Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 41Ind.Cas.313
Teunon, J.1. These are six applications made to this Court under the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and of Section 195 (6) read with Section 195 (7) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In each case the applicant was the defendant and the opposite party the plaintiff in a suit brought in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. The suit having been dismissed, the defendants applied to the Trial Judge for sanction to prosecute the plaintiffs under Sections 209 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Sanction having been refused, in these applications, for the hearing of which I and Chaudhuri, J., have been constituted a Divisional Bench by his Lordship the Chief Justice, we are invited to revise and set aside the order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes and to giant the sanction for which application was, and is, made.3. At the hearing Babu Manmatha Nath Mukerjee, a Vakil enrolled and ordinarily practising in this Court, was authorised by the plaintiffs-opposite ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR16
Hajarnavis, J.1. This case has been referred to this Bench, at the instance of our learned brother Gandhi J. for decision on the following questions:1. Whether stating the grounds of his being so satisfied in Section 145(7) mean that the Magistrate empowered under the section to pass order must separately give reasons or grounds of being so satisfied of his reading the application and satisfying himself by seeing that the complainant has made statements on solemn affirmation are sufficient to pass a preliminary order?2. Whether non-stating of grounds or reasons vitiates the order and/or the subsequent proceedings including the final order under Section 145(6)?3. Whether the preliminary order passed on a cyclostyled form with blanks filled in ink necessarily implies that the Magistrate has not applied his mind or has mechanically passed the order without considering the contents of the application?4. Whether 'a breach of the peace' referred to in Section 145(1) necessarily means 'breach...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1979)GLR413; (1979)0GLR413; [1979]118ITR134(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. These two appeals under s. 269H of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-II, Ahmedabad, are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad of July 25, 1975, allowing the two appeals filed by the respective respondent-transferees herein from the order of the IAC of Income-tax, Acquisition Range-II, Ahmedabad, passed on January 16, 1975, acquiring two industrial sheds of type-A bearing block Nos. 1/3 and 1/4 situate in the industrial estate set up by the Baroda Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as BIDCO' for the sake of convenience) under s. 269F(6) of the aforesaid Act as the fair market value of the respective sheds exceeded the apparent consideration in the respective instruments of transfer of February 5, 1973, and had not been truly stated with the ulterior object of tax evasion and/or facilitating concealment of income or assets. Since the question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1968Cal407,72CWN440
Sinha, C.J.1. This application and anumber of other applications relate to a group of cases commonly described as 'gherao' cases. The expression 'gherao' is not entirely new, and already finds place in three Bengali dictionaries. But as will be presently described, it has now acquired a connotation and meaning which is entirely new. In its new garb it has acquired a semblance of enviable notoriety News of gheraos are now widely published in news-papers and are avidly read by the public Like many other words it may soon be considered as a contribution of West Bengal to semantics and I have no doubt that it will presently appear in all standard dictionaries in the English language The origin of the word 'gherao' is not easy to ascertain. As I have already mentioned the word occurs in three Bengali dictionaries. In the dictionary compiled by Jnanendra Mohan Das, the word 'gherao' is stated to have been derived from the Hindi word 'ghirao' and means 'covered or encircled'. It is alsomentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(3)KLJ699
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Certain questions relating to the grant of recognition to schools in Kerala and the conditions and procedure regulating such grant; and a further issue as to the availability or otherwise of any extra-statutory power for the Government to grant recognition to unrecognized schools, without following the prescribed statutory procedure, arise for decision in these writ petitions. They are therefore bunched, heard and hence, this common judgment.2. Having all the beneficiaries of the impugned decisions on its array, WP(C). 18050/ 2008 is treated as the lead case and exhibits are referred to, as numbered therein.Facts Encapsulated3. the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Kerala Education Rules, 1959; for short, the 'Act' and the 'KER', respectively; contain provisions regulating grant of recognition, including approval to commence schools, Chapter V in KER deals with recognition.4. Acting on the opinion of a Committee appointed as per a Government Order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1977)IILLJ227AP
Venkatarama Sastry, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Madhava Rao, J., as in his opinion an important question as to the interpretation of the word 'employee' in a factory, in view of the amendment of Sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act XXXIV of 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act, arises in this case.2. The facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal are the following: The respondents before us M/s Krishna Bottlers Private Ltd., represented by its managing director, Lieutenant Col. Sanjeeva Rao, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad, filed an application under Section 75 of the Act making the following averments:3. The petitioner bottles and sells soft $ called 'Coca Cola' and 'Fanta' in $ State of Andhra Pradesh. Their factory is at Hyderabad where the said drinks are bottled. Its various depots arc at various places. The factory at Hyderabad is engaged in manufacturing process. The petitioner is paying the Employe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. This original petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging Ext.P15 order passed by the District collector under the provisions of the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Escheats Act and Exts.P18 and P22 decisions of the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Government of Kerala confirming the Collector's decision. 2. Heard the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 3. Acting on information stated to have been given by a person that the parcel of land with building, which is involved in this litigation; 'property' for short, hereinafter; has escheated, the District Collector directed the Tahsildar to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Through Ext.P13, the Tahsildar reported that the property belonged to Shri Navnagar Sadavarat Trust which is the petitioner in this original petition. The Collector thereafter extended opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and issued the i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2012)2SCC294
P.Sathasivam,J.1) Leave granted.2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 18.06.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal CCC No. 32 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition of the appellants herein.3) Brief facts:(a) The appellants herein are the children and legal representatives of late M. Channappa, who was the original complainant/landlord before the High Court. Late M. Channappa was the owner of the property bearing Old Survey No. 39/2A, Yediur Village, Bangalore South Taluk. He let out the eastern half portion of the said property to one Kachu Krishna Achari and western portion to one P.V. Lingaiah on rent. In view of the extension of the City, the property fell into the Bangalore City limits and is presently situated on the K.R. Road and bears No. 2038/A.b) Late M. Channappa initiated eviction proceedings against both the said tenants and Kachu Krishna Achari came to be evicted pursuant to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
NASA v. Nelson - 09-530 (2011) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 NASA V. NELSON SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION etal. v . NELSON etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 09530.Argued October 5, 2010Decided January 19, 2011 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has a workforce of both federal civil servants and Government contract employees. Respondents are contract employees at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which is operated by the California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech). Respondents were not subject to Government background checks at the time they were hired, but that changed when the President ordered the adoption of uniform identification standards for both federal civil servants and contractor employees. The Department of Commerce mandated that contract employees with long-term access to federal facilities complete a standard background check, typically th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ822; JT2003(Suppl1)SC412; 2004(7)KarLJ562; 2003(8)SCALE1; (2003)11SCC251; 2004(1)LC512(SC)
S.N. Variava, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Heard parties.3. This Appeal is against an Order dated 26th August, 2002 whereby an FIR has been quashed.4. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellant is the owner of survey No. 66 in Sarakki village. He appears to have entered into an agreement to sell dated 18th February, 1988 with his sister one Nirmala. This agreement was for 25,188 sq ft in survey No. 66. Respondent No. 2 is the son of the said Nirmala. Respondent No. 4 is the daughter of the said Nirmala. Respondent No. 3 is a daughter-in-law, through a deceased son of Nirmala. It is the case of the Appellant that he had permitted his sister Nirmala to reside in the plot agreed to be sold to her as his licensee. On 7th September, 2000 Respondents 2 to 4 filed a suit for partition. Appellant claims that in this suit, partition was also claimed of the 25,188 sq ft. Respondents 2 to 4 deny that the claim in partition suit includes this piece of land. We are not concerned with this cont...
Tag this Judgment!