Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR2183; (1987)ILLJ182Kant
ORDER1. This is the third round of litigation between the industries covered by the Minimum Wages Act and the workmen who are the employees in the said industries and I am not so sure that this will be the final round of litigation between the parties. The petitioners have questioned the validity of the Minimum Wages Notifications notified by the State Government in the Karnataka Gazette dated 20th March, 1986 fixing certain rates of Minimum wages to the workmen employed in the Film Industry, Hotel Industry, Printing Industry, Tailoring, Plywood and other industries. These Notifications admittedly were made by the State Government pursuant to the order of this Court in the earlier batch of Writ Petitions filed by the very same employers and also by the workmen employed in the Hotel Industries challenging the validity of the Notifications made in the year 1984 fixing certain rates of minimum wages in the aforesaid industries. Those Writ Petitions were partly allowed by this Court by its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(1)KarLJ116
Acts/Rules/Orders:Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Sections 8, 14, 18, 19, 32, 38-B, 65, 69, 70 and 71;Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1994;Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 - Rules 3, 4(2), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 14(3);Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Sections 6 and 7Provincial Insolvency Act, 1963;Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226;Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976;Housing Act, 1957 - Section 105(1);Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 60(1) - Order 33, Rule 1;Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909;Presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920;Provincial Insolvency (Karnataka, Extension and Amendment) Act, 1962;Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Sections 4, 6, 7, 10, 28, 35, 36, 37 and 60Cases Referred:S.P. Gupta and Others v. President of India and Others, AIR 1982 SC 149;Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch. D 458;Reed Bowen and Company, (1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ALT611
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court issued rule nisi on 19-4-2007.2. Counter affidavits, additional affidavits and reply affidavits were filed and written arguments also were submitted in addition to the submissions made by the respective Counsel in open Court. Certain subsequent events also were brought to the notice of the Court and apart from the material papers initially placed, additional material papers as well had been placed before this Court.3. M/s. Ghanta Infrastructure Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, represented by its Director Sri M. Raghuveer, filed the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings ARG-II/PJ/FY07/04568 dated 12-12-2006 and the consequential proceedings ARG 1/PJ/FY07/04730 dated 22-12-2006 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to accept the bid of the petitioner in respect of the bus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(6)BomCR574; (2005)107BOMLR337; (2006)4CompLJ117(Bom)
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The above Petition has been filed in larger public interest, to protect the interests of residents of Mumbai and to improve the quality of life in Mumbai, which has drastically deteriorated during the last fifteen years. The above Petition is prevent further serious damage to the town Planning and ecology so as to avoid an irretrievable breakdown of the city. Recent deluge during the last week of July this year, exposed as to how the city's sewerage and drainage system was unable to cope up and for almost a week the entire city was completely crippled.2. The first Petitioner Bombay Environmental Action Group is a public charitable trust duly registered and also a registered society. Its aims and objects are, inter alia, to look after the environment in all aspects. On a number of occasions, the above Petitioner has initiated and/or participated in matters of environmental importance for the preservation and improvement of the environment in furtherance of the pub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(5)KarLJ9
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed by M/s. Flemingo Duty-free Shops Pvt., Ltd. a Company incorporated in this year 2004 seeking for issuance of declaratory relief to declare that clause 3.2 of the Invitation for Expression of Interest (hereinafter in short referred to as 'E.O.I') issued by the third respondent which is Bangalore International Airport Limited (hereinafter in short referred to as BIAL'), in which it has sought to restrict issuance of tender documents and consideration of bids only from five persons is arbitrary and discriminatory, that the evaluation of the E.O.I by respondents 3 & 4 with respect to Retail and Duty-Free shop to be established in the International Departure and Arrival Duty-free at the New BIAL, Devanahally is arbitrary, discriminatory and further directions to declare the action of the respondents 3 & 4 in short-listing only respondents 5 to 9 for issuance of tender documents and excluding the petitioner from the said list and decision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001ACJ1528; AIR2001Kant275; ILR2001KAR2879; 2001(5)KarLJ322
Acts/Rules/Orders:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 92-A, 92(2), 94, 95(1), 95(2), 96, 96(2), 140, 140(5), 141, 145, 149, 163-A, 163-A(1), 163-A(3), 163-B, 166, 173 and 217;Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994;Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 110 and 110-F;Constitution of India - Articles 14, 39-A and 41;Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 33, Rule 9-A;Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923Cases Referred:Gajraj Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others, AIR 1997 SC 412;Ramdev Singh v. Chudasama and Others and Hansrajbhai v. Kodala and Another, 1999 ACJ 1129, (1999) 1 Guj. L.R. 631 (Guj.);Kesavan Nair v. State Insurance Officer, 1971 ACJ 219 (Ker.), 1971 Ker. LT 380;Mangilal v. Parasram, AIR 1971 M.P. 5, 1970 ACJ 86 (M.P.);M/s Marine and General Insurance Company Limited v. Dr. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, AIR 1977 Bom. 53, 1976 ACJ 288 (Bom.);Haji Zakaria v. Naoshir Cama, AIR 1976 A.P. 171, 1976 ACJ 320 (A.P.);British India General Insurance Company Limited v. Captain Itbar S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC68; (1977)4SCC608; [1978]2SCR1
Beg, C.J.1. 'India, that is Bharat, shall be union of States'. The very first mandate of the first article of our Constitution to which we owe allegiance thus prohibits, by necessary implication, according to the plaintiff in the original suit now before us under Article 121 of the Constitution of India, any constitutionally unjustifiable trespass by the Union Government upon the domain of the powers of the States. The State of Karnataka, has, therefore, sued for a declaration that a notification dated 23-5-1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Central Notification') constituting a Commission of Inquiry in purported exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is illegal and ultra-vires. This declaration is sought on one of two alternative grounds : firstly, that the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, does not 'authorise the Central Government to constitute a Commission of Inquiry in regard to matters falling excl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR737
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner who is a practising advocate and who also claims to be a public spirited citizen, has approached this Court by way of present Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein, on the strength of Constitutional mandate contained in Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India, he questions the authority of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to hold the posts of `Parliamentary Secretaries' and enjoy the status of Cabinet Minister and also questions respondent Nos. 5 to 7 appointed to different posts in the State administration, as to how they enjoy the status and rank of Cabinet Minister. He also prays that the orders at Annexures `P2' collectively and `P4' collectively relating to respective group of respondents be revoked and cancelled being violative of the Constitutional mandate.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the recent Assembly Elections which were held in May 2007, resulted in the fractured mandate from the elect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1207; 1976CriLJ945; (1976)2SCC521; [1976]SuppSCR172; 1976(8)LC610(SC)
ORDERNew Delhi the 3rd November, 1962G.S.R 1464--In exercise pf the power conferred by Clause(1) of Article 359 of the Constitution the President hereby declares that the right of any person to move any court for the enforcement of the right by Article 21 and article 22 of the Constitution shall remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamation of emergency issued under Clause (1) of Article 352 thereof on the 26th October in 1962 is in force, if such person has been deprived of any such rights under the Defence of, India Ordinance, 1962 (4 of 1962) or any rule or order made thereunder.On November 6, 1962, the rules framed under the Ordinance by the Central Government were published. On November 11, 1962 the Presidential order reproduced above was amended and for the words and figure 'Article 21', the words and figures 'Articles 14 and 21' were substituted. The Defence of India Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the Defence of India Act and the rules framed under the Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(6)ALLMR736; 2007(3)BomCR898
Dharmadhikaari B.P., J.1. All these three writ petitions have been heard together as issues involved therein are same. Parties have treated Writ Petition 2593/ 1997 as main writ petition. This writ petition is filed by Builders Association of India, Mumbai with its 36 members as Petitioners against Union of India, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner and other officers under him for the writ of mandamus directing them not to enforce amended Para 26(2) of Provident Fund Scheme 1952 (referred to as 1952 scheme) framed under Employees Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act (referred to as PF Act) in so far as temporary and/or casual site-workers engaged in multi-tier system in business system of petitioners. Further relief sought is that such workers should not be required to become members of said 1952 scheme. An order dated 23/12/1994 passed by Joint Secretary of respondent No. 1 under Section 19-A of P.F. Act is also sought to be quashed and set aside. It appears that the members of...
Tag this Judgment!