Court : Andhra Pradesh
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.35630 o04. 01.2013 Manappuram Finance Ltd. Govt. of A.P., Dept. of Legal Metrology,Rep. by Controller of Legal Metrology, And others Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Vedula Srinivas Counsel for Respondents: G.P., Civil Supplies HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred AIR 198.SC 61.Order: This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in applying the provisions of Memo No.5309/T1/2012 dated 16.08.2012, issued by the 1st respondent to the business activity of the petitioner, of using automatic weighing machines by its branches as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and for consequential directions to the respondents not to insist the petitioner and its branches to comply the instructions issued in the aforesaid Memo, while verifying and stamping of automatic weighing machines.2. Petitioner is a company, which is engaged in finance business. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.21790 OF2017(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28685/2015) FEDERATION OF HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIA Appellant VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.21791 OF2017(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27629/2015) JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1) Leave granted.2) The present appeals arise out of Writ Petition (C) No.6517/2003 filed by the Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India in the High Court of Delhi, seeking a declaration that the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 are not applicable 2 to services rendered in the premises of hotels/restaurants.3) The appellant's main concern was that the Controller of Weights and Measures was seeking to proceed against the hotels and restaurants of the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 162(2009)DLT475; 2009(242)ELT207(Del)
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Reebok India Company has filed the present Writ Petition for declaration that the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as SWM Act, for short) and Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as SWM Rules, for short) are not applicable to them. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to release goods seized for the alleged violation of SWM Act and SWM Rules vide seizure memo dated 17th July, 2006. By the aforesaid seizure memo, the respondent No. 3- Inspector of Legal Metrology, Government of NCT of Delhi had seized a pair of footwear with the label which did not mention that the maximum retail price was inclusive of all taxes. By another notice the petitioner was asked to inform whether they would like the offence of incorrect labeling to be compounded under Section 65 of the SWM Act. The said footwear was imported by the petitioner from Vietnam a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1965Mad225; 1965CriLJ714
(1) On 26th October 1962, the President of India proclaimed the existence of a state of emergency under Art. 352(1) of the Constitution. On the same date, the Defence of India Ordinance IV of 1962 was promulgated. On 22nd and 23rd November 1962 orders were passed under rule 30(1)(b) and rule 30(4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, directing the detention of the two writ petitioners Sri K. T. K. Thangamani (W. P. 333 of 1963) and Sri Ananda Nambiar (W. P. 334 of 1963), because the government were satisfied under S. 3(2)(15)(i) of the Defence of India Act, 51 of 1962, that these persons were likely to act "in a manner prejudicial to the Defence of India and Civil Defence", and that their apprehension and detention were hence necessary in the interests of the State. These persons were allocated as detenus to the Salem Central Jail, and it is from such detention that they have preferred these petitions to this court.(2) Both the petitioners raise almost identical grounds, praying for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1935Cal547,157Ind.Cas.998
ORDER1. This is a Reference under Section 14(b), Legal Practitioners Act, made to this Court, by the learned District Judge of Burdwan, recommending the suspension of a Pleader practising at Katwa, for one year, on the ground that the pleader was guilty of grossly improper conduct in the exercise of his professional duties. It appears that the pleader was charged by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Katwa, for having falsely told one Bazrang Lal Marwari that the Sub-divisional Officer, Katwa, had ordered that 'the goods be sent to the person they belonged to,' in respect of twenty-three tins of ghee which the Katwa Municipality had impounded as being adulterated, and which had been kept in the custody of the said Bazrang Lal Marwari by the Municipality, and Bazrang Lal Marwari had sent the ghee back to the person to whom it belonged, by relying on the said false statement of the pleader. An inquiry into the charge was made by a Magistrate in which inquiry evidence was taken. On the materi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad583; (1951)IMLJ174
ORDER1. The petitioner herein who is & graduate of the University of Cambridge and a Barrister-at-law, applies to this Court under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce him before this Court :and set him at liberty forthwith.2. According to the affidavit filed in support of the application it is stated that while he was residing permanently in 'Baibhuvan',Sandhurst Road, Bombay, he was arrested on 24-6-1950 by the Bombay Police at Kishori Court, Worli Sea Pace, Bombay, where he and his wife had been invited to stay for a day. No warrant was shown to him at the time of his arrest. He was taken to the office of the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, where a detention order of the same date was served on him. On 27-6-1950 one Mr. H. S. Bhat, an advocate of the Bombay High Court, wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, stating that he had been instructed by the wife of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1507; [1967]3SCR114
Shelat, J.1. The petitioner was arrested by an order dated December 10, 1965 under Rule 30(1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and was detained in Central Jail, Tehar, New Delhi. ON the 24th December, 1965, he filed writ petition No. 47 of 1966 in this Court challenging his detention, inter alia, on the grounds that (1) Rule 30(1) (b) was ultra vires s. 3(2)(15)(i) of the Defence of India Act, (2) that rule 23 of the Defence of India (Delhi Detenues) Rules, 1964 gave him a right to make a representation by providing review of the said detention order and that his said right was disregarded by his having been prevented from making such representation, (3) that the said order was in breach of s. 44 of the Act, and (4) that it was made in mala fide exercise of power. That petition was dismissed on April 19, 1966. The petitioner was thereafter served with an order dated June 11, 1966 passed by the Central Government under Rule 30A(9) of the said Rules. The said order, inter alia, st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1953Kant128; AIR1953Mys128
Balakrishnaiya, J.1. This petition arises out of a reference made on 30-1-1951 by theDeputy Commissioner, Mysore, to the Registrar of this Court, requesting that action may be taken against the respondent, under Section 11, Legal Practitioners Act. 1 is stated in that reference that the respondent who is a pleader, failed to refund a sum of Rs. 150/- entrusted to him by the Municipal Council of Merle in Krishnarajanagar Taluk. The High Court forwarded the said reference to the District Judge, Mysore, for enquiry and report. The learned District Judge after recording evidence and taking the statement of the pleader, came to the conclusion that the pleader had failed to refund the balance of the amount due by him to the Municipal Council either at the time when the demand was made or within a reasonable time thereafter The said report is for consideration before us under Section 13, Legal Practitioners Act.2. It is seen from the records that the pleader was entrusted by the Municipal Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. There are two appeals, one filed by the Revenue and the other by the appellant, M/s.Starlite Components Ltd., Nashik against the order-in-appeal No. No.AKP/18/NSK/2012 dated 27/02/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Nashik. 2. The facts relevant for consideration of this case are as follows: 2.1 The appellant, M/s.Starlite Components Ltd., Nashik imported Energy Efficient Lighting Fixtures (Portable lamps working on dry battery) Torch of various models under Bill of Entry No.5529072 dated 21/12/2011. The examination of the import consignment carried out by the Customs Officers revealed that the product is fully functional and electrically charged and is in retail packing. As the consignment is intended for retail sale and the goods have been notified under the provisions of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 they directed the appellant to declare the retail sale price on the goods and accordingly, on the insis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn. - 347 U.S. 186 (1954) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn., 347 U.S. 186 (1954) United States v. Employing Plasterers Association of Chicago No. 440 Argued February 3, 1954 Decided March 8, 1954 347 U.S. 186 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The United States brought a civil action in a Federal District Court charging a violation of 1 of the Sherman Act by a Chicago trade association of plastering contractors, a local labor union of plasterers, and the union's president. The complaint alleged a combination and conspiracy to restrain competition among Chicago plastering contractors, and charged that the effect was to restrain interstate commerce. Held: the complaint stated a cause of action on which relief could be granted on proper proof. Pp. 347 U. S. 187 -190. (a) The contention that the Sherman Act was inapplicable here because the interst...
Tag this Judgment!