Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(5)ALD732; 2001(5)ALT274
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Two questions as regard interpretation of the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short the '1910 Act') vis-a-vis condition Nos.22.1.2 and 22.2.3. in the light of the judgment of the apex Court in Punjab S.E.B. v. Ludhiana Steels Pvt. Ltd, : AIR1993SC1355 , have been referred to this Bench by a Division Bench (Coram: Bilal Nazki and E. Dharma Rao, JJ.), which are: 1. Whether from the judgment of Supreme Court referred to above (Punjab Stale Electricity Board v. Ludhiana Steels Pvt Ltd. (supra) it can be inferred that the Supreme Court has laid down the law that the words 'In the absence of any agreement to the contrary' appearing in subsection (1) of Section 26 control subsection (6) of Section 26 as well? 2. Since the controversy with regard to controlling of sub-section (6) with the words 'In the absence of any agreement to the contrary' as found in sub-section (1) of Section 26 was not before the Supreme Court as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(4)MPHT1; 2003(3)MPLJ554
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1.Expressing the view that the issues involved arc of immense significance and placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Abdul Taiyab Abbasbhai Malik and Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors. AIR 1977 MP 116 and Balkrishan Das v. Harnarayan, 1979 MPLJ 644, wherein it has been held that the existence of two earlier conflicting decisions on the same point is not a condition precedent to make a reference for a decision of a question by a Larger Bench, the Division Bench referred the matter in entirety to be adjudicated by a Larger Bench and that is how the batch of cases has been placed before us.2. The bunch of matters can be categorised into two compartments; one batch assail is to certain provisions and rules of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the Act') as ultra vires and in the other challenge is to the certain provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short 'the Municipalities Act') and the rules framed for carrying out ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1977Bom99
Masodkar, J. 1. These 2661 cases have clogged the Court's corridors for considerable time, challenging the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act No. 21 of 1975) Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Amendment Act, 1975 (Act No. 47 of 1975) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Act No. 2 of 1976).2. The petitioners raised almost Common questions and the petitions can be decided by an order indicating separate points urged in support of different petitioners' claims. It is assumed and not disputed that the petitioner in each petition is aggrieved by the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling On Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended and in issue.3. At the outset it must be stated that in Special Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1216; 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)316; JT2003(3)SC86; 2003(3)SCALE124; (2003)5SCC669; [2003]2SCR852; 2003(2)LC1427(SC)
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. These three appeals are directed against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. 3754/2000, 3753/2000 and 3698/2000. The common questions that arise in these appeals are as to whether the State of Maharashtra is empowered to charge from the liquor licences, under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Prohibition Act'), at whose premises Government staff is posted for supervision as per the provision of Section 58A, are governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 and other rules, resolutions made by the State Government under the power vested in it by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to fix the pay and other allowances of its employees, for levy and recovery of the cost of supervision to be paid to the State Government as contemplated under Section 58A of the Act or not? The further question may also arise as to whether the Commissioner is e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)338; 2005(3)ALT487
G. Bikshapathy, J.1. Common questions of law are raised in these Writ Petitions and hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment, however, keeping in view the incidents in each individual case.2. The Collector and the District Magistrate, Anantapur by virtue of the powers vested in him under Section 3 of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act (1 of 1986) (for brief the 'Act'), passed Orders of detention. Consequently, writs of habeas corpus came to be filed by the petitioners on behalf of detenus seeking production and release of the detenus after holding the Order of detention as illegal and invalid.3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General have elaborately and minutously argued most of the general issues arising out of preventive detention Orders. Therefore, it become inevitable for us to deal with each and every contention in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2006(90)DRJ745
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner seeks release on bail under Section 167(2) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). The petitioner's case is that the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period of 90 days and, as such, he became entitled to bail-on-default which has been denied to him by the Courts below. It is also the petitioner's case that cognizance was not taken within the said period of 90 days and, thereforee, his detention in custody was illegal and that the taking of cognizance on a subsequent date beyond the period of 90 days, would not cure this illegality. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the State were: 1) that investigation had, in fact, been completed and the police report had been filed within the period of 90 days and, thereforee, the proviso to Section 167(2) would not come into play and the petitioner would not be entitled to bail-on-default; 2) that cognizance was s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(9)SC38; (2007)148PLR483; 2007(8)SCALE688; (2007)6SCC292; 2007AIRSCW4480; 2007(6)SCC292; 2007LawHerald(SC)2145.
B.P. Singh, J.1. In this batch of Civil Appeals by Special Leave the common judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated March 28, 2001 in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 7291, 8708, 9047, 9143 and 16738 of 2000 has been impugned. Civil Appeal Nos.5721 - 5725 of 2001 have been preferred by the State of Punjab while Civil Appeal Nos.5727- 5731 of 2001 have been preferred by the New Town Planning and Development Authority for Anandgarh. Special Leave Petition No.7946 of 2000 has been preferred against the order of the High Court dated September 10, 2001 in Civil Writ Petition No.7050 of 2001 adjourning the writ petition sine die awaiting the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeals. By this common judgment and order we proceed to dispose of all the appeals before us as also the Special Leave Petition.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The State of Punjab issued Notifications Exhibits P-1 to P-29 dated March 13, 2000 under Section 4 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order C.P. Nos.172 of 2010 and batch are filed, under Section 433 (e) read with Section 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking winding up of the respondent company. The petitioners are all individuals who had sought allotment of flats in an apartment complex known as “Hill County” situated at Bachupally village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District. Agreements of sale were entered into, between the petitioners and the respondent, during the years 2006 to 2008. All the petitioners herein have admittedly paid a substantial part of the sale consideration running into several lakhs each. All of them also claim to have terminated the agreements of sale in accordance with the conditions stipulated therein. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act with its registered office at Hyderabad. Its authorized share capital is Rs.75 Crores divided into 75 lakh equity shares of Rs.100/- each. Its paid up capital is said to be Rupees Five lakhs co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(5)KarLJ280; 2009(4)AIRKarR214; AIR2009NOC2865
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitions either by private co-operative societies registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act') or members of such societies.2. Writ petitioners are all aggrieved that election process for electing office-bearers who constitute the committee of management in the societies while in progress and which was required to be completed in terms of the statutory provision fifteen days before the end of the co-operative year for each year which coincides with the financial year and ending by the 31st of March each year has been interfered by the State Government by issue of a notification dated 4-3-2009, copy of which is produced as one of the annexures in all these writ petitions; that the interference is unnecessary, was not warranted; that though the notification recites that the Government has such power to postpone the election process which had already commenced and was in progress till the com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1989Kant226; ILR1989KAR457
Rama, J.1. Seminal questions of National importance arise for consideration in these ten writ petitions presented by the Linguistic Minorities in the State, questioning the constitutional validity of the order of the State Government which makes the study of Kannada, the official language of the State, in addition to mother-tongue by children belonging to linguistic minority groups, from the first year of the Primary Schools, compulsory, and prescribing Kannada as the sole First Language in the Secondary Schools. They are:-Whether the Order of the State Government which prescribes that Kannada which is the regional and the official language of the State - - (i) a compulsory subject for study for children belonging to linguistic minority groups in Primary Schools, in addition to the mother-tongue of the children concerned from the first year of primary school, and (ii) the sole first language in the secondary schools, is violative of Arts. 14, 29, 30 and 350A of the Constitution of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!