Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(1)BomCR475
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this appeal, preferred under section 378(1) Cr.P.C. the State of Maharashtra (appellant) seeks to impugn the judgment and order dated 13-8-1982, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1981, acquitting the respondent for offences under section 302 I.P.C. and 323 I.P.C.; the latter on two separate counts, one for causing injuries to Parvati Govindraj, P.W. 4 and the other for inflicting injuries on Kanamma Aarumugam, P.W. 7.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :---The informant Parvati Govindraj P.W. 4, is the wife of the deceased Govindraj. Kanamma Aarumugam P.W. 7, is the mother of Parvati. Tangamani Katmuttu P.W. 6 being the real brother of the deceased Govindraj, is the brother-in-law of Parvati. Parvati, Kanamma and Tangamani along with the deceased Govindraj lived in a hut in front of B.M.C. (Bombay Municipal Corporation) Building No. 20, Opposite Post Office, Sion Koliwada, Bombay. The resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(2)BomCR314
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. This appeal and the cross appeal are filed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd June 1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Land Acquisition Reference No. 184 of 1986. In the said judgment and decree dated 23rd June 1993 given by the learned District Judge, the learned District Judge has disposed of in all 79 Land Acquisition References. Since in all these matters there is a common question of fact and common question of law arise for consideration, we are disposing of these matters by the judgment as in First Appeal No. 455 of 1994 with First Appeal No. 741 of 1994. Ratio of the judgment given by us will be applicable to all other First Appeals and/or Cross Objections.2. Few facts which are material for the purpose of disposing of these first appeals are as under.3. Appellant No. 2 State of Maharashtra issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for the sake of brevity) f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1997CriLJ1113
ORDERVirendra Saran, J.1. Smt. Minta Devi wife of Mithai Lal and her sons Vijay Kumar, Sanjai Kumar and Ajai Kumar have preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 23-3-1996 of Shri Brahm Singh, Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra, allowing Criminal Revision No. 40 of 1995 against the judgment and order dated 11-9-1995 of Shri Yogesh Sri vastava, S.D.M. Robertsganj in Criminal Case No. 8 of 1995 under Section 145, Cr. P.C. The learned S.D.M. had held that the applicants, first party in the proceedings were in possession of the disputed property and he directed the sole respondent Anant Ram alias Antu the second party in the proceedings, not to interfere with the possession of the first party. By means of the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision and has released the property in favour of Anant Ram responded holding that he was in possession of the disputed property on the date of the preliminary order.2. The disputed property consisrs of Abadi plot N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In this writ petition, the main question arises as to whether the non-teaching employees of Universities of State of Bihar, including Patna University, are entitled for time-bound promotion or not as stipulated with respect to similarly situated Government of Bihar's employees.2. The writ petition was originally filed by the two petitioners for arrears of salary, in the revised scale of pay in view of second time bound promotion already granted in their favour. Further prayer was made for revised post retirement benefits on the basis of such order of second time bound promotion.3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-State came out with one notification dated September 15, 1995, by which it was decided not to allow time bound promotion policy with respect to non-teaching employees of Universities. The petitioners have challenged the said Order No. 1494 issued vide notification dated September 15, 1995, by one amendment petition.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(2)BomCR51; (1996)98BOMLR824; 1997CriLJ617; 1997(1)MhLj412
..... in criminal writ petition no. 301 of 1996.2. as far as the petitioner in criminal writ petition no. 302 of 1996 is concerned, he filed a complaint at the mahatma phule chowk police station, kalyan alleging commission of an offence against employees of the kalyan municipal corporation under sections 380, 425 and 488 of the indian penal code. by an .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1997Raj78
Verma, J.1. Both the writ petitions involve similar facts and law, challenging the vires of various Sections of the Copy Right Act, therefore, are being decided together.2. The facts are similar, therefore, the facts are being taken from D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 660/89 (Girish Chandani v. Union of India). The petitioner is carrying the business of keeping library of Video Cassettes, T.Vs. and V. C. Rs. for letting them on hire to the customers for viewing them at their homes. The petitioner submits that even though he is keeping Video Cassettes which are duly certified, films of which the copy rights are sold by the producers to the copy right holders and were prepared after obtaining necessary licence and consent from the owner of the copy right and he purchases video cassettes from the market which are again supplied by either the producer or the copy right holder or the persons having necessary licence and consent from the owner of the copy right holders etc., he still apprehen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1997All232
..... . the rules relating to the proceeding for adopting unfair means in the examination are contained in section 29(1)(d) of the u. p. state universities act as applicable to mahatma gandhi vidyapeeth, varanasi therein after referred to as the university) provides that there should be a examination committee which shall have amongst other power to constitute a sub-committee for inquiring .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
..... that falls for consideration is whether prior notice and opportunity of hearing is implied in the said provision.10. a similar question arose before the apex court in smt. maneka gandhi v. union of india and anr. reported in : [1978]2scr621 wherein their lordships held as under:para-57: the question immediately arises does the procedure prescribed by the passports act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)68; AIR1997SC53; JT1996(9)SC401; 1996(7)SCALE671; (1997)1SCC496; [1996]Supp7SCR513
ORDER1. In this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of the India the appellant State of Uttar Pradesh has brought in challenge the judgment and order 23rd July 1980 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-State against the order of the Additional District Judge, Agra in proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question posed for our consideration is a short one, namely, whether a tenure-holder who has entered into agreement to sell some of his lands prior to the appointed day and has parted with possession thereof is liable to include in his holding the said lands when actual sale of these lands has not taken place. The High Court has answered this question against the appellant-State.2. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant-State that the said decision of the High Court is erroneous in law. We m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]247ITR808(SC); (2001)9SCC246
ORDER1. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of the Madras High Court (see : [1973]90ITR116(Mad) , declaring Sub-section (3) of section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as void on the ground that it is violative of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. The said judgment has been disagreed to by almost all the High Courts in the country including the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kashiram v. ITO : [1977]107ITR825(AP) , the Karnataka High Court in K. Sampangirama Raju v. Fifth ITO : [1988]173ITR609(KAR) , the Bombay High Court in CIT v. J. Pitambardas and Co. : [1995]216ITR172(Bom) and the Kerala High Court in Mary Isac v. IAC : [1987]163ITR341(Ker) . We agree with the reasoning given by the Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Bombay and the Kerala High Courts and disagree with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at in the judgment under appeal. Since the provision has been repealed long ago, we do not think it necessary to say more on the subject except to s...
Tag this Judgment!