Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-11-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)CTC346
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. When the matter is listed for admission, after hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the same is disposed of in limine.2. This appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 27.10.2003 passed in Application No. 4298 of 2003, rejecting the request of the appellants to set aside the order dated 29.4.2003 made in Application No. 5074 of 2002 in appointing the Advocate Commissioner.3. Learned counsel Mr. C.S. Dhanasekaran, appearing for the appellants, has submitted as follows:The appellants and the respondent entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement dated 25.2.1998 in respect of the schedule machineries; the first appellant company has been duly declared as sick under Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act and, therefore, the proceedings taken under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are not maintainable. The first appellant company has been directed by an order dated 22.9.2000 under Section 22-A of the Sick Industrial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : May-20-2003
I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The order under challenge in the present revision was passed on 24.3.1995 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, in Criminal Appeal No. 1(4)/94, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order, dated 17.9.1994, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhubri, in Sessions Case No. 101/92, convicting the accused-petitioner under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.2. The material facts, which led to the present revision, may, in brief, be stated as follows : (i) On 29.5.1990, one Asgar Ali lodged a written complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri, alleging, inter alia, that on 23.5.1990, at about 3 PM, his grand-daughter, Anwara @ Bewla, aged about 5 years, was taken by accused Somesh Ali (i.e., the present petitioner) to a near by jute field, where the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : Dec-03-2003
S.N. Jha, J.1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and its officials -- five in number -- posted in the regional offices at Patna, Bangalore and Gauhati, and the branch office at Patna have come to this Court for quashing the order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna dated 24-5-2000 in Complaint Case No. 610/2000 taking cognizance and issuing processes under Sections 406, 409 and 420 Indian Penal Code against them.2. The case of the complainant-opposite party, M/s. Poddar Industries, is that it is a partnership firm. In 1992 the Branch Manager of the petitioner company approached its partner and requested him to insure the factory building with all equipments along with the boundary wall and the partners agreed for the same. The rate of premium was thereafter fixed after site inspection as per the cost value of the goods insured. Finally, the company issued fire policy 'C' with coverage of special perils like flood etc. for one year. The policy was renewed every year. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-18-2003
Reported in : IV(2004)BC54; 2004(5)BomCR891; [2004]120CompCas315(Bom); (2004)1CompLJ350(Bom); 2004(2)MhLj707; [2004]55SCL706(Bom)
A.P. Shah, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the two orders passed by the respondent No. 1 -- Board for Industrial and Financial Re-construction, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'. The Board has rejected the two references made by the petitioner company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', solely on the ground of limitation. It was held by the Board that Section 5 and other provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, are not applicable to reference made to the Board under Section 15 of the Act since the Board is not a court and, therefore, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act read with Section 23 of the said Act are not applicable to the proceedings before the Board. The Board in its order dated 28 July, 2003, has also observed that any future reference also will not be maintainable since the earlier references are held to be time barred.2. The facts which give r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Oct-08-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)JKJ418
V.K. Jhanji, Act. C.J.1. This Criminal Reference emanates from proceedings under Section 488 read with Section 489 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. It appears that, on an application being made before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by one Nahida, wife; and Lubna Mehraj and Hena Mehraj, two daughters, i.e., Petitioners 1 and 2; and petitioner No. 3, Owais Mehraj, son, of the respondent, the learned Magistrate, in terms of his order dated 20th August, 1997, granted Rs. 500 each as maintenance in favour of the three petitioners. Their mother, Nahida, was divorced by the respondent during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings. At that time the maximum limit of maintenance, which could be granted by the Magistrate, was Rs. 500. Subsequently, the State of Jammu and Kashmir enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1998 (Act No. IV of 1998). By virtue of the aforesaid amendment, besid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-18-2003
Reported in : AIR2004Ker111; 2004(1)KLT55
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Is an appeal from a judgment, decree or order passed by a Judge of this Court on an appeal against the Order or Decree of a Court or Tribunal maintainable despite Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act 22 of 2002? This is the core of the controversy before this Bench in these two appeals from first Appeals filed under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act read with Order XLII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. A.F.A. 83 of 2002 arises from the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Land Acquisition Appeal No. 467 of 1999 of this Court. This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara in L.A.R. 24 of 1989 under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The trial court found that all claimants are entitled to a share in the amount of compensation. One of the claimants, who claimed exclusive right over the entire compensation, filed the Land Acquisition Appeal. Since the value of the subject matter of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-31-2003
P.G. Agarwal, J.1. This common Order disposes of Cri. Revision Nos. 545/1996, 205/ 1998 and Cri. Revn. No. 192/1998 as all these revisions are directed against the order passed in Case No. 206C/85 of the Court of C. J. M., Kamrup, and presently pending as Special Case No. 5C/93 of the Court of Special Judge, Kamrup and the order dated 20.4.1996 has been challenged in the two revision petitions. As a matter of fact, the revision petitioners before us have prayed for quashing of the trial in the above cases.2. The facts, Case No. RC/3/80/CIU(C) dated 10th November, 1980 was registered by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. In the FIR it was alleged that during the year 1978-79 the accused persons had entered into a conspiracy for cheating the State Government including the Steel Authority of India Ltd., and for obtaining certain pecuniary benefits to the tune of Rs. 1,53,000. In the year 1985 charge sheet was submitted against 26-accused persons under Section 120B/420/467/477A, IPC ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-22-2003
Reported in : (2004)IILLJ720Kant
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. The Mandya District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mandya (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') has in this appeal challenged the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 26045/1991 dated January 29, 1999.2. The learned single Judge directed one Sri N. Srinivasaiah, the petitioner in the Writ Petition (hereinafter referred to as the 'Workman') to be reinstated in the Bank and also directed the Bank to pay the back wages from March 31, 1986 till the date of reinstatement.3. The facts briefly are:The Workman raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act') challenging his termination as Secretary with effect from December 24, 1974 in the Mandya District Co- operative Union Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union'). The case of the workman was that he was appointed by the Union on August 22, 1969 as paid Secretary and posted to Thattakere and Sukadore Serv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-31-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)BomCR24
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Writ Petition No. 1052 of 1998 is filed by the State of Maharashtra against respondent No. 1 for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Appeal Forest-3 of 1997 wherein it was held that the land in question is neither 'forest' nor 'private forest' within the meaning of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Aquisition) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). A prayer is also made to set aside the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Bombay Suburban District dated 23rd April, 1985 under section 6 of the said Act. A declaration is sought to the effect that the land bearing Survey No. 345-A situated at village Dahisar is 'forest' and 'private forest' under the Act and as such the land stands acquired and vested in the State of Maharashtra.2. It is the case of the petitioner-State that the land in question was part of original Survey No. 345. Survey No. 345 was admeasuring ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-25-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR1022; 2004(2)BomCR338; (2003)IILLJ1108Bom; 2003(3)MhLj1025
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. Whether the Clause No. 49 of 1956 settlement stands replaced by Clause No. 19 of 1985 settlement and by Resolution No. 8856 of the appellant Corporation, or whether the Clause No. 49 of 1956 settlement operates in the field totally different from the one in which Clause 19 of the 1985 settlement operates, are the common questions of law which arise for consideration in all these Letters Patent Appeals and on account of difference of opinion between two Benches of this Court on the said points, the matter had been ordered to be heard finally and decided by the Full Bench and that is how, all these matters were heard by this Bench, and are being disposed of by this judgment.3. The appellant Corporation is the State undertaking and the respondents are the employees of the said Corporation. Apart from State Transport Employees Service Regulations framed Under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation ...
Tag this Judgment!