Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-22-2002
Reported in : 2003(2)KarLJ91
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner calls in question the validity and correctness of the order dated 11-6-1999 passed in H.R.C. No. 513 of 1998 on the file of the X Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore dismissing the eviction petition filed under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the 'old Act' for short).2. The petitioner filed the petition for eviction under Section 21(1)(h) of the old Act alleging that she requires the petition premises for purpose of running a cycle shop by her son Srinivas. The Court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner's need was not real on finding that the petitioner let out the premises adjoining the petition premises in the year 1997 after it fell vacant. The reasoning adopted by the Court below is that if really the petitioner needed the premises to run the cycle shop business, she would have certainly occupied the vacant premises instead of letting it out again. In that view of the matter, the Court below d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-22-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD635; 2003(1)ALT754
Bilal Nazki, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dt. 4.5.1998 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dismissing his O.A. being O.A. No. 2030 of 1997. He has also challenged the order in ROC No. 394/96-Admn., dt. 20.12.1996 promoting 2nd respondent as Assistant Registrar as illegal and arbitrary.2. The following facts are not in dispute. That the petitioner was senior to 2nd respondent in the category-V of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Gazetted service i.e., Court Master/Personal Assistant. His probation was declared with effect from 9.11.1983, whereas the 2nd respondent's probation was declared with effect from 14.1.1984. A seniority list of category-V officers was issued on 11.2.1992. In the said seniority list the petitioner stood at Sl.No.3 and the 2nd respondent stood at Sl.No.4. When there was a vacancy of Assistant Registrar's post, they had to be considered and after consideration, the 2nd respondent was promoted and the petitioner was rejected.3. The mai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-22-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)AWC458
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The question is whether one set of court fee is payable when there is common cause for each of the petitioners and the question of law and facts involved in the writ petition are the same.2. The facts raising controversy are that the four petitioners in this petition were under the employment of U. P. Electricity Board. Their services were terminated. The orders of termination of services were quashed in Writ Petition No. 16885 of 1992. The petitioners were reemployed. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is that whereas in Azamgarh Division of the U. P. Power Corporation, the muster roll employees are being paid the same wages which are being paid to the regular employees but they are not being paid the same wages. They have sought mandamus commanding the respondents to place the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 4,200-6,400 which is the pay scale for those who are employed as regular employees of the respondents.3. The Full Bench of this Court i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-22-2002
Reported in : 2003(3)KLT968
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. Impugned in this revision initiated by the plaintiff is an order passed by the trial court in a suit in the nature of a public interest litigation. A resume of the facts is given below.2. The plaintiff one P. Sivadasan claims to be a 34 year old businessman and son of one Sankaran of Pillakkal House, Kakkad Desom, Kannur. The suit is instituted arraying the Secretary of the local authority (1st respondent herein) and one K.V. Muhammedkunhi Haji (2nd respondent herein) as the defendants. The cause of action alleged is the construction of two buildings in gross, violation of the Building Rules by the 2nd defendant., Reliefs sought for in the suit inter alia are perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd defendant not only from conversion of the parking area provided in one of the buildings into shops, but also from letting out the building to tenants.3. The first defendant-Municipality is yet to file a written statement in the suit. The 2nd defendant who will ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-25-2002
Reported in : 2003(51)BLJR580; JT2002(9)SC486; (2002)8SCC481a; (2002)3UPLBEC2961
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. On October 31, 2002, while recording my answers to the eleven questions referred to the Bench of eleven learned Judges of this Court, I noted in a separate judgment, concurring with the majority except in regard to answers to question Nos. 5(b), 8, 10 and 11, that I would give my reasons later for agreeing on those aspects with the opinion of our learned sister Ruma Pal, J. and dissenting with the majority opinion as well as the opinion of learned brother Variava, J., with whom leaned brother Bhan, J. agreed. Here follow the reasons.2. The difference of opinion mainly relates to the true interpretation of Clause (2) of Article 29 and Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 30 of the Constitution and their interaction.3. Article 30 is a much discussed provision in Courts. It has been the subject matter of consideration by various High Courts as well as by this Court. I have already quoted Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 30 and Clause (1) of Article 29 in the said j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-28-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)AWC455
..... are not necessarily women of bad character but have been driven to the profession due to acute poverty in their family. it was reported in the press that 1,200 nepali girls are sold every year by their parents and brought to brothels in calcutta and elsewhere because the parents cannot feed those girls. similar is the plight in various parts .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Vizag
Decided on : Nov-29-2002
Reported in : (2004)84TTJVisakha39
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), Vijayawada dated 21-3-97 for the Assessment Year 1995-96. Grounds 1 and 5 of the appeal are of general nature requiring no adjudication. In grounds 2, 3 and 4 quoted below the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) directing to treat the expenditure of Rs. 2,07,16,498/- as on "current repairs" and allow the deduction under Section 31 of the I.T. Act. "2. The learned CIT(A) is not correct in holding that the replacements made by the assessee in the year of account are current repairs and the expenditure thereon is allowable under Section 31 of the IT Act for the reason that the expression "Current repairs" means expenditure on buildings, machinery plant or furniture which is not for the purpose of renewal or restoration, but which is only for the purpose of preserving or maintaining an already existing asset and which does not bring a new asset into existence or does not give to the assessee a new or differ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-29-2002
Reported in : 2003CriLJ2287
M.C. Jain, J.1. As many as 24 persons were tried in Sessions Trial No. 627 of 1983. State v. Harish Chandra and 23 others in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. All of them came to be convicted and sentenced variously (as would appear from the discussion that follows) by judgment and order dated 18th July, 1984 passed by Sri Phool Singh, the then Presiding Officer, of the said Court.2. 23 of them (Harish Chandra and 22 others) filed Criminal Appeal No. 1959 of 1984, whereas the 24th accused Shyamu son of Harish Chandra filed connected appeal No. 2036 of 1984.3. There was another accused Ram Pal named in the F.I.R. but the chargesheet was not submitted against him.4. Appellant Narena of Criminal Appeal No. 1959 of 1984 died during the pendency of the appeal. As such, the appeal abates so far as he is concerned. Therefore, presently, there are 22 appellants in criminal appeal No. 1959 of 1984 and appellant Shyamu in connected criminal appeal No. 2036 of 1984. The app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-02-2002
Reported in : 2003(162)ELT25(Bom); 2003(2)MhLj84
V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ('CEGAT' for short) dated 20-4-1989, upholding the order of the Collector of Customs, except modification of reducing the redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh in respect of the order dated 13-6-1988.THE FACTS 2. The facts leading to filing of the petition in nutshell are as under, The petitioners are the exporters of 'Colour Picture Tubes' ('CPT' for short) to USSR. They were awarded contract for supply of CPT to USSR sometime in the month of December 1987. On 23rd February 1988, they entered into a contract with one M/s Samsung Co. Ltd. of Korea ('M/s Samsung' for short) for import of CPT to fulfil their obligation under the said contract. Accordingly, on 29-2-1988, the petitioners opened irrevocable Letter of Credit in favour of M/s Samsung for import of CPT.3. Upon publication of the new Import policy on 30th March 1988, petitioner No. 1 came to kn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-02-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)SLJ76(Delhi)
Khan, J.1. Petitioner, a Lt. Commander in the Navy, is clamouring for promotion to the rank of Commander. He was considered by Selection Board-III on 6.5.1999 but was not selected. He filed an ROG against this and during its pendency, he was asked to forward duly filled-up ACR forms for May 1996 to October 1996 which he was told were not available. He was then asked to forward duly filled up ACR forms for the entire period from November 1995 to May 1996 in March 2000 to one Captain Virender Singh. He claims that even though he had completed all these formalities but his ROG was rejected by order dated 31.5.2000. He then approached the next higher authority in second ROG on the ground that Promotion Board had rejected him in absence of relevant ACRs but even this was turned down.2. Petitioner says he later made representations dated 13.9.2000, 11.6.2001 and 16.7.2001 to Government of India and the defense Ministry which were disposed of by orders dated 18.6.2001 and 29.8.2001 directing ...
Tag this Judgment!