Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1995HP15
Bhawani Singh, J. 1. The petitionerhas challenged the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Kutlehar Forest (Acquisition of Management) Act, 1992 (hereafter shortly, 'the Management Acquisition Act' or 'this Act'), on numerous grounds being recorded in the latter part of this judgment. Before passing of this Act, the State Government issued Notification No. Rev. D(F)7-1/90, dated January 19, 1990, under Section 3 of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Article 1957 directing the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to take over management and possession of Kutlehar Jagir Forest from the petitioner with the assistance of the Collector. This Notification was assailed by the petitioner through Civil Writ Petition No. 42 of 1990 (Shri Mohinder Pal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others). By orders of January 22, 1990 and June 26, 1990, operation of this Notification was stayed and the writ petition admitted for hearing. Since both the actions of the respondents relate to the same f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
J.N. Sarma, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying the following reliefs :(i) To cancel/recall and forbear from giving effect to the order dated December 28, 1989, annexure VIII passed by the respondent No. 1, Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Gauhati, dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner-firm.(ii) To cancel, etc., the notice dated September 29, 1989 issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, annexure IX, to the writ application.(iii) To cancel, etc., the direction directing the petitioner to appear for verification of books of account, and(iv) To declare the order of seizure of the books of account dated September 19, 1990 illegal and void.The brief facts are as follows :On September 8, 1989 notice was issued under Section 33(1) of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, by the Superintendent of Taxes, Dibrugarh, directing the petitioner to produce the books of account and documents for the periods ending March 31, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1994KAR3152; 1995(1)KarLJ497
ORDERMohan Kumar, J. 1. These four Revision Petitions raise a common question and hence were heard together and are being disposed of by a Common Order. The petitioners herein were appointed as probationary teachers under the 1st respondent. The period of probation as per the appointment orders is two years. The date of appointment are as follows:i) Petitioner in CRP No. 2550/94 16-5-1992 (She commenced to work from 1-6-1992) ii) Petitioner in CRP No. 2551/94 1-8-1992 iii) Petitioner in CRP No. 2552/94 25-6-1992 (It is her case that she commenced to work from 1-6-1991) iv) Petitioner in CRP No. 2553/94 25-6-1992 (In her case the appointment order is dated 1-6-1992) By order dated 28-3-1994, i.e., before the completion of two years, their services were terminated with effect from 31-3-1994. This termination has been challenged by the petitioners by filing appeals before the Educational Appellate Tribunal. The appeals were presented on 7-4-1994 and the Tribunal passed an interim order in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)1MLJ42
ORDERRaju, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the very same petitioner who, during the relevant period of time, was the Editor of 'Ananda Vikadan' a Tamil weekly having its registered office at No. 758, Anna Salai, Madras-2. W.P. No. 4203 of 1987 has been filed for a writ of declaration declaring that the resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly dated 4.4.1987 sentencing the petitioner to three months rigorous imprisonment as unconstitutional, null and void, illegal and unenforceable. W.P. No. 4202 of 1987 has been filed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the alleged flagrant violation claimed to have been committed of the petitioner's fundamental rights on account of imposing of a rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The controversy between the parties hereto has its origin centering around a cartoon published on the outer wrapper rather the front cover page of the Tamil Weekly 'Ananda Vikadan' bearing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.N. Sahay, J.1.The constitutional questions in dispute in these group of writ applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India necessitate a consideration:(1) Whether Section 89(1) of the Bihar Coal Mining Area Development Authority Act, 1986 (Bihar Act 9 of 1986) (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Bihar Act' wherein 'cess' is levied on annual despatches of coal and coke, is null and void being ultravires the Bihar Legislature since by virtue of Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act 67 of 1957), the Union has assumed complete control over regulation of mines and minerals leaving no space for the State Legislature to legislate on the said subject.(2) Whether Section 90(4) of the Act wherein water charges are realised from colliery owners for supply of water at the rate to be determined by the State Government, is void since it suffers from vice of unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.2. The assessee-petitioners have appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1996Kant386
ORDER1. In this batch of writ petitions,the common question of law involved is as to whether any person, not being a dealer in any goods, causing an entry of any motor vehicle into any local area for Us use therein, is liable to levy of tax under Section 4B of the Karnataka Tax of Entry of Goods Act 1979 (for short, the Act).2. According to the petitioners, they had purchased the motor vehicles of various makes at places outside the State of Karnataka for various reasons. After so purchasing they brought the vehicles in the State of Karnataka for their personal use. Petitioners have specifically averred that they do not carry on any business in any goods and as such are not dealers in any goods. Their complaint is that their application for registration of the said vehicles filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not being entertained by the respectiveTransport Officers on the ground that unless they pay entry tax on the import of vehicles, the same can neither b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR3080; 1996(41)KarLJ137
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. In this batch, of writ petitions, the common question of law involved is as to whether any person, not being a dealer in any goods, causing an entry of any motor vehicle into any local area for its use therein, is liable to levy of tax under section 4B of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. According to the petitioners, they had purchased the motor vehicles of various makes at places outside the State of Karnataka for various reasons. After so purchasing they brought the vehicles in the State of Karnataka for their personal use. Petitioners have specifically averred that they do not carry on any business in any goods and as such are not dealers in any goods. Their complaint is that their application for registration of the said vehicles filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not being entertained by the respective Transport Officers on the ground that unless they pay entry tax on the import of vehicle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR2971
S.B. Majumdar, J.1. William Macpeace Thakare in his lectures on 'English Humorists of 18th Century' spoke of Jonathan Swift working in the household of Sir William Temple in the following terms : 'His servility was so boisterous that it looked like independence'. As will be highlighted in this Judgment the servility of judgment-debtor, State of Mysore, the precursor of the State of Karnataka was equally boisterous when it tried to cast off its judgment debtor's role by resorting to legislative independence, which as will be demonstrated, has remained a legally futile attempt.2. This is a Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have brought in challenge the provisions of the Mysore Ordinance 1 of 1973, namely, The Mysore State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Ordinance No. 1 of 1973. By an amendment to the Petition they have also brought in challenge the provisions of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1996All135
ORDERV.N. Khare, J.1. Two Judges of this Court having differed in their opinion on the question of competence of State Legislature to enact U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964 (U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1964) (in short, the Adhiniyam) have referred the following point of difference to third Judge for opinion:'Whether by virtue of Section 18G of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the State Legislature stood denuded of power to legislate regulating supply, distribution and price of molasses-a product of sugar industry, and was conse-qeuntly incompetent to enact Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1964)?'Hon'ble the Chief Justice instead of referring the matter to the third Judge, constituted this Full Bench to answer the point of difference between the two Judges and that is how the matter has come up before us. It arises in the context of statement made in the Lok Sabha by the Minister of State in the Ministry of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIAD(SC)137; AIR1996SC1431; JT1996(2)SC85; 1996(1)SCALE780; (1996)7SCC637; [1996]2SCR23
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.2. This batch of appeals by special leave arises from common judgment dated November 22,1994 of the Kerala High Court made in O.P. No. 5957 of 1987 and batch.3. By Section 36 of Finance Act 1978, the Central excise and Salt act, 1944 [for short the 'Excise Act) was amended to impose central excise duty on electricity under Item 11-E in the 1st Schedule to the Excise Act and fixed 2 paise per kilo watt of electricity unit. Consequently, the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) was liable to pay excise duty on electricity generated and produced by it. To recoup that loss, the Government of Kerala, exercising its power under Section 3 of the Kerala Essential Articles Control (Temporary Powers) Act 1961, issued an order. By Clause (4) of the said order, surcharge at the rate of 2.5 paise per unit of electrical energy was levied on all supplies of electrical energy made by the KSEB either directly or through licensees...
Tag this Judgment!