are in connection with the bus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-16-1990
Reported in : ILR1991KAR124
Navadgi, J. 1. In this proceeding initiated and commenced against B.H. Ravindra Pai and Abdur Rahim Ahmed, arraigned as A-1 and A-2 respectively, as a result of the Reference made by the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short), a charge, was framed against B.H. Ravindra Pai (A-1) and Abdur Rahim Ahmed (A-2), hereinafter referred to as A-1 and A-2 respectively, for having committed the offence of criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. Both A-1 and A-2 pleaded not guilty to the offence charged and stated that they had defence to make.2. The Complainant, to establish the charge, has not adduced any oral evidence, but he has produced documentary evidence admitted in evidence and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-4 with the consent of A-1 and A-2.3. After the charge was framed and the plea was recorded and after the Complainant closed his side, A-1 filed his affidavit while A-2 submitted that h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-07-1990
Reported in : AIR1990Bom299
ORDER1. These are Matrimonial Petitions and Suits which involve a common question of law, namely, whether these matters stand transferred or should be transferred to the Family Court, Bombay established the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. LXVI of 1984). The Family Court was established in the City of Bombay as from 7th October 1989, and the Act has been brought into force for the purpose of the said court as from that day. Since the question involved is likely to arise in several other Matrimonial Suits or Petitions pending in this court, I thought it convenient to request the counsel appearing in all these matters to address me, in the first instance, on this question, withoutgoing into the merits of each case which willbe done separately.The question that arises for consideration may be formulated thus:--Whether the matrimonial jurisdiction ex-ercisable by this Court (High Court) on its Original Side is not affected by S. 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and whether consequently th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-02-1990
Reported in : 1990(3)BomCR496
H. Suresh, J.1. This is an action of limitation of liability filed by the shipowners, Shipping Corporations of India Ltd., for the purpose of limiting their liability for the consequence of a collision between their vessel 'M.V. VISHVA APURVA' and the Greek vessel 'M.V. DIAS'. The action falls within the scope of Chapter XA of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The cause title shows that the action has been initiated in this Court in its 'Admiralty Jurisdiction' and the suit has been numbered as 'Admiralty Suit No. 17 of 1988.' After filing the suit, the plaintiff's obtained an ex parte order dated 9th August, 1988, virtually constituting a Limitation Fund in the sum of Rs. 52,52,241.50P. for the purpose of section 352-C of the said Act. The 1st defendants-Hindustan Shipping Yard Ltd. have taken out the first Notice of Motion bearing No. 3350 of 1988, while certain applicants have taken out the second Notice of Motion bearing No. 3355 of 1988 f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-16-1990
Reported in : AIR1991MP156; 1991(0)MPLJ36
Dr. T. N. Singh, J.1. Admittedly, the petitioner is an 'industrial concern' within the meaning of the terra employed in Section 2(c)(iii) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, for short, the 'Act'. He moved this Court on 30-7-1987 against an order passed on 29-6-1987 by learned District Judge, Gwalior under Section 32(1) of the Act, attaching properties of the petitioner mentioned in Schedule A and B of the application filed under Section 31(1) of the Act by the non-applicant and prohibiting the revisionist from alienating that property. By the sameorder, which was passed ex parte, notice was issued to the instant revisionist, fixing 1-9-1987.2. While admitting the revision, a specific direction had been made to clear the purport of the impugned order that the Hotel was not to be locked up and the revisionist would he entitled to carry on his existing hoteleering business though he shall remain injuncted as directed under the impugned order and shall not dispose of the pledged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-21-1990
Reported in : AIR1990SC2128; JT1990(3)SC579; 1990(2)SCALE286; (1990)4SCC516; [1990]3SCR862
ORDER1. These two appeals, on certificate under Article 136 of the Constitution, are by two sugar factories situated in Northern part of Mysore now Karnataka State. The appellants filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore assailing the constitutional validity of Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (In short 'the Act') and the Notification dated March 24, 1966. It was prayed inter alia that a writ or order in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the respondents to include the petitioners' factory in Zone No. 2 and to fix the price at Rs. 161 per quintal for the sugar manufactured by the petitioners' factory.2. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court and the appellants in these circumstances have approached this Court challenging the Judgment of the High Court. The material contentions raised by the appellants in the affidavit and adumbrated in the grounds of appeal in this Court are that the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-12-1990
Reported in : 1991(0)MPLJ271
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7-8-1990 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1988 whereby the petitioner's objection that for reason of non-compliance with the proviso below Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), the committal order dated 4-10-1988 passed by the Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, Under Section 203 ibid is vitiated and the Sessions Court could not take cognizance of the various offences against him, has been negatived.2. Circumstances giving rise to the revision petition are these: The Narcotic Inspector, Indore filed against the petitioner and his co-accused Salim Mohammad, the non-applicant No. 2, a criminal complaint in the Court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore alleging commission of offences Under Section 8/21 and other sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho tropic Substances A...
Tag this Judgment!