Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Nov-12-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the privilege of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Carswell. I agree with it and, as he has dealt fully with the facts and the law, I shall not detain your Lordships by covering the same ground. For the reasons he gives, I would dismiss the appeal. 2. It may however be of some assistance in future cases if I comment on the intervention by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. In recent years the House has frequently been assisted by the submissions of statutory bodies and non-governmental organisations on questions of general public importance. Leave is given to such bodies to intervene and make submissions, usually in writing but sometimes orally from the bar, in the expectation that their fund of knowledge or particular point of view will enable them to provide the House with a more rounded picture than it would otherwise obtain. The House is grateful to such bodies for their help. 3. An intervention is howe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-12-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC259
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only point involved in this writ petition is regarding interpretation of the word 'building' used in Section 2 (1) (g) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which is quoted below:2. Exemptions from operation of Act.-(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following, namely:(a) to (f) ... (not relevant).(g) any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees.3. The precise point involved and argued is as to whether the word 'building' used in the aforesaid clause means only the tenanted building or in case tenanted accommodation is part of a big building, then the word 'building' means the entire building of which tenanted accommodation is a part.4. Landlord-respondent No. 3, Ajay Kumar filed S.C.C. Suit No. 95 of 1998 against tenant petitioner for his eviction from the accommodation in dispute, which is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 400 per month. It was also stated that ten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-12-2008
Reported in : 2009(I)OLR407
Sanju Panda, J.1. Invoking inherent jurisdiction under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 18.9.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in O.S. No. 336 of 1997.2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 as plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.336 of 1997 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak for partition. After the suit was filed, the order of status quo was passed on 30.4.1998 at the initial stage of the suit. In the said application, the specific prayer made by the plaintiffs was that defendants 7, 16 to 18 and 26 be injuncted from cutting the trees standing on the suit land, digging the earth, constructing new house by preparing bricks and from putting fence over the suit land. The said order of status quo is still continuing.While the matter stood thus, defendants 16,17 and 18 purchased the aforesaid suit land by the virtue of the registered sale deed dated 3.9.1986. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-10-2008
Reported in : ILR2009KAR2159
1. These appeals are filed by the appellants-petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing WP. No. 23987/2005 along with connected writ petitions.2. The appellant-petitioners claim to be the owners of land bearing Sy. No. 76/1 of Nagawara Village. They are challenging the notifications bearing Nos. CI.88 SPQ 2005 dated 30.4.2005 issued under Section 3(1) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter called as KIAD Act) bearing No. CI/88 SPQ 2005 dated 30.4.2005 issued under Section 28(1) No. CI.88 SPQ 2005 dated 30.4.2005 issued under Section 28(4) No. CI 309 SPQ 2005 dated 24.9.2005 issued under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act' to declare the area comprised in Sy. No. 76/1 of Nagawara Village as an Industrial Area and also for acquiring the land in question for the purpose of Industrial Estate is illegal, as the same is in contravention of KIAD Act, Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, Karnataka Town and Country...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-07-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC581; (2009)1SCC482
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Appellant-Ratan Kumar Vishwas has filed an Appeal No. 6636 of 2006 questioning his conviction the offence punishable under Sections 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short `the Act'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and to pay a fine of rupees two lacs with default stipulation. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar has found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.3. Brief facts of the case as projected by prosecution are that a secret and reliable information on 5.3.2004 was received by the complainant an officer of the N.C.B., Varanasi that huge quantity of Charas was being brought from Nepal to Kanpur in Truck No. UHN 9137 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-07-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)KLJ89
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Can an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code ('the Code', for short) for anticipatory bail be permitted to be withdrawn?2. According to prosecution, petitioner's husband (A9) was the President of a Bank and he is an active politician also. In pursuance of criminal conspiracy hatched among him and various accused including petitioner (A21), an amount of Rs. 75 lakhs (which is more than the permissible limit of loan which could be sanctioned by the Bank) was advanced to petitioner's firm, on the strength of mortgage by deposit of title. Thereafter, the title deeds which were deposited in Bank were clandestinely taken out by the accused from the Bank, and properties covered by the deeds were sold. The President, Secretary, other office bearers of the Bank and loanees criminaly conspired to commit offences of misappropriation, forgery, falsification of accounts etc., and caused a huge loss to the bank by misappropriation of its funds. Vario...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Decided on : Nov-05-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Chh22
ORDERSatish K. Agnihotri, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the validity and legality of the notice dated 28-7-2008 (Annex-ure-P/4) under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act'). Further challenge is to the reply dated 10-10-2006 (Annexure-P/6) to the legal notice of the petitioners and intimation-cum-letter demanding possession of securities dated 23-10-2006 (Annexure-P/9).2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company, engaged in the business of milling, sorting & trading of rice and related products. Petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 are the Directors of the petitioner No. 1. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 was allegedly given financial assets in the shape of packing credit hypothecation limit, foreign bill purchase limit, term loan and foreign letter of cred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-04-2008
Reported in : ILR2009KAR446; 2009(3)KarLJ667:2008(5)KCCR3471:2009(1)AIRKarR475:AIR2009NOC1074.
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the final notification issued by the respondent No. l bearing No. HVD 49 MNJ 78 dated 14.5.1980 in respect of lands bearing Sy. No. 97/2 situated at Challakere Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East, Bangalore.2. The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the property in question having purchased the same under a deed of sale dated 8.3.1944. It is further contended that he had sold the said property in favour of one Kurian Thomas under a deed of sale dated 24.1.1980. It is further contended that Kurian Thomas has executed a General Power of Attorney as per Annexure 'F' dated 28.1.1995 in respect of the said property in favour of the petitioner and that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property from the date of the said Power of Attorney. It is further contended that since the respondents are trying to demolish the constructions made on the said lands, she has filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-04-2008
Reported in : [2009]147CompCas267(P& H)
Permod Kohli, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an order dated August 1, 2006 (Vijay Kumar Chopra v. Smt. Sudershan Chopra [2007] 140 Comp Cas 1), passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board at New Delhi. It is relevant to briefly notice the factual background of the case (facts are being noticed from Company Appeal No. 21).2. The parties to the present appeals are shareholders and directors on the board of the company, namely, 'Hind Samachar Ltd.', a closely held company incorporated in August, 1949, under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The company has its registered office at Hind Samachar Buildings, Civil Lines, Jalandhar and branches at other places. The company is engaged in printing and publishing of newspapers, journals, magazines, books, etc., in Urdu, English, Hindi and Punjabi. One of its famous publications is Urdu daily newspaper 'Hind Samachar'. The company was initially formed by late Lala Jagat Narain, a renowned journalist of his time who was father of app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-31-2008
Reported in : (2009)221CTR(P& H)163; [2009]178TAXMAN22(Punj& Har)
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), against the order dt. 16th March, 2007 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I', New Delhi in ITA No. 83/Del/2005 for the asst. yr. 2001-02, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in directing the AO to allow deduction under Section 80-IA whereas the question before Tribunal was related to deduction under Section 80-IB?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that process of assembling carried out by the assessee is to be understood as amounting to 'manufacture' or production of an article?2. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IB which was disallowed by the AO on the ground that assembling/job work done by the assessee did not amount to manufacturing activity, which was a cond...
Tag this Judgment!