Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(4)BomCR135
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land admeasuring 1146 sq. mts. situate at Village Cansaulim surveyed under No. 4/3. The petitioner has built two houses on the said land bearing Village Panchayat No. 205 and No. 205(A). 2. On 24th July, 1987, a Notification was published by the Government of Goa bearing No. 22/92/87-RD under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stating therein that various plots of land specified in the Schedule appended to the said Notification were likely to be needed by the Government for the public purpose set out therein, i.e. land acquisition for construction of road from Madalem Candatem to Cansaulim Church via Arosim in Village Panchayat, Cansaulim. By the said Notification duly published in the Government Gazette on 24th July, 1987, it was notified that the Government intended to acquire 24,675 sq. mts. of land belonging to several owners for the public purpose set out in the said Notification. By the said Notification it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1301; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)614; II(2006)BC391(SC); 2006(3)BomCR621; (2006)2CALLT42(SC); [2006]130CompCas341(SC); 127(2006)DLT747(SC); 2006(197)ELT18(SC); JT2006(3)SC421; (2006)4SCC278
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 5892/2004.1. On receipt of notices under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the FERA) for showing cause why adjudication proceedings for imposition of penalty under Sections 50 and 51 of the FERA be not initiated against the appellant bank and some of its officers and further notices under Section 61 of the FERA giving an opportunity to the first appellant bank and its officers of showing that they had the necessary permission from the concerned authority for the transaction involved, the appellant bank filed Writ Petition No. 1972 of 1994, seeking a declaration that the relevant sections of the FERA are unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and for writs of prohibition restraining the authorities under the FERA from proceeding with the proposed adjudication and the proposed prosecution, in terms of the Act. Yet another writ petition was filed by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2011)2SCC258
1. This batch of civil appeals under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act") arises out of a common judgment and order, dated 9th September 2005, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal) whereby the appeals filed by the appellants herein, have been dismissed and the levy of anti-dumping duty, imposed under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short "the Tariff Act") vide Notification 36/2005-Cus dated 27th April 2005 has been affirmed. 2. As common questions of law are involved in all the appeals and even the background facts are identical, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, to appreciate the controversy and the rival stands thereon, we shall refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 949 of 2006 as illustrative: The appellant in this appeal viz. Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association (for short "ATMA"), is an association representing domestic tyre manufacturing units, who import ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(4)MPHT12; 2000(2)MPLJ530
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. Whether or not a Chief Municipal Officer holds a Civil post and is an employee of the State Government is the short question referred to us in the above petitions in view of the apparent conflict between the two Division Bench decisions of this Court, viz., Jagmohanlal Bajpai v. State of M.P. and Ors. [1977 (1) SLR 746] holding that the Chief Municipal Officer does not hold a Civil post and is not an employee of the State Government and C.P. Kulshrestra (Dr.) v. Government of M.P. (1991 JLJ 198), holding to the contrary.2. We need not deal in detail with the facts leading to reference of the case to the Full Bench for resolving the conflict between the two decisions. Suresh Chandra Sharma, the petitioner in W.P. No. 4829 of 1997 has challenged the order of the State Administrative Tribunal, Bench Gwalior, by which his application before the Tribunal was dismissed on the ground that although his services were under the control of the State Government, since h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976HP82
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. The petitioners in this and the connected writ petitions challenge the validity of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and the proceedings taken thereunder.2. It may be mentioned that after a preliminary hearing of the writ petitions we found it desirable, in view of the nature of the questions raised before us, that learned counsel for the parties should file a written statement of their submissions and learned counsel were informed that during the oral hearing of the writ petitions they would be confined to the points set out in their respective statements. Written statements of submissions have been filed by Shri R.N. Malhotra, Shri H.S. Thakur and Shri K.D. Sud and they have orally argued their case on that basis. Learned counsel for the remaining petitioners have adopted the submissions so made.3. The Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter-referred to as 'the impugned Act') was passed by the Himachal Pradesh Legisla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1985LC71(Karnataka); 1986(25)ELT27(Kar); 1985(1)KarLJ158
Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. This Appeal by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Foreign Exchange Regulating Act, Government of India, Bangalore, arises under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and is directed against the order dated 31.3.1981 passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, New Delhi allowing the appeal of the respondent in part, which was filed against the order dated 28.3.1977 passed by the Special Director of Enforcement, Madras, in Proceedings No. SDE(47)/Vii- 15/77. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this Appeal are : Respondent - Fr. J. M. Stevens, came to India in the year 1948. He holds a Belgian Passport and after completing his religious studies in India, he became a priest of the Jesuit Society, Ranchi in the year 1958. He later qualified himself as an architect in the year 1959 from Sri J.J. College of Architecture, Bombay. After becoming an architect, the respondent undertook a numbe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR3831; [1987]64STC208(Kar)
ORDERM.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. By these writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners, who are traders and industrial manufacturers, challenge the validity of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 ('principal Act'). The principal Act received the assent of the President on 17th May, 1979. It was published in the Gazette on 1st June, 1979. The legislation is a taxing measure referable to entry 52 of List II and envisages an impost of the nature of an entry tax, intended to raise finances substituting the old octroi till then being levied by the various local authorities and the municipal bodies in the State. There was earlier a large batch of writ petitions challenging the principal Act which ultimately went upto the Supreme Court. The legislative history; the nature and incidents of the impost and the constitutional validity of the charging section were considered by the Supreme Court in State of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(3)ALD666
T. Meena Kumari, J.1. The present appeals have been filed against the common judgment and decrees dated 4.9.1998 in O.S. Nos.28, 13 of 1996 and OS No.73 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobabad, Warangal District. The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed OS.No.28 of 1996 and the suits in OS Nos.13 of 1996 and 73 of 1997 have been decreed for partition of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.5.05 guntas only comprised in Survey No.4 situate at Torrur Village into four equal shares and declared that each plaintiff is entitled to have 1/4th share.2. Questioning the said common judgment, the present appeals have been filed. The appellants in AS.No.2404 of 1998 are Defendants 3 and 4 in OS.No.73 of 1997 and the first respondent is the plaintiff and Respondents 2 to 6 are Defendants 1, 2 and 5 to 7. The appellant in AS.No.763 of 1999 is the plaintiff in OS.No.28 of 1996 and the respondents are defendants in the said suit; whereas AS.No,9 of 1999 has been filed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(2)BomCR389
P.S. Patankar, J.1. Both these Revisions can be disposed of by this common order as point arising is the same and litigation is also between the same parties.2. The facts in Civil Revision Application No. 471 of 1991 are as under :The petitioner came to be promoted as Principal in Shri Mahavir College run by respondent No. 1, a Society registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and Societies Registration Act, 1860, in June 1977. The respondent No. 1 resolved to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. The charge-sheet was served upon him on 29-5-1989. The petitioner sent his explanation. The respondent No. 2, an Advocate by profession, was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 7-10-1989 by passing a Resolution. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 90 of 1990 for declaration that appointment of respondent No. 2 as enquiry officer was illegal and for permanent injunction restraining him from holding proposed enquiry. It was contended that appointment of respondent No. 2 as enquiry offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2072; JT1990(2)SC448; 1990(1)SCALE342; (1990)2SCC562; [1990]1SCR614
ORDERRanganath Misra, J.1. I have the benefit of reading the judgment prepared by my esteemed brethren Sawant and K. Ramaswamy, JJ. Brother Sawant has taken the view that Section 20 of the Karnataka Act has not become void with the enforcement of the ''Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while Brother K. Ramaswamy has come to the contrary conclusion. Agreeing with the conclusion of Sawant, J., I have not found it possible to concur with Ramaswamy, J. Since an interesting question has arisen and in looking to the two judgments I have found additional reasons to support the conclusion of Sawant, J., I proceed to indicate the same in my separate judgment.2. These applications under Article 32 of the Constitution by a group of disgruntled applicants for contract carriage permits call in question action of the concerned transport authorities in not entertaining their applications under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939) made provision for grant of contrac...
Tag this Judgment!