Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1965Mad142
(1) In the second appeal the question is whether it is necessary, for valid exercise of the power of sale under S. 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, that the first mortgagee, who invokes the power, should give notice of it to the second mortgagee and in the other appeal, C. M. A. No. 80 of 1962, the question is one of limitation. The property in question originally belonged to one Devalla Ramaiah. On his death, his estate vested in the Administrator General for administering the same on behalf of Ramiah's minor sons. On 18-2-1939, the Administrator General sold the property to the father of the respondent in the second appeal. But the purchaser on the same date executed the mortgage to secure a part of the price not paid at the time. The respondent' father was adjudged as insolvent in I. P. No. 46 of 1942 on the file of this court and in the insolvency, the Official Assignee, Madras sold the property to the insolvent's son, the respondent, on 23-5-1955. It appears that the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1996)135CTR(All)367; [1996]220ITR509(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and as agreed by the parties, the writ petition was finally heard and is disposed of by this order at the admission stage itself.2. The petitioner is a lessee of residential plot No, 133 in Block 'A', Sector 15A, at NOIDA, District Ghaziabad. The lessor is the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and the area of the plot is about 465 square meters. The petitioner entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid plot to one Devesh Behari Saxena for a consideration of Rs. 20,21,000, vide agreement to sell dated January 22,1993. In accordance with Section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), a statement in Form No. 37-I was filed by the petitioner and the prospective buyer. The appropriate authority, vide order dated March 24, 1993, made an order under Section 269UD of the Act for the purchase by the Central Government of the said plot of land. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001(5)KarLJ429
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. Petitioner-the Mysore Chest Care and Pain Therapy Centre (Private) Limited, has presented this petition seeking for a direction directingKarnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation (for short the 'Corporation') to forbear from proceeding with the sale of the assets of the petitioner in terms of the notification Annexure-M, dated 25-2-2000. 2. Facts of the case in brief are as under. 3. Petitioner 1 is a Company having its office at Mysore. Petitioner 2-Dr. Raj G. Pal is the Managing Director of the petitioner 1-Company. Petitioner 1 borrowed certain sums of money from the Corporation for purchase of medical laser equipment. Petitioner 2 has also borrowed certain sum in his individual capacity for purchase of certain other medical equipments. Equipments were purchased and put to use by the petitioners. Petitioner states that in spite of request to the Corporation, it did not grant any additional loan for purchase of additional equipments. F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Reported in : (2007)73SCL261SAT
1. This appeal filed under Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order dated May 26, 2006 passed by the whole time member of the of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as the Board) directing amongst others, the appellant not to act as a depository participant pending inquiry and passing of final orders except for acting on the instructions of existing beneficial owners. The appellant as a stock broker has also been directed not to undertake any proprietary trades in securities till the passing of the final order in the inquiry. Facts giving rise to this appeal may first be noticed.2. The issue regarding alleged manipulations in Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) of various companies had been engaging the attention of the Board for some time. It received some information regarding the alleged abuse and misuse of the IPO allotment process. As a part of its ongoing sur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR366; 2009(1)BomCR179
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Counsel for the respondents waive notice for the concerned respondents. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. During the course of hearing the Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that he would fully support the argument of the petitioners and would pray for transposing respondent No. 2 as petitioner.3. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgement and order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai dated 23rd July, 2008 below Exhibit-1 in Application No. 17 of 2007. The principal application being No. 17/06 has been filed by respondent No. 1 for initiating action under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the named trustees including the petitioners. The Joint Charity Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR414; 2009(111)BomLR502
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Common question involved in all these Writ Petitions is, .whether State Government can levy and demand any sum as amount of nonagricultural assessment from Petitioners WCL.... Petitioner- Company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its Head Office at Nagpur and it is Central Government Undertaking in public sector as also the Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of Companies Act. It is having coal mines in western part of the nation including State of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Prayers in all Writ Petitions filed by it are to declare that orders assessing non-agricultural tax and demand notices issued consequentially are illegal. There is also similar prayer in relation to Zilla Parishad cess and Gram Panchayats cess with direction to Respondents to refund the amount already recovered from it on that account.2. In W. P. 1161/2007 challenge is to assessment orders dated 3/3/2005 and 4/3/2005 and consequential demand notices da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No.116 of 2019 Forum for Peoples Collective Efforts (FPCE) & Anr. Petitioners Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr. Respondents 1 JUDGMENT Dr Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud A The challenge B Legislative history C RERA - the legislative process D Salient features RERA E Salient provisions of WB-HIRA F RERA and WB-HIRA provisions at variance G Submissions G.1 For the petitioners G.2 For the Union of India G.3 For the State of West Bengal H Analysis H.1 Entry 24, List II West Bengals housing industry defense H.2 The Constitutional Scheme of Article 254 and repugnancy H.3 Repugnancy RERA and WB-HIRA2H.3.1 Meaning of is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law H.3.2 Meaning of law for the time being in force H.3.3 Knitting it together H.4 Lack of Presidential Assent for WB-HIRA I Conclusion 3 PART A A The challenge 1 The constitutional validity of the West Bengal Housing Industry Regul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 13Ind.Cas.721
Fletcher, J.1. This is a suit to recover damages resulting from an alleged conspiracy.2. The present suit is one of five analogous suits brought against the present defendants arising out of a criminal case which was commonly known as the Midnapore Bomb conspiracy Case. The Emperor v. Santosh Chunder Dass 13 C.W.N. 861 : 9 C.L.J. 663 : 2 Ind. Cas. 681 : 10 Cr.L.J. 125.3. The plaintiff, Peary Mohan Das, is about 68 years of age. He appeared to me to be older. He was formerly in Government service as a Sub-Registrar of deeds--but in the year 1884 his services were dispensed with owing to his having returned to the person presenting the same a deed which was believed to be forged.4. Since the year 1881 the plaintiff has lived in Midnapore where ho appears to be held in respect; and esteem.5. The first defendant, Mr. Donald Weston, is a member of the Indian Civil Service and was formerly District Magistrate and Collector of Midnapore. The second defendant, Moulvi Mazaharul Huq, is a Deputy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1962]45ITR317(Raj)
SARJOO PROSAD C.J. - The petitioners before us pray for an appropriate writ or direction quashing the proceedings for recovery of arrears of tax and penalty pending before the Collector and the Tehsildar of Bhilwara and preventing the respondents from collecting the tax in question.The relevant facts on which the application is founded are these. The petitioners are members of a joint Hindu family firm carrying on business at Bhilwara. On 28th January, 1958, the Income-tax Officer concerned made an ex parte best judgment assessment against the petitioners under section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) for the assessment year 1956-57. The tax assessed was to the tune of Rs. 1,96,015.03 nP., in addition to a penalty of Rs. 9,800 imposed under section 46(1) of the Act. Notices of demand under section 29 of the Act were issued in respect of the above amounts. Since the petitioners firm was unable to pay the amount, the Income-tax Officer concerned forwarded to the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1461; (1973)4SCC225; [1973]SuppSCR1
1. I propose to divide my judgment into eight parts. Part I will deal with Introduction; Part II with interpretation of Golakhnath case; Part III with the interpretation of the original Article 368, as it existed prior to its amendment; Part IV with the validity of the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act; Part V with the validity of Section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VI with the validity of Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VII with Constitution (Twenty- ninth Amendment) Act; and Part VIII with conclusions.PART I-Introduction2. All the six writ petitions involve common questions as to the validity of the Twenty- fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth Amendments of the Constitution. I may give a few facts in Writ petition No. 135 of 1970 to show how the question arises in this petition. Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 was filed by the petitioner on March 21, 1970 under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of his ...
Tag this Judgment!