Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN955
c.m. lodha, j. 1. this appeal involves interpretation of certain ordinances of the university of rajasthan and arises out of the following facts. the respondent-plaintiff pankaj rani passed her first year t.d.c. examination in science (biology) from the university of jodhpur in the year 1970-71, with two compulsory subjects general english and genetal hindi. thereafter she sought admission to second year t.d.c in maharani's college, jaipur affiliated to the university of rajasthan, jaipur and appeared at the second year t.d.c. examination of that university in 1972. however, she did not pass & was required to appear at a supplementary examination in zoology, accordingly she appeared at the supplementary examination in that subject but her result was withheld, as, according to ordinance 218 of the rajasthan university it was necessary for her to pass in one more compulsory subject prescribed for first year t.d.c. examination. as already stated above, pankaj rani had only two compulsory subjects when she passed the first year t.d.c. examination of the university of jodhpur. even though her result of the second year t.d.c examination was not declared, yet she was admitted to the triad year t.d.c. class of the maharam's college. when the fact of her admisson to third year t.d.c class came to the knowledge of the university authorities, a letter dated 27-10-1972 marked ex. 1 was addressed to pankaj rani informing her that since she had failed to clear one additional compulsory .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1977]106ITR203(Bom)
desai, j.1. this is a reference made to us by the income-tax appellate tribunal, bombay bench 'b', bombay, under section 64(1) of the estate duty act. by applications made by 9 accountable persons the tribunal was required to refer to the high court certain questions of law which arose out of the tribunal's consolidated order in estate duty appeals nos. 117 to 125 of 1962-63. since in the opinion of the tribunal certain questions of law did arise from the said order, reference was made to the high court by the tribunal and 7 questions have been referred to us for our consideration. in our opinion, these question do not properly bring out the nature of the controversy between the controller of estate duty and the accountable persons and hence we have reframed the said questions. however, before setting down the questions as originally referred to us and us reframed by us, a few facts may be stated. 2. the reference relates to property which purportedly passed on the death of ardeshir dadabhai baria (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), who died on 13th august, 1958. he left surviving behind him his widow, mrs. monie baria, and two daughter, mrs. piloo antia and mrs. khorshed billimoria. mrs. piloo antia at the time of death of her father, had two children, and son, minoo, and one daughter, laila. on 23rd october, 1930, the deceased handed over to certain trustees the sum of rs. 3,60,000 for the benefit of his wife, monie, and an indenture of trust in respect of the said .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR287
..... such cases are conceivable, but all legislation has to be construed in a reasonable manner and considered as dealing with a normal man and a normal situation. ..... it was practically a one-man company as all the shares were either owned by the gwalior durbar or its nominees. ..... it is practically a one man company as all the shares are either owned by the gwalior durbar or its nominees. ..... it is practically a one man company as all the shares are either owned by the gwalior durbar or its nominee. ..... the word 'individual' conveys a single person, usually, a man or woman. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1951Bom385; (1951)53BOMLR319; ILR1951Bom670
bhagwati, j. 1. this is a second appeal from the decision of the learned asst. judge, jalgaon, allowing the appeal against the decision of the learned joint civil judge, junior division, at jalgaon. 2. the pltf. is the owner of a house bearing city survey no. 1991 which consisted of business premises. a lease for a period of about five years expiring on 4-11-1945, was granted by the pltf. to the deft. the deft. however, continued in possession of the suit premises even after the expiration of the period of the lease. a two-thirds portion of the suit premises had been requisitioned by the govt. & a one-third portion was in the possession of the deft. on 18-6-1946, the pltf. filed a suit for possession of the suit premises consisting of one-third of the house in the actual possession of the deft. basing his claim for possession on the ground that he required the suit premises for his own use & occupation. this claim of the pltf. was resisted by the deft. who contended that the pltf. did not require the premises for his own use & occupation. the trial ct. held that the bombay act lvii [57] of 1947 which came into operation from 13-2-1948 applied but that the suit premises were not required by the pltf. reasonably & bona fide for his own use & occupation & therefore dismissed the pltf's. suit on 19-4-1948. the pltf. filed an appeal from this decision of the learned trial judge. the lower appellate ct. came to the conclusion that the bombay act vii [7] of 1944 was applicable, that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1928Bom97; (1928)30BOMLR186; 108Ind.Cas.482
..... had also spoken to him even before this meeting at this shop, and that was even four or five months prior to this, that is about the time of the transaction so that according to this man's evidence, it seems that whenever he happened to meet jagannath, jagannath would tell him that he wanted to give a lac of rupees to the school. ..... i need not go into the other details of his evidence which show that the man is really mixing up his impression as to what jagannath intended with his own conviction as to ..... need not use the words, 'i declare myself a trustee,' but he must do something which is equivalent to it, and use expressions which have that meaning; for, however anxious the court may be to carry out a man's intention, it is not at liberty to construe words otherwise than according to their proper meaning.8. ..... with another rival institution called the marwari vidyalaya, and i find it difficult to believe that jagannath would go out of his way to speak to this man about this sum when this man, admittedly, had nothing to do with the marwari bepari school. ..... but, if one goes deeper into the evidence of this man, be seems to come within the description of witnesses whose testimony ..... he happened to talk about it to other persons like madanlal, and if therefore narandas' testimony falls short of the requisite definiteness required in order to constitute an oral trust, then it is not possible 1'or me to accept the evidence of a man like madanlal who, i have no doubt, is an interested witness. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1951Kant5; AIR1951Mys5
mallappa, j.1. this is an appeal against the judgment in r. a. 62 of 47-48 on the file of the additional subordinate judge, mysore, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree in c. s. 601 of 45-46 on the file of the munsiff, nanjangud. the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money due on a hypothecation bond executed in his favour by the defendant appellant on 30th july 1933. one of the pleas raised by the defendant is that the rate of interest is excessive and usurious under the usurious loans act and under the money-lenders act. it may be stated here at this stage that the rate of interest fixed in the hypothecation deed is at 12 per cent. the rate of default of regular payment being 15 per cent.2. sections 14 to 16, money-lenders act are as follows:'14. notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall, in any suit brought in respect of loan advanced after the commencement of this act pass a decree for interest at rates exceeding 9 per centum, per annum, in the cage of a secured loan and 12 per centum per annum in the case of an unsecured loan. 15. no money-leader shall recover by suit interest of any kind at a rate exceeding 6 per centum per annum with yearly rests in respect of any loan made after the commencement of this act under a contract which provides for the payment of compound interest. 16. where the interest charged is in excess of the rates prescribed as maximum in sections 14 and 15, the court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR1317; 1999(2)KarLJ259; (1999)ILLJ1239Kant
order1. all these petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution of india challenging the constitutionality of the proviso to section 1(4) of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') on the ground that it offends the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(g) of the constitution of india. the constitutional objection adverted is common to all the writ petitions. all the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 1st of july, 1992 issued by the 2nd respondent-state of karnataka vide annexure-a making the provisions of the act applicable to every establishment and every contractor, who employs less than 20 workmen on the ground that there is a transgression by the state of the limits laid down and it is the case whether the power exercised is excessive and unreasonable.2. to appreciate the grounds on which the contentions are sought to be sustained, it is necessary to set out briefly a few facts and i feel that it is sufficient to refer to the facts of the case in writ petition nos. 2402 to 2419 of 1993, which is typical of other connected cases. petitioner no. 18 is an association of various security and allied services operating in the state of karnataka of which petitioners at sl.nos. 1 to 17 are members, who are engaged in the activity of taking on contract work of security and other allied services. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2005Kant50; ILR2005KAR1278; 2005(1)KarLJ118
..... they should further ensure adequate hospital facilities, man power in the field of practice of medicine and whether arrangement has been made for programme drawn to impart proper training to students. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2009Kant86; ILR2009KAR378; 2009(2)KLJ444; 2009(2)AIRKarR453; AIR2009Kar86; 2009Cri.LJNOC612
ordera.n. venugopala gowda, j.1. this contempt petition has been filed under section 12 of the contempt of courts act, 1971 (for short, the act'), to take action for disobeying the award/order dated 02.05.08 passed by the joint registrar of cooperative societies/departmental arbitrator, in dispute nojrd/ubf/10064/2005-06 and to punish the accused.2. briefly stated, the facts which have led to the filing of this contempt petition are as follows:the complainant was admitted as an associate member of the bhavasara kshatriya co-operative society ltd. bangalore - 53 (society', for short) in the year 1991. he represented to the society on 15.10.03 for regular membership, on which no action was taken. consequently he filed a dispute under section 70 of the karnataka cooperative societies act, 1959 (for short, 'societies act') with a prayer to direct the society to admit him as a regular member. the said dispute which was referred for adjudication, was contested by the society and the learned departmental arbitrator has passed an award on 2.5.2008 allowing the dispute in part and directing the society to admit the complainant as a regular member from the date of the award. alleging that, the said award has not been complied with and that there is wilful disobedience by the accused, who is an in-charge secretary of the society, this contempt petition has been filed.3. we have heard sri. n. ramachandra, learned advocate for the complainant, who contended that, the arbitrator stands on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)MPHT426
ordershantanu kemkar, j. 1. by filing this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8-10-05 (annexure p-1) issued by the respondents forfeiting the amount of earnest money deposited by it.2. pursuant to the notice inviting tender (for short 'nit') dated 22-3-05 (annexure p-3) the petitioner submitted his tender for the work of: (a) transportation of coal from jamuna 1 and 2 incline and jamuna 5 and 6 incline to jamuna ocm railway siding via colliery approach road and kushiyara phatak with minimum 20 tes. per day lead 4.58 k.m. (b) transportation of coal from jamuna 1 and 2 incline and jamuna 5 and 6 incline to govinda chp/ railway siding via cement road and pitch road with minimum 400 tes. per day lead 8.3 k.m. along with the tender for the petitioner also submitted demand draft no. 090778, dated 14-6-05 in terms of clause 6 of nit.3. in response to the aforesaid nit apart from the petitioner's tender one more tender of one mahaveer singh of delhi was received. on evaluation of the part i of the tender the respondents found that both the tenderers have not submitted certain documents. accordingly, the tender committee informed both the tenderers to submit the required documents but both the tenderers did not submit the required documents. in the circumstances, instead of rejecting the tenders of both the tenderers, the tender committee opened the price bids of both the tenderers and found the tender of mahaveer .....
Tag this Judgment!