Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147
ORDERD.P. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1168Raj; 1993(1)WLC415
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Order of reference dated October 6, 1982 (Ex.5) passed by the Government under Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act of 1947) and the award dated September 21, 1984 (Ex.7) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, in I.T. Case No. 306/82 have been challenged in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. is an instrumentality of Central Government having its Head Office at Bangalore. It has 18 factories/ units all over India including the one at Ajmer. H.M.T. Shramik Sangh is a registered Trade Union of the employees and is recognised by the Managing Committee of the petitioner company. The respondent No. 2 submitted a charter of demand to the management of the petitioner company and then approached the Conciliation Officer cum Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ajmer. Since the parties could not settle the matter a failure report was subm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1968)2MLJ562
M.M. Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing the application filed by the appellant herein, under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, for a decree of divorce, on the ground that the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty.2. The appellant herein was first appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the year 1943 at Poona and later was transferred to the Local Audit Office at Bombay. At the time of the petition, he was employed in the Military Accounts Department, Government of India, as an auditor in the Local Audit, Defence Accounts Department. While the appellant was working at Bombay, on 2nd April, 1953 the marriage between the appellant who hails from Madras, and the respondent who hails from Bengal, was solemnised under the Special Marriage Act (III of 1872), since repealed by Act XLIII of 1954, and the marriage was registered at the office of the Registrar of Marriages, Bombay, on that date. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005(1)JCR18(SC)]; JT2004(8)SC29; 2004(8)SCALE25; (2004)12SCC390
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. The appellant calls in question the judgment and order dated 1.8.2003 of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, by which a quarry lease granted in favour of the appellant was quashed and cancelled.2. On 11.2.1993 one Jitendra Kumar Lohia was granted quarry lease No.192 for quarrying of decorative stones in village Gandhargola, Tehsil Titilagarh, District Bolangir, Orissa. The said lease was for a period of 10 years from11.02.1993 to 10.2.2003. The said Jitendra Kumar Lohia and members of his family formed and incorporated themselves into a company under the Companies Act, 1956, in the name and style of Medley Minerals India Private Limited the appellant before us. Jitendra Kumar Lohia is one of the Directors of the said company. On 15 th October 1998 Jitendra Kumar Lohia applied to the competent authority under the Orissa Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'he Rules') for transfer of the lease under Rule 12 in favour of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2989; [1997]Supp2SCR172
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated June 7, 1996 at a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which judgment was passed in appeal against the judgment dated April 18, 1994 of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition of the first respondents. This was however the second round of litigation between the parties.3. The first respondent who was the petitioner sought quashing of the earlier order dated December 21, 1981 passed by the Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (for short the Act) requisitioning 0.63 acres of land of the petitioner bearing plot No. 1790, Mouza Manoharpur, J. L. No. 93 in the district of Hooghly. In terms of this order the possession of the land was taken over on January 7, 1982. As a matter of fact the order of requisition pertained to 21.41 acres of land of various plot numbers which include...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC602; 1988(36)BLJR116; JT1987(4)SC620; 1987(2)SCALE1277; (1988)1SCC363; 1988(1)LC6(SC)
1. This is an appeal from the Order of the High Court of Patna striking out the defence of the tenant for failure to deposit rent in accordance with the Bihar Building (LR. and E.) Control Ordinance 1982. The Trial Court found that there was such default. The High Court in revision also found that the rent for the month of July, which was to be deposited by the 15th August, 1979, was deposited not earlier than 20th August, 1979, so, there was a default. Indeed, the High Court has further noted the conduct of the tenant who had made default even in complying with the two orders mentioned above. Therefore, the High Court was of the view that the Trial Court had rightly struck off the defence. The tenant made out a case that there was a bank strike and as such he could not deposit his rent in time, that is obviously not a correct plea. It was found that there was, in fact, no bank strike. The special leave petition proceeded on the basis that there was actual delay of 4 or 5 days in depos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)KLT327(SC); (2001)1MLJ189(SC); RLW2001(3)SC376; 2000(8)SCALE214; [2000]Supp5SCR510
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. Leave granted.2. A decree-holder after securing a decree went into slumber and remained as such for a pretty long period like a Rip Van Winkle. When he awoke he realised that his decree became rust corroded and lost its enforceability due to efflux of a number of years. In his search to find out at least a straw to cling on he came across an order of the High Court by which a Second Appeal preferred by his opposite party was dismissed as time barred. The Execution Court resuscitated the decree with the help of the said order, but the District Court in a revision held otherwise. This appeal by Special Leave is against the order of the District Court as the High Court shut its door for the decree-holder when he knocked at it. The High Court pointed out to him that the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC (for short 'the Code') had already been exercised by the District Court on which such powers were delegated in the State of Madhya Pradesh....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(67)ECC428; 2000LC5(SC); 2000(115)ELT3(SC); JT1999(9)SC635; 2000(1)KLT441(SC); 1999(7)SCALE486; (2000)1SCC462
ORDERN. Santosh Hegde, J1. The appellant in these appeals manufactures beer in its Solan and Ghaziabad Breweries for which it uses Lupofresh aromatic hop pellets which is normally imported from abroad. For their requirement of cc hop pellets they used to place orders with an agent by name M/s. Pyarelal Sarin (Agencies) Private Limited, New Delhi, who, in turn, used to arrange for supply of hop pellets required by the appellant. On 11.6.1991 the appellant was informed that 2000 kg. of hop pellets had been despatched to their brewery which was received by them on 20.7.1991. The hop pellets so received by the appellant were from M/s. Arusan Industries who, in turn, had received the same from M/s. Integrated Exports, Madras. In view of certain raid conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in the premises of the appellant with regard to the said hop pellets, they came to know that there was certain investigation being conducted by the Customs Department with reference to the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1971Bom174; (1970)72BOMLR698
Desai, J. 1. This is an appeal on behalf of the original respondents from the Judgment and order of Mr. Justice Vimadalal dated September, 28, 1967, granting an order of injunction restraining the original respondents from assessing or reassessing the Colaba Land and Mills Company Limited hereinafter referred to as the Mills Company to income-tax for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1955-56. 2. It is sufficient to notice that in the Company petition No. 221 of 1958 the Official Liquidator was appointed Interim Liquidator of the Mills Company by an Order dated May 1, 1959. By an Order dated October 7, 1959, the Mills Company was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator was confirmed as Liquidator of the Mills Company with all powers under Section 457 of the Companies Act 1956. By six different Notices dated August 23, 1966, issued under Section 14 of, the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle I (8), Bombay, recorded in respect of the assessment years 1950-51 to 1955-56 that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]247ITR351(SC); JT2001(1)SC144; 2000(8)SCALE210; [2000]Supp5SCR518
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. These are appeals that relate to the same assessee, Prince Muffkham Jah; they are in respect of the Assessment Years 1969-70 to 1975-76 and 1977-78. They raise the same question. That question was referred on the application of the Revenue by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act. The question reads thus:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) order who directed the Wealth Tax Officer to exclude the amount for the assessment year 1977-78 relating to the life interest of the assessee added by the Wealth Tax Officer in accordance with Rule 1B of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957.2. The principal judgment of the High Court was delivered in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-Tax v. Prince Muffkham Jah Bahadur 1861 TR.421, which is challenged in Civil Appeal Nos. 2388 to 2394 of 1994, and it was fo...
Tag this Judgment!