Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1980(1)KarLJ200; (1980)ILLJ123Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. In these four writ appeals, preferred against the orders of the single Judge dismissing the four writ petitions presented under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by registered owners of coffee estates under the Indian Coffee Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether the Coffee Board, is an industry carried on by or under the authority of any Department of the Central Government or is an institution established not for purposes of profit, and consequently excepted from the application of the Payment of Bonus Act in view of cls. (iv) and (v) (c), respectively, of S. 32 of the Act ?' 2. The appellants are registered owners of coffee estates under the Act. The first respondent-Coffee Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') has been brought into existence by the Act. With the approval of the Central Government, the Board decided to pay bonus to its employees under the provisions of the Payme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995(3)BomCR86; (1995)IILLJ597Bom; 1995(2)MhLj930
Halbe, J.1. Under the directions dated 2.5.1994 by the Supreme Court, these writ petitions are taken up for disposal. As per the directions, these Writ Petitions along with two other writ petitions namely Nos. 2055 of 1992 and 2921 of 1993 were directed to be disposed of before 30th June 1994. However, Writ Petition Nos. 2055 of 1992 and 2921 of 1993 are not taken up for consideration along with the above writ petitions in view of the fact that the point involved in these two writ petitions is somewhat different from the points which have been raised in the above writ petitions. 2. The petitioners have sought for cancellation of selection and appointment of 481 clerks and 82 peons by respondent No. 8. The Ahmednagar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. in the month of August 1991 on the ground that the interviews that were held were nothing but a farce; that the selection of the candidates or the posts of clerks and peons had already been secretly planned by the Directors of the Ban...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC193; 1979LabIC1672; (1979)2SCC34; [1979]1SCR26
Sarkaria, J.1. This judgment will not only dispose of this Appeal (C.A. 2826 of 1977) but also furnish reasons in support of our short order dated August 4, 1978, by which we allowed Civil Appeal No. 278 of 1978.2. Both these Appeals raise a common question with regard to the interpretation, scope and impact of Article 371-D on Articles 226, 229 and 235 of the Constitution.3. In Civil Appeal 2826 of 1977, appellant 1 is the Chief Justice and appellant 2 is the High Court of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Registrar of that Court. Respondent 1, Shri L.V.A. Dikshitulu is a former employee of the High Court whose premature retirement is in question. Respondents 2 and 3 are the Government, and the Accountant General, respectively of Andhra Pradesh.4. Respondent 1 was a permanent employee of the former Hyderabad High Court prior to November 1, 1956. He was confirmed in the post of Chief Superintendent on the establishment of that High Court on October 6, 1956. At the time of his confirmat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(10)SC485; 2003(10)SCALE202; (2004)11SCC26
ORDERS1. (1) These orders may be called the Punjab Excise Fiscal (Second Amendment) Orders, 1996.(2) They shall come into force on and with effect from the first day of April, 1996.2. In the Punjab Excise Fiscal Orders, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the said Orders), in order 1, in the table, under column 'Rate of duty per proof litre'- (a) in item (1), against sub item (c) for the figures '4.00' the figures '3.00' shall be substituted; and(b) in item (3) against sub-item (b) for the figures '3.50' the figures '3.00' shall be substituted. 3. In the said Orders in order 1-B- (a) for the words 'rupees three' the words 'rupees two' shall be substituted; and(b) for Clause (iii) to the proviso, the following clause shall be substituted namely:- '(iii) the Indian Made Beer shall be at the rate of thirty-eight paise per bulk litre.' 4. In the said orders in order 1-D, for item (iii), the following item shall be substituted namely:- '(iii) rupees four and sixty paise per bulk litre.' II. 'S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC350; [2002]108CompCas193(SC); (2002)1CompLJ205(SC); [2002(1)JCR339(SC)]; JT2001(10)SC466; (2002)ILLJ550SC; 2001(8)SCALE541; (2002)2SCC333; [2002]35SCL182(SC); 2002
Kirpal, J.1. The validity of the decision of the Union of India to disinvest and transfer 51% shares of M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BALCO') is the primary issue in these cases.2. BALCO was incorporated in 1965 as a Government of India Undertaking under the Companies Act, 1956. Prior to its disinvestments it had a paid-up share capital of Rs. 488.85 crores which was owned and controlled by the Government of India. The company is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium and had plants at Korba in the State of Chhattisgarh and Bidhanbag in the State of West Bengal. The Company has integrated aluminium manufacturing plant for the manufacture and sale of aluminium metal including wire rods and semi-fabricated products.3. The Government of Madhya Pradesh vide its letter dated 18th March, 1968 wrote to BALCO stating that it proposed that land be granted to it on a 99 years lease subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. The letter envisaged gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994SCC(3)569; JT1994(2)423
JUDGMENT:The Judgments of the Court were delivered by S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. (on behalf of himself, Punchhi, J., K. Ramaswamy, J., Agrawal, J. and Sahai, J.).1.The above batch of matters consisting of a number of writ petitions, criminal appeals and SLPs are filed challenging the vires of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act (No. 61 of 1984), the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (No. 31 of 1985) and the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (No. 28 of 1987) commonly known as TADA Acts (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1984, Act of 1985 and Act of 1987 respectively) and challenging the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976) by which the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh has deleted Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Though originally, a number of other matters falling under various A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1990AP20
ORDER1. In the elections held to the Legislative Assembly of the Stale of Andhra Pradesh in early 1983, and again in late 1984, the Telugu Desam Party, headed by Sri N. T. Rama Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent'), captured a majority of seats. Sri N. T. Rama Rao became the Chief Minister. The term of the Legislative Assembly is coming to an end in or about Dec., 1989/March, 1990.2. In Jan., 1987, the respondent made a statement that he is going to act in a Telugu movie, styled 'Brahmarishi Viswamithra' as 'Viswamithra'. Immediately thereupon, W.P. No. 310/1987 was filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus 'restraining the respondent herein from enacting in any films including'Brahmarishi Viswamithra'while in office as the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh as he is a 'public servant' of State of Andhra Pradesh .......'. The petitioner is a practising advocate at Narasarao-pet. He is an elector and also the Organizing Secretary of District Youth Congress, Guntur D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
B. C. Basak, C. J. 1. These series of 28 writ petitions involve similar facts and common questions of law so far as the main submissions are concerned and for this reason they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In some of these writ petitions some additional points are urged which were special to them. These writ petitions relate to the following 'agricultural produce', namely, (1) Wheat and wheat products e.g., Atta, Maida, Suji and bran, (ii) oil seeds, edible oil mustard oil, (in) sugar and (iv) Vanaspati.2. (a) C.W.J.C. Nos. 3920/85, 1201/86, 3930/86, 1222/87, 1228/87, 1272/87, 1273/87, 1333/87, 1926/87, 3810/87, 4278/87, 4289/87, 5831/87, 2354/88, 3863/88, 4497/88, 4623/88, 4803/88, 7912/88, 8705/88 and 5187/89.Excepting in CWJC 3920/85 all these applications are at the instance of flour mills which have been set up either by a Company incorporated under the Companies Act or by a partnership firm. They carry on the business of manufacturin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD210; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)137; 2002(1)ALT611; 2002CriLJ1105
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Possession and transport of black jaggery although by itself is not an offence, can the vehicles carrying the same, be liable to be seized under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act is the question involved in these writ applications? 2. Facts of each case may be noticed briefly thus: In Writ Petition No. 354 of 2001 the petitioners were transporting 10176 kilograms of jaggery in a lorry bearing No. ABT 5508. The said lorry was seized and such seizure is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that it is illegal and arbitrary. Writ Petition No. 19706 of 2000 is filed assailing the action of the respondents in interfering with their day-to-day business in all varieties of jaggery and alum. The petitioners in Writ Petition N0.22705 of 2000 seek quashing of the criminal proceedings and also to declare the seizure of jaggery as illegal and void. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that sale of jaggery is neither ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2005]124CompCas201(P& H); (2004)4CompLJ288(P& H); [2004]55SCL165(Punj& Har)
J.S. Khehar, J.I. Facts pertaining to M/s. PGF Limited:1. M/s. PGF Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the PGFL') was originally incorporated on 19-1-1983 as Pearls General Finance Limited. Its name was changed to Pearls Green Forests Limited in 1988 and finally to PGF Limited in 1997. Eversince the commencement of business, PGF Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the PGFL') claims to be subject to regulation, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, under the Department of Company Affairs, the Company Law Board, and the Registrar of Companies. PGFL has its registered office at S.C.O. No. 1042-43, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, and its Head Office at 2nd Floor, Vaishali Building, Community Centre, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.2. So far the activities of PGFL are concerned, the same have been depicted in a communication addressed by the PGFL to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the SEBI') dated 15-1-1990. PGFL is stated to be operating two kinds of sch...
Tag this Judgment!