Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1893; [1995(71)FLR102]; (1995)2GLR1550; JT1995(4)SC264; 1995LabIC2207; (1995)IILLJ790SC; 1995(3)SCALE498; (1995)5SCC27; [1995]Supp1SCR173; (1996)1UPLBEC359
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.Leave granted in all the petitions.These four groups of appeals raise common questions of law relating to the abolition of contract system of labour. Civil appeals C.A. No. 5497 & 5504/95 arising out of SLP (c) Nos. 2613 of 1991 and 13520 of 1991 are filed by the managements, viz., Gujarat Electricity Board and M/s. Bihar State Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd. respectively, while civil appeals 5498-02/95, 5503/95 arising out of SLP (c) Nos. 9310-14 of 1991 and 9315 of 1991 are filed by the employees' unions, viz., Delhi Officers and Establishment Employees' Union and New Delhi General Mazdoor Union respectively, both against the same management, viz., Standing Conference of Public Enterprises [SCOPE] and Another.2. For the sake of convenience, we will first deal with the facts in Civil Appeal 5497/95 arising out of SLP [C] No. 2613 of 1991 and the questions of law as they arise therefrom.C.A. 5497/95@SLP [C] No. 2613 of 1991.3. The appellant-Board runs a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)CTLJ1(SC); JT2007(1)SC125; 2006(13)SCALE102; (2007)2SCC640; 2007(2)KCCRSN91
S.B. Sinha, J.Introduction:1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.2. The validity and/or legality of a scheme framed by the Coal India Limited for sale of coal by Electronic Auction (E-Auction) is in question in these appeals and transferred applications. 3. 'Coal' indisputably plays an important role in the development of economy of the country. It had been the subject-matter of regulatory measures even under the Defence of India Rules. Production, distribution, supply and price of coal were controlled and regulated under the Colliery Control Order, 1945 (1945 Order) framed under the said Rules. The said Order was continued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under the Colliery Control Order, the Coal Controller was even authorised to allot quotas of coal to the Central Government as well as the State Governments; although the said procedure is now not in vogue in view of decontrolling notifications issued thereunder by the Central Government from time to time. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR396; [2008]14STT348; (2008)14VST69(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. All these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as the main challenge in all the petitions is to the constitutional validity of Section 61(1) and the explanation thereto, of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the ground that it infringes the equality clause as enshrined in Article 14, the right to carry on profession under Article 19(1)(g) as also under Article 254, as the provisions for 'audit' would not fall within the competence of the State Legislature under Entry No. 54 of List II of the VIIth schedule to the Constitution of India. In the alternative to read down Section 61, so as to empower Advocates and Sales Tax Practitioners to audit and give report in Form No. 704. There are some other incidental challenges in Writ Petition No. 1777 of 2007 to contend that the explanation also be declared void as being violative of Article 265 which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)BomCR419
Singh, C.J. 1. This batch of appeals has been preferred by the several defendants against the order passed by a learned Judge of this Court exercising original jurisdiction in Notices of Motion No. 3120 of 1997 and 3932 of 1998 in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 M. Sreenivasulu Reddy v. Kishore R. Chhabria [2001] 34 SCL 1. In the suit, the plaintiffs have challenged the substantial acquisitions of shares of defendant No. 12 by some of the defendants on the ground of the acquisitions being in breach of regulations framed by the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which had come into force with effect from 7-11-1994. The learned Judge, by the impugned common order, made the notices of motion absolute in part. It was held that the plaintiffs do have a prima facie right to maintain the suit to seek a declaration that the acquisition of the disputed shares is void being in breach of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers), Regulations, 1994 ('the 1994 Regulations'). It has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1987P& H263
S.P. Goyal, J. 1. These three petitions (Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3065, 3268 and 3435 of 1986), which are based on identical facts and involve common questions of law, have been filed for quashing the notices dated June 13, 1986, a copy of one of which is attached as Annexure P-6, issued to the petitioners by respondent 6, the Speaker of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, requiring them to show cause as to why they be not disqualified from the membership of the Punjab Legislative Assembly in terms of Art. 191(2) read with paras 2 and 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and his order dated July 4, 1986 (Annexure P-8) rejecting the application (Annexure P-7) of Capt. Amrinder Singh, M.L.A., wherein he claimed to be recognised as the leader of the 27 M.L.As. who were stated to have formed a separate legislative party because of the alleged split in the Shiromani Akali Dal. The attack is two prone. First, that the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985 is ultra vires of the powers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)1GLR242; (1999)9SCC700; [2000]120STC302(SC)
A.P. Misra, J.1. Special leave granted in all the special leave petitions.2. We are witnessing in this case exhibition of Federalism in true spirit. Contrary to the usual pouring in of citizen's writ petitions for vending their grievances against the States, here we are drawn to decide issues inter se between two distinct sets of States, one challenging and the other upholding certain provisions of the Lotteries (Regulation) Ordinance, 1997 (Ordinance No. 20 of 1997) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance No. 20') and now the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1998 Act'). The Union Government, of course, has joined this issue with one such set of States for upholding its Act. The issue here is confined to the State. lotteries under entry 40, List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. As a consequence of the order passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh banning State lotteries of other States by virtue of power entrusted under Section 5 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008]143CompCas325(SC); (2008)5CompLJ369(SC); (2007)213CTR(SC)301; [2008]297ITR176(SC); 2007(13)SCALE204; [2007]80SCL283(SC); 2007AIRSCW7443
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is:Whether Accounting Standard 22 (AS 22) entitled 'accounting for taxes on income' insofar as it relates to deferred taxation is inconsistent with and ultra vires the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Companies Act), the Income-tax Act, 1961 (I.T. Act) and the Constitution of India?2. M/s. J.K. Industries Ltd. is a public limited company. It was incorporated in 1951. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of automotive tyres, tubes, sugar and agrigenetics. It has a registered office at Calcutta. It seeks to challenge AS 22 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for short, 'Institute') which has been made mandatory for all companies listed in Stock Exchanges in India in preparation of their accounts for the financial year 2001-02 onwards.3. On 7.12.06 the Central Government prescribed AS 22 under Section 211(3C) of the Companies Act by the Companies (AS...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2012)9SCC1; JT2012(8)SC4; 2012(4)KCCR271(SN); 2012AIRSCW4942; AIR2012SC3565; 2012(7)SCALE553
Aftab Alam, J.1. The appellant, Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’ or as ‘Kasab’), who is a Pakistani national, has earned for himself five death penalties and an equal number of life terms in prison for committing multiple crimes of a horrendous kind in this country. Some of the major charges against him were: conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India; collecting arms with the intention of waging war against the Government of India; waging and abetting the waging of war against the Government of India; commission of terrorist acts; criminal conspiracy to commit murder; criminal conspiracy, common intention and abetment to commit murder; committing murder of a number of persons; attempt to murder with common intention; criminal conspiracy and abetment; abduction for murder; robbery/dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt; and causing explosions punishable under the Explosive S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3527; [2001(91)FLR182]; (2002)1GLR792; JT2001(7)SC268; 2001LabIC3656; (2001)IILLJ1087SC; 2001(5)SCALE626; (2001)7SCC1; 2001(4)SCT1(SC); (2002)1UPLBEC228; 2001DGLS(soft)1084:2001(111)CLR349
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri J.1. Leave is granted in the Special Leave petitions.2. In Food Corporation of India, Bombay, v. Transport & Dock Workers Union, a two-Judge Bench of this Court, having noticed the conflict of opinion between different Benches including two three-Judge Benches of this Court on this interpretation of the expression 'appropriate Government' in Section 2(1)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, 'the CLRA Act') and in Section 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the I.D. Act') and having regard to the importance of the question of automatic absorption of contract labour in the establishment of the principal employer as a consequence of an abolition notification issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, referred these cases to a larger Bench. The other cases were tagged with the said case as the same questions arise in them also. That is how these cases have come up before us.3. To comprehend the controversy ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G. S. Singhvi, J.1. Leave granted.2. The questions which arise for consideration in these appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Market Committees against the orders passed by the Division Benches of the Madhya Pradesh High Court are whether the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter described as, ‘the Market Act’) are applicable to the transactions involving the purchase of sugarcane by the factories operating in the market areas of the State and whether market fee can be levied on such transactions.3. The contesting respondents are operating sugar factories in different market areas of the State and have been purchasing sugarcane from Cane Growers and Cane Growers’ Co-operative Societies. Thus, they are covered by the general sweep of the Market Act because sugarcane is a notified agricultural produce and by virtue of Section 19, the Market Committees are empowered to levy market fee on the transactions involvin...
Tag this Judgment!