Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-26-2012
..... . if a drug is likely to be harmful or likely to involve any risk, to human beings, the withdrawal of the same from the market, should happen instantaneously, upon the acquisition of knowledge about such potentially harmful effects. it is no argument in such cases to contend that the drug has already had its harmful effect for ten years and that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-13-2012
..... the question again in tukaram s. dighole v. manikrao shivaji kokate(2010 4 scc 329). in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the source and the manner of its acquisition, the authenticity of the casette, it was found that it cannot be read in evidence despite the fact that the casette is a public document. their lordships held:-"it is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-09-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to issue a necessary notification in the Government Gazette to notify the amendment introduced in Bill No.7 of 2011 dated 10.02.2011 in the Legislative Assembly under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the State of Tamil Nadu to issue notification in the Government Gazette to notify the amendment introduced vide Bill No.7 of 2011 dated 10.02.2011 by the Legislative Assembly under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and pass such other or further orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. The petitioner along with her sons purchased land measuring 14.23.50 Hectares in S.No.785/1C1G (2.23.0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-30-2012
..... as under the long term agreement (lta) dated 23rd april 2007 (lta 217/2007) between the parties which forms the subject matter of the present dispute. after the acquisition by the cvrd group of vale, vale acted as the producer under the agreement and amci pty. ltd. (amci) which was the newly formed subsidiary of amci australia pty ..... suppliers. relying on mccloskeys coal report of october 28, 2008, it was said that sail was pushing back stems (a term used in maritime transportation to mean shipping/loading arrangements) as the demand for steel had declined. the respondents therefore said that sail had never intended to take up the respondents various offers for the short-delivered ..... able to deliver 0.3 million mt of hard coking coal as contracted under the lta dated 23rd april 2007 in the fdp. it had tentatively planned a shipping schedule for the 0.7 million mt to be supplied between july 2007 and june 2008. amci requested deferral of all tonnage commitments for the 2008 and 2009 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-21-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The appellant appeals against the judgment dated 4th March, 2011 of the Learned Company Judge in the Co.Pet.No.248/2009 preferred by the respondent under Section 433(e) r/w Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 whereby Provisional Liquidator of the appellant Company has been appointed and the Directors and officers of the appellant Company have been restrained from selling, parting with possession or creating third party interest in respect of moveable and immovable properties/assets of the appellant Company. Notice of this appeal was issued and on 13th September, 2011 the counsel for the respondent gave an assurance that further hearings of the company petition before the Learned Company Judge would be got adjourned and the Official Liquidator may not takeover charge of the assets of the appellant till the disposal of this appeal. 2. The respondent, in the company petition aforesaid, averred the appellant to be unable to pay its debts of 215,375,000 - CZK (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-09-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed by the Higher Police Chief Director and Karnataka Chief Examiner of the Jail in order dt.3.8.2006 vide Annex-B1 and order passed by the Karnataka State Governor and its Chief Secretary, under Administrative Dept. (Jail and Cinema) order dt.3.8.2006, and Govt. order dt.14.8.2006, vide Annex-B1 where in at serial No.89, the name of the 3rdrespondent Manjunath is found, in the interest of justice and equity.)1. The son of a victim of brutal murder, is crying for justice, and is knocking at the doors of this Court, challenging the State action, of granting pardon to the perpetuator of the said heinous crime who is roaming in the streets of his Village, and wants to know, “is it justice?”.2. The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Higher Police Chief Director and Karnataka Chief Examiner of the Jail in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-09-2012
..... of income for self acquisition of any property and therefore the gift made by madhavan to his wife and children must enure to the benefit of tavazhi of lakshmi amma and lineal descendants. it is ..... ext.a10 was atleast in part a gift, section 41 must apply and it will constitute a tarwad property in so far it is a gift. it is found that acquisition was under the name lakshmi amma who was the eldest female member and karanavathy of the tarwad and there is no evidence to show that she has any other source ..... pillai (1963 klt 630) wherein a bench of this court held that the expression 'santhathi' which corresponds to 'santhanam' means not children or issue only but imports succession or heir ship. we also notice that learned single judge has considered the social ethos and the intention of the parties. we are of the view that the view taken by the learned .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-02-2012
..... the appellant by issuing notification under section 4(1) of the 1894 act. the contents of that letter are reproduced below: the deputy commissioner, bangalore. sub: acquisition of land in vajarahalli and raghuvanahalli villages of uttarahalli hobli, bangalore south taluk in favour of the bangalore city co-operative, housing society ltd., bangalore. i am ..... previous promoters m/s. manasa enterprises (for procuring lands from the agriculturists). 6. whereas the second party has agreed to provide all the required services towards the acquisition of scheduled land for the first party, obtain all necessary approvals for forming the layout, roads, water lines, electric lines, drainage, sewerage connection, etc., and ..... 1991) 2 scc 408, m/s. jindal industries ltd. v. state of haryana 1991 supp (2) scc 587, d.s. parvathamma v. a. srinivasan (2003) 4 scc 705, shipping corpn. of india ltd. v. machado bros. (2004) 11 scc 168, j.p. srivastava & sons (p) ltd. v. gwalior sugar co. ltd., (2005) 1 scc 172 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-01-2012
..... with the use of a prohibited arms and ammunition resulting in death will attract mandatory death penalty. even if any act done in contravention of section 7, namely, acquisition or possession, or manufacture or sale, of prohibited arms results in death of any person, the person in contravention of section 7 shall be punished with death. ..... made since manufacture and sale of arms and ammunition is dealt with in section 5 but section 7 deals with prohibition of acquisition or possession, or of manufacture or sale, of prohibited arms and ammunition. therefore, there is a reasonable classification between section 5 and section 7 of the act. ..... which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and he shall also be liable to fine. 20. section 7 prohibits acquisition or possession, or of manufacture or sale, of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition. therefore, between section 5 and section 7 of the act a distinction has been .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-23-2012
.* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI % Judgment decided on: 23.01.2012 + W.P.(C) No.6742/2000 M/S ASHOKA ESTATE PVT. LTD. and ORS. ......Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA and ORS .....Respondents AND + W.P.(C) No.6671/2000 PUSHPA VADERA ..... Petitioner Versus UOI and ORS .... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) No.7636/2000 KAILASH NATH and ASSOCIATES ..... Petitioner Versus UOI and ORS ..... Respondents AND W.P.(C) No. 6742/2000 etc. Page 1 of 31 + W.P.(C) No.7649/2000 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES and INDUSTRY ..... Petitioner Versus UOI and ORS ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) No.7717/2000 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES and INDUSTRY ..... Petitioner Versus UOI and ORS ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) No.7718/2000 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES and INDUSTRY ..... Petitioner Versus UOI and ORS ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) No.7747/2000 M/S SAGOON BUILDER P. LTD. ..... Petitioner Versus UOI and ORS ..... Respondents W.P.(C) No. 6742/2000 etc. Page 2 of 31 AND + W.P.(C) No.1082/2001 BRIG. HARBANS BAHADUR and ORS ..... Petition...
Tag this Judgment!