Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Sep-09-1993
H.K. Sema, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Annexure-G order dated 21st May, 1993 passed by the 3rd respondent convening a meeting of the Phek Town Committee on 27-5-1993 for considering a no-confidence motion filed by eight (8) members of Phek Town Committee against the Chairman, the petitioner herein.2. This case has a long chequered history and in order to recapitulate the history, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition may be recited in a nutshell.3. Phek Town Committee was constituted under Regn. 3 of Assam Tribal Areas (Administration of Town Committees) Regulations, 1950 (hereinafter the Regulation) some time in April, 1989. The Town Committee consists of fourteen (14) members of whom nine (9) members were elected and five (5) members were nominated. One Nusucho, elected member was elected as Chairman.4. Sometime in 1991, an allegation ofmisappropriation of Town Committee'smoney was leveled against the Chairman andother two (2) membe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-22-1993
Reported in : AIR1993Ori259; 76(1993)CLT720
..... 1961 sc 954, in which it was stated (at p. 956 of air):'it is one of the cardinal principles of construction that where the language of an act is clear, the preamble must be disregarded though, where the object or meaning of an enactment is not clear, the preamble may be resorted to explain it..........'24. we now come to the house of lords' decision in prince augustus' case, (1957 (1) all er 49). that was a case where the question for determination before the house of lords was whether the respondent answered the description 'issue of the body of princess sophia ..... which does not even speak about consultation with the high court while nominating any officer not below the rank of a district judge as authorised officer. another limb of shri rath's submission is that mere consultation would not meet the requirement of article 235 inasmuch as in sudhansu sekhar's case (air 1968 sc 647), the word used is 'consent'. the learned counsel in his written note has referred to some decisions bringing out the ..... , the same would take care of the predicament of both the sides and would protect the concerned provision from being hit by articles hand 21. we have noted that a provision of such a nature finds place in section 6 of the commissions of inquiry act, 1952, which has provided : 'no statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the commission shall subject him to, or be used against him in, any civil or criminal proceeding except a prosecution for giving false .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-11-1993
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
Decided on : Sep-22-1993
Reported in : AIR1994SC1311; JT1993(3)SC561; 1993(3)SCALE927; (1994)1SCC648; [1993]Supp2SCR415
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. All these cases can be dealt with under a common judgment since what is under attack is the fixation of price of levy sugar under orders issued under Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. To highlight the points in issue we will refer to the facts of the case relating to the State of Karnataka.3. C.A. Nos. 122-123 of 1981 and C.A. Nos. 1253-57 of 1977: In these appeals two sugar orders are 1975-76 and 1977-78.4. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act, the Central Government on 15th June, 1972 promulgated the Levy Sugar Supply (Control) order of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Levy Order). That provides for compulsory supply or sale of sugar from a producer or a recognised dealer of a specified quantity to a person or organisation or to such State Government as it may direct from time to time. Under the said Levy Order, the Central Government issues release orders to the producers or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-03-1993
Reported in : AIR1993Bom346; 1993(2)BomCR627; (1993)95BOMLR797; 1994(1)MhLj124
ORDER1. This petition involves consideration of interesting and important questions concerning interpretation and application of S. 31A(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and Ss. 2(4), 3, 9 and 10 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passenger) Act, 1958. The relevant questions are formulated as under:-- (a) Whether the concerned authority was entitled to refuse application of the petitioners-Owners for cancellation of the then existing registration certificate in respect of vehicles in question in favour of respondent No. 4 and for issue of fresh registration certificate as contemplated under S. 31A(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 merely on . ground of arrears of passenger tax and penalty due and payable by the operator in respect of said vehicles at the material time? (b) Whether the petitioners are liable to be considered as 'Operator' of the said vehicles within meaning of the expression 'Operator' as defined under S. 2(4) of Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passenger) A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-01-1993
Reported in : AIR1994SC1074; JT1993(6)SC1; (1994)ILLJ162SC; 1993(3)SCALE952; (1993)4SCC727; [1993]Supp2SCR576; 1993(3)SLJ193(SC)
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. This group of matters is at the instance of various parties, viz., Union of India, Public Sector Corporations, Public Sector banks, State Governments and two private parties. By an order dated 5th August, 1991 in Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India v. B.Karunakar : (1992)1SCC709 , a three Judge Bench of this Court referred that matter to the Chief Justice for being placed before a Larger Bench, for the Bench found a conflict in the two decisions of this Court, viz., Kailash Chander Asthana etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors. etc. etc. : (1988)IILLJ219SC , and Union of India and Ors. etc. etc. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan : (1991)ILLJ29SC both delivered by the Benches of three learned Judges. Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1991 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12103 of 1991 along with the other matters in which the same question of law is in issue, has therefore, been referred to this Bench.2. The basis question of law which arises in these matters is whether the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-21-1993
Reported in : AIR1994Mad283
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. In all these writ appeals, the appellants are one and the same. These writ appeals have been filed against the common order dated 2-8-1987 dismissing writ petitions 1442 to 1444 of 1986. Writ petition No. 1444 of 1986 has been filed by the 1st appellant for a declaration that Section 30(3) of the Tea Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is null and void. In W.P. No. 1443 of 1986 the prayer is one for certiorari to quash S.O. No. 313-E, dated 19-4-1984 on the file of the first responent, culminating in the issue of Tea Marketing Control Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order). Writ Petition 1442 of 1986 has been filed by the 1st appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 6-12-1985 of the Tea Board, the second respondent herein in reference No. 14(4) ML/84/12/Law/3295.2. The case of the 1st appellant as disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the above mentioned writ appeals is as follows ; The 1st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : Oct-11-1993
B.C. Basak, C.J. 1. These series of Miscellaneous Appeals involve a common question of law relating to the interpretation of some of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1939 Act'), the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act) and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1897 Act'). 2. The relevant provisions of the 1939 Act relating to appeals are as follows : Section 110D. 'Appeals -- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court. Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in appeal is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-24-1993
Reported in : AIR1994Bom171; 1994(1)BomCR288; (1993)95BOMLR993
ORDERM. K. Mukherjee, C. J.1. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have filed the suit from which the instant appeal sterns, for declaration that certain amounts as mentioned in the plaint are due and payable by the appellant Company (the defendant No. 1 in the suit) and for declaration that the land and/or building and/or plant and machinery etc. belonging to it are secured to them for securing repayment of the said amounts. After filing the suit the plaintiffs took out a Notice of Motion being No. 1819 of 1989 for an injunction restraining the Company from disposing of and parting with possession of the properties secured to them and for appointment of Court Receiver. In that noticeof motion initially an interim order of injunction was passed in favour of the respondents. On a further application for ad interim relief moved by them an order was passed by the learned trial Judge on October 23, 1989 appointing Court Receiver in respect of the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-30-1993
Reported in : [1996]85CompCas325(Bom)
M.F. Saldanha J. 1. I need to prefix this judgment with the observation that learned counsel appearing on both sides have done a truly excellent job of presenting every conceivable aspect of the dispute that is the subject-matter of this litigation with their characteristic skill and ability, both of which are of a very high order. While deciding on interim application, normally, this court would have circumscribed itself to the minimum and, consequently, refrained from an elaborate adjudication of the manifold facets, both factual and legal, that have been canvassed. It was, however, pointed out to me by both sides that there are something like three dozen interconnected litigations effectively between the same parties, including an identical suit pending before the Calcutta High Court, in all of which proceedings the subject matter of this litigation is in issue. All those litigations are in a manner of speaking dependant on the outcome of this proceeding which explains why the parti...
Tag this Judgment!