Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(3)KLJ355
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The Thripunithura Municipality challenges Ext.P6 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions allowing an appeal filed by the 1st respondent-builder against the Municipality's order declining building permit for the construction of an additional floor over a four storied building already permitted to be construed under Ext.P2 dated 27.6.2007. Ext.P 1 is true copy of the certificate from the Fire Department issued in favour of the 1st respondent in respect of the four storied building permitted under Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is copy of the revised plan submitted by the 1st respondent to the Municipality proposing to add one more floor to the building under construction on the strength of Ext.P2. The Municipality points out that the building is proposed to be construed by the 1st respondent on a plot has got access from public road through a 5.5 meter wide road and that the building does not abut any public road. That being the position, the Municipal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 2154 of 2011 Rajendra Mahto ... ... Petitioner Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and others ...... Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 2541 of 2011 Kama Munda and others ...... Petitioners Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and others ...... Respondents ------ CORAM: HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ------ For the Petitioners: Mr. Shreeprakash Jha, Sr. Adv. (In W.P(PIL)No.2154/2011) Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Petitioners: M/s Chandra Deo Singh, Adv. (In W.P(C) No.2541/2011) Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Sahu, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. R.R. Mishra(G.P.II) (In both cases) Mr. Ramprakash Singh, J.C. to G.P.II Mr. Sameer Saurabh (for Intervenor) ------ Reportable Dated 17th September 2012. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. A writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No.2154 of 2011 has been filed by one Rajendra Mahto questioning the action of the respondents whereby the respondents have decided to const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 2154 of 2011 Rajendra Mahto ... ... Petitioner Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and others ...... Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 2541 of 2011 Kama Munda and others ...... Petitioners Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and others ...... Respondents ------ CORAM: HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ------ For the Petitioners: Mr. Shreeprakash Jha, Sr. Adv. (In W.P(PIL)No.2154/2011) Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Petitioners: M/s Chandra Deo Singh, Adv. (In W.P(C) No.2541/2011) Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Sahu, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. R.R. Mishra(G.P.II) (In both cases) Mr. Ramprakash Singh, J.C. to G.P.II Mr. Sameer Saurabh (for Intervenor) ------ Reportable Dated 17th September 2012. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. A writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No.2154 of 2011 has been filed by one Rajendra Mahto questioning the action of the respondents whereby the respondents have decided to const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(1)ALD588
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Writ petitioners filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not renewing their licenses pursuant to their application, dated 19.11.2005, for renewal of licenses as Surveyors/Supervisors pursuant to the directions of the 2nd respondent, dated 17.11.2004, in Memo No. 8514/M1/2003-6, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, and against Section 618(1) of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to forthwith renew their licenses as Surveyors/ Supervisors pursuant to their application dated 19.11.2005 and to pass such other order.2. Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, the learned Counsel representing thewrit petitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 618 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955, (hereina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1929Mad676
Ramesam, J.1. These appeals arise cut of suits filed by the Zamindar of Chintalapativantu, also called Mukthyala, against the Secy. of State for India praying for a decree establishing the plaintiff's right of resumption over the suit lands, for possession and for loss of profits. Defendant 1 is the Secy. of State. Defendant 2 is the karnam of the suit village in each of the cases. The question of fact and law arising in both suits are similar. They were tried together in the lower Court and also heard together here. For convenience, I shall refer to one of the suits throughout this judgment, namely O.S. No. 27 of 1920, the subject of Appeal No. 245 of 1922, relating to. the village of Peddavaram. The plaintiff's case is that the suit land was granted by the plaintiff's ancestors to the ancestors of defendants 2 to 4 subsequent to the Permanent Settlement as service inam on condition of rendering private service, namely, to work as gumasthas to write the private 'accounts and render ot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1961]12STC731(Kar)
Narayana Pai, J.1. All these appeals have been heard together for the reason that they involve certain common questions. They are also directed against three judgments of the learned District Judge of Bellary, all delivered on the 30th day of November, 1953, in three batches of cases tried or heard together by him. Two were batches of Original Suits transferred from the Courts of the Subordinate Judge and the District Munsiff, Bellary, and tried together by the learned District Judge. The third batch is of appeals arising out of the Original Suits tried by the District Munsiff's Court and the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bellary. The discussion contained in the three judgments of the learned District Judge of Bellary under appeal on the questions of law said to arise in all the matters heard by him is more or less on identical terms. 2. Regular Appeals Nos. 458 of 1954 and 107, 108, 109 and 110 of 1955 are respectively by the plaintiffs in Original Suits Nos. 32, 31, 35, 36, and 37 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Railroad Labor Board - 261 U.S. 72 (1923) U.S. Supreme Court Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Railroad Labor Board, 261 U.S. 72 (1923) Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. United States Railroad Labor Board No. 585 Argued January 11, 1923 Decided February 19, 1923 261 U.S. 72 APPEAL FROM AND CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Under Title III, 307, of the Transportation Act, 1920, the Railroad Labor Board has jurisdiction to hear and decide a dispute over rules and working conditions upon the application of either side when the parties have failed to agree upon a settlement under 301 and no adjustment board has been organized under 302. P. 261 U. S. 80 . 2. In authorizing such application by any "organization of employees . . . directly interested in the dispute," ( 307), the act includes labor unions. P. 261 U. S. 81 . 3. The Board has jurisdiction to decide who may represent employees in conferences under 301 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Jackson - 353 U.S. 325 (1957) U.S. Supreme Court Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 353 U.S. 325 (1957) Baltimore & Ohio Railway Co. v. Jackson No. 370 Argued March 28, April 1, 1957 Decided May 13, 1957 353 U.S. 325 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus In this suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, a section foreman of a railroad was awarded damages for injuries sustained while operating a gasoline-powered motor track car pulling a hand car hauling material, tools, and equipment. Each car had only four wheels. The cars were fastened together by a pin, not a coupler. The motor track car had only hand brakes, and the hand car had no brakes. There was evidence that the accident resulted from want of adequate brakes for the use to which the cars were being put. The sole issue before this Court was whether such vehicles, when used in the manner here involved, are within the coverag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1943All345
Collister, J.1. This is a suit against the United Provinces by a land-holder of the district of Allahabad, by name Sheikh Mohammad Zia. He challenges the validity of 12 specific sections of the U. P. Tenancy Act (17 of 1939) and he also challenges the validity of the U. P. Stayed Arrears of Rent (Remissions) Act--Act 18 of 1939. The plaint recites the history of the legislation for consolidating and amending the law relating to agricultural tenancies from 20th April 1988, the date of the introduction of the bill in the Legislative Assembly, to 1st January 1940, the date when the Act came into force. It is alleged that when leave was sought to introduce the bill, certain members of the Legislative Assembly objected that, as some of the provisions were of an expropriatory character against the land-holders, the previous sanction of the Governor for its introduction was necessary under Section 299(3), Government of India Act; and, thereafter, the matter was referred to the Governor, who a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1973)2MLJ389
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions a writ of mandamus is prayed for directing the Union of India (2nd respondent) to fix the price of stainless steel sheets at which the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited (1st respondent) can sell to the petitioners as per the release orders already issued by the 1st respondent. During the pendency of the writ petitions the lapsing of the sale notes issued in favour of the writ petitioners by the 1st respondent has been stayed. The common but general facts in all these writ petitions are as follows.2. The petitioners are manufacturers of hospital and surgical equipments and are small scale industrial units classified as actual users which is a common terminology used under the laws, rules and regulations governing import trade control and import licensing. The petitioners secured their last licence for the import of stainless steel sheets for the year 1969. For the financial year 1970-71, the import poli...
Tag this Judgment!