Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-05-1996
Reported in : 1997(1)MPLJ306
ORDERA.R. Tiwari, J.1. Embroiled, the petitioners, acting pro bono publico, have filed these four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation for final and interim reliefs Ex voto. It is apt to notice factual foundation and reliefs petition wise.(a) WRIT PETITION No. 1269 OF 1995 :The land, admeasuring 46.3 acres situate in Kesharbag, Indore, is in possession of respondent No. 4 (Shri Ahilyamata Gaushala). Respondent No. 3 [Competent Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976] accorded permission under section 20 of this Act for transfer of this land to respondent No. 5 (Devi Adhilya New Cloth Market Co. Ltd.) in Case No. 1216-A/90/89-90 on 29-6-1994. Labelling this permission as without jurisdiction and treating the permitted transfer as causing public injury, the petitioner claiming to be an Artist and Honorary Secretary, has sought incineration of permission and consequent alienation and order of restraint against any act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-19-1996
Reported in : 2002(83)ECC85; 1997(89)ELT247(SC); JT1996(11)SC283; 1996(9)SCALE457; (1997)5SCC536; [1996]Supp10SCR585; [1998]111STC467(SC)
..... but is offensive to several well established principles of law. it also leads to grave public mischief. section 72 of the contract act, or for that matter section 17(1)(c) of the limitation act, 1963, has no application to such a claim for refund.(v) article 265 of the constitution has to be construed in the light of the goal and the ideals set out in the preamble to the constitution and in articles 38 and 39 thereof. the concept of economic justice demands that in the case of indirect taxes like central excises ..... case was cited where the supreme court of u.s. had rejected the doctrine of 'passing on' under anti- trust laws where plaintiff had passed on overpayments to their customers {hanover shoe inc. v. united shoe machinery corporation (1968) 392 us 481. commenting on this, mason, cj. observed that though the context is different, the reasons given for the rejection were relevant for the present case. they include the difficulty of determining the economic impact upon the plaintiff's business of passing ..... restricted and fettered by technical rules and formalities than any other form of thereon. it aims at the abstract justice of the case, and looks solely to the inquiry, whether the defendant holds money, which ex aequo at bono belongs to the plaintiff. if was encouraged and, to a great extent, brought into used by that great and just judge, lord mansfield, and from his day to the present, has been constantly resorted to in all cases coming within its broad principles. it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-11-1996
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ1075Raj; 1996(2)WLC396
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order terminating his service and the Validity of condition No. 16 contained in the appointment letter dated, October 15, 1984, which is stated by the respondent company (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Management') to be the contract of employment.The vital question for consideration in this petition, therefore, is --Whether condition No. 16 of the letter of appointment dated, October 15, 1984, empowering the management to terminate services of an employee without assigning any reason by mere giving one month's notice or pay in lieu of notice, is arbitrary, unreasonable and constitutionally invalid?2. The necessary facts of the case for decision of the writ petition are in a narrow compass. The petitioner joined service of the respondent M/s. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. as Clerk in the year 1963, since then, except for a short break of few days, he contin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-06-1996
Reported in : AIR1997AP347
ORDERS. Parvatha Rao, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 1st respondent.2. The appellant is a transport company. It questions the judgment dated 2-6-1987 of a learned single Judge of this Court in C.C.C.A. No. 36 of 1979 confirming the judgment and decree dated 19-9-1978 of the learned 6th Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in O. S. No. 611 of 1975 filed by the respondents herein decreeing the suit and awarding a sum of Rs. 7,961.80 Ps. to the respondents to he paid by the appellant towards loss and damage caused to the goods of the 2nd respondent, which were entrusted to the appellant for transporting from Hyderabad to Madras on a finding that there was negligence on the part of the appellant carrier. The 1st respondent is the Insurance Company with which the '2nd respondent insured the goods while in transit after entrustment to the appellant for transport.3. Entrustment of 41 bales of semi tannedsleep skin to the appellant carr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-24-1996
Reported in : (1996)IILLJ403P& H; (1996)113PLR128
R.L. Anand, J.1. Where mere instigation due to trade union activities even in an illegal strike as defined and envisaged under Sections 23 and 24 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') without resorting to violence , gives right to the management, under the Certified Standing Orders having the force of law, to terminate the services of the workmen, is an im- portant point involved in the present L.P.A. Nos. 1100, 1101, 1103, 1104, 1105 and 1114 to 1117 of 1991, which are going to be disposed of by a common judgment on account of the fact that the common question of law and fact is involved in all the L.P. As. which have come for determination and decision before us. The facts can be described as follows:2. The private respondents of all the writ peti-tions were the office bearers of the Union known as Ranbaxy Employees Union a registered body and were serving with the present appellant M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., carrying on its business at Mohali There in aft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-25-1996
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ606Mad; (1996)IIMLJ447
S.S. Subramani, J. 1. Petitioner in E.I.O.P. No. 2 of 1984, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The respondent herein, on July 15, 1976, issued a notification whereby certain establishments were also brought into its coverage and one of the establishments was 'shops'. Thereafter, respondent issued notice to the appellant herein why it is not implementing the Notification. A reply was sent and since the same did not satisfy the respondent, it issued a notice on June 9, 1983 that in case the Act is not implemented and the contributions thereunder are not paid, coercive steps will be initiated against it. The appellant/petitioner being aggrieved by the said notice, filed the above original petition before City Civil Court, Madras, for declaration that the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 are not applicable to the petitioner/Society and that the Notification is not binding on it and for a further declaration th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-24-1996
Reported in : AIR1996SC3261; JT1996(2)SC159; 1996LabIC1718; (1996)ILLJ1156SC; 1996(2)SCALE1; (1996)2SCC682; [1996]1SCR884; (1996)4UPLBEC2796
1. In these appeals short question that arises for consideration is whether the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act') would apply to the regional offices of the appellant at Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh and Bangalore in Karnataka State. The Appellant had established its registered office at Poona for sale and distribution of its products from three factories one situated at Kirloskarvadi, second at Karad in State of Maharashtra and the third one at Deewas in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Admittedly factories situated in Maharashtra are not covered under the Act. They set up regional offices at several places. The Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have applied the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act to the aforesaid regional offices situated at Secunderabad and Bangalore and the respondent had issued notice Under Section 3(g) of the Act calling upon them to contribute their share of the health insurance of the workmen working in the respective regional...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-08-1996
Reported in : 1997(2)BomCR171; (1997)ILLJ933Bom; 1997(1)MhLj201
Tipnis, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union impugns the legality and validity of the order dated October 24, 1994 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Labour Court, Bombay, dismissing the complaint bearing Complaint (ULP) No. 334 of 1993 filed by the petitioner-union under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTU & PULP Act'). The petition also challenges the order dated July 27, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Presiding Officer, 7th Labour Court, Bombay, dismissing the complaint. 2. The complaint was filed on the ground that respondent No. 1, CIPLA Limited, a company manufacturing pharmaceutical products has been engaging in unfair labour practices under items 1(a), (b), (d) & (f) of Sch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-19-1996
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)404; AIR1996SC2481; 1996CriLJ3274; JT1996(6)SC529; 1996(5)SCALE233; (1996)5SCC216; [1996]Supp3SCR677
..... articles 121 and 211 of the constitution and prohibited the parliament and the legislatures to discuss on the floor of the house the conduct of any judge of the supreme court or the high court in the discharge of his duties except upon a motion for presenting address to the president praying for the removal of a judge under article 124(4) of the constitution in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the judges (inquiry) act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder. in a.m. bhattacharjee's case on which great reliance was placed by the petitioner emphasising ..... 7 in para 18(e) reads thus: 'for willfully and advertently violating (emphasis supplied) the fundamental rights of not only the petitioner as an individual, but that of the people of india, who are ultimately sovereign, as stated in the preamble to the constitution, has not justice ahmadi forfeited any legal protection, even if it were available to him ?' in his preliminary submissions, he has stated that 'that first part of the sentence is ..... by law and are necessary for the respect of life and reputations of others for the protection of national security or public order or of public health or moral. it would thus be seen that liberty of speech and expression guaranteed by article 19(1)(a) brings within its ambit, the corresponding duty and responsibility and puts limitations on the exercise of that liberty.32. a citizen is entitled to bring to the notice of the public at large the infirmities from which any institution .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-02-1996
Reported in : AIR1997All99; (1996)3UPLBEC1617
ORDERR. Dayal, J. 1. Following question has been referred by a Division Bench of this Court for decision by the full Bench: 'Whether the Deputy Director of Education can be said to be functioning as a Tribunal within the meaning of Rule 5 in Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, while exercising the powers conferred on him under sub-section (7) of Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.'2. This special appeal arose from an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition which was filed questioning the validity of an order passed by theDeputy Director of Education under Section 16-. A(7) of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. A.L. Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare (as he then was). A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the third responde...
Tag this Judgment!