Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-29-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)ALT529
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.1. This writ petition has been instituted calling in question the orders passed by the 2nd respondent - A.P. Housing Board requiring the writ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 9,10,299/- for purposes of selling land admeasuring 49.33 Sq. yards situated at M.J. Road, at Hyderabad, in favour of the writ petitioner.2. The facts to the extent relevant are that the writ petitioner has occupied a vacant strip of land admeasuring 49.33 sq. yards belonging to the Housing Board. It was adjoining to Block No. 7, Pay and Accounts Office, situated at M.J. Road, Hyderabad. The writ petitioner has been in occupation of this strip of land for a very long time now. He has earlier, in the company of Sri T. Prabhu Singh instituted WP No. 21801 of 1994 in this court seeking a writ of mandamus not to dispossess them from the land in question. That writ petition came to be disposed of on 23.3.1995 with a direction to the A.P. Housing Board to issue notice to the petitioners fixing up t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Sep-30-2008
A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961'). 2. The respondent herein carries on the business of a Hospital. For the assessment year 1994-95, the respondent claimed a deduction under Section 80-HH and Section 80-I of the Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 14,85,387. The Assessing Officer, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range-I, Guwahati, in his assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961, dated 5.3.1997 held that since the assessee company was notan industrial undertaking, it was not eligible for deduction under Sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Act, 1961. Against the said order of assessment, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Guwahati. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the issue as to whether the respondent was entitled to deduction under Sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Act, 1961, had been decided ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-30-2008
Reported in : 2008(II)OLR891
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the jurisdiction of the State Government in appointing a Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 to enquire into the affairs of the Orissa Legislative Assembly and to quash the order dated 10.1.2007 passed by the Commission of Enquiry by which it has ordered that the point of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner shall be decided in its final, report.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, namely, Sri Sarat Kumar Kar, who was a legislator for few terms, was elected as the Speaker of the 12th Assembly. During his tenure, some appointments in the Assembly Secretariat and purchase of computers were made. There were statutory rules for appointment of staff. As Speaker of the 12th Assembly, the petitioner appointed a Selection Committee as per rules which made the appointments.2. The Hon'ble Speaker of the 13th Assembly being aware of the adverse media publicity and to get t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-30-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Ker76; [2009]149CompCas409(Ker)
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner availed different financial assistance from different creditors, including respondents 1, 6 and 7. In 2005, the BIFR issued an order under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 hereinafter, the SICA, for short in pursuance to a reference made to it under Section 15 of SICA. In spite of those guidelines issued as per Ext. P2, nothing worked out and going by Ext. R3(g), the Indian Bank addressed BIFR, requesting to take suitable misfeasance proceedings against the company under the provisions of the SICA. It brought to the notice of BIFR that the movable assets of the company have already been stolen; the premises of the factory are under the control of anti-social elements; due to militant labour present in front of the factory, it is very difficult to enter into the factory and no workers have got their settlements ever since the factory closed; no security is available in the factory even to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-08-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)MhLj97
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Introduction1. Marcus Tullius Cicero, a great orator and Roman Attorney said, 'The solidity of a State is very largely bound up with its judicial decisions'. The stability of State governance is relatable to the status of public law and order in the State. Protection to person and property of State subjects is the primary obligation of the State and this is the great significance of administration of criminal justice delivery system. Criminal jurisprudence governing the law of crime primarily has two concepts like any other legal jurisprudence:(i) Substantive criminal law; and(ii) Procedural criminal law.Provisions of substantive criminal law which are primarily penal in nature are subjected to rule of strict interpretation, while those relating to procedural law are guided by rules of plain and liberal interpretation. The Court, in the present cases, is concerned with the application of rules of interpretation to the procedural law particularly relating to the fie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-13-2008
Reported in : 2008(13)SCALE367; 2008AIRSCW7256; AIR2009SC282; 2009(2)KCCRSN54
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and upholding his conviction for offences punishable under Sections 302, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for three years and one year respectively with fine and default stipulations.3. Appellant faced trial along with one Sukku alias Sikku, who was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the other offences, as in the case of present appellant.4. Both the accused persons had preferred appeals before the High Court questioning correctness of the judgment recorded by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 1997.5. In brief the prosecution is that Ganesh Prasad, who is the author of the FIR heard hue and cry of Shakunbai at about 8-9 PM as a resu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-14-2008
Reported in : 2008BusLR908; 2009(1)CTC227; (2008)8MLJ261
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. $ 700 Billion bail out plan', 'Wall Street vanished', 'Lehman Brothers went belly up', 'Bear Stearns consumed', 'U.S. National Debt Clock runs out of digits' and 'AIG gone up in smoke' are some of the captions which have hit the headlines in recent times. All of those news items have a common denominator, called 'derivatives' and this case is all about derivatives.2. Since this appears to be the first case of its kind in India (subject to correction) where derivatives contracts are challenged as illegal and void and also since the jargon is not too familiar even to P.Ramanatha Iyer (of Law Lexicon) and Black (of Law Dictionary), a brief prelude has become necessary before we plunge into details. PRELUDE ABOUT DERIVATIVES3. 'Derivatives are time bombs and financial weapons of mass destruction' said Warren Buffett, one of the world's greatest investors, who overtook Microsoft Maestro in 2008 to become the richest man in the world and who is known as the 'Sage of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-14-2008
Reported in : (2008)8MLJ589
ORDERK. Kannan, J.1. Heard Mr. K. Rajkumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents.I. The Lis:2. The petitioners, in both the writ petitions have challenged the order of removal from their respective services as teachers whose qualifications in teacher training course from Karnataka Education Board were found to be not genuine.II. Summary of Facts:Entry into service on certificate issued by Karnataka Board:3. The facts required to be stated in certain detail to stay in focus to the relevant issues at hand are:. The petitioner in W.P. No. 11769/2004 claimed to have passed their SSLC examinations and joined the Private Teachers Training Institute called Sri Lakshmi Vidyalaya Teachers Training Institute, between the year 1979-1981. The petitioner in W.P. No. 11769 of 2004 states that he wrote the annual examination during March 1982 and certificate was issued on 24.12.1982 by the Secretary, Karnataka Secondary Educat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-15-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)ALT664
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In this batch of six writ petitions, claims of one form, or the other, are made in respect of different extents of land, owned by a religious endowment, by name, Seethanna Chalivendram (for short 'the Institution'). Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the writ petitions are as under:One Sri Mallavarapu Seethanna was running a Chalivendram, near Venkatachalam village of Nellore District, to cater to the needs of the travelling public. An extent of Ac.399.70 cents of Kanupuru Bit-1 was endowed to the Chalivendram. While the petitioners in W.P. No. 20720 of 2007 state that the land was endowed by the erstwhile Nawabs of Arcot, according to the petitioners in W.P. No. 19562 of 2007, the endowment was made by Karnataka Nawabs. The land in various bits is said to be under the enjoyment of the petitioners, and their ancestors. The revenue was being collected by Seethan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-16-2008
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR625; 2009(2)BomCR268; 2009(1)MhLj883
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, a statutory body established under the provisions of Maharashtra Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Act No. 23 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') has filed the present Appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29th November 2005 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Corporation praying for setting aside of the Award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as the 'SLAO') in case of Proposal No. 30 of 1982 dated 20th September 2003 passed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the Writ Petition, the Corporation had also prayed in the alternative that if the application of the Claimant, Respondent No.2, is found to be within limitation, then the matter be remanded back to the Collector for disposal on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the ...
Tag this Judgment!