Court : Supreme Court of India
Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP(C) No.4619 of 2011. 2. This judgment will dispose of a group of appeals, details of which are given hereunder, as they raise only one question of law : Proceedings before the Bombay High Court :- 3. Writ Petition No.2139 of 2007 titled as Mahant Pal Singh vs. Union of India dismissed in limine by the Division Bench on 7th September, 2009. Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2013 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.4619 of 2011 titled as M.P.Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. has been filed challenging the aforesaid order of the Division Bench. Writ Petition No.2652 of 2007 titled as Jatya Pal Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. was dismissed in limine by the Division Bench on 8th September, 2009 in view of the order dated 7th September, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.2139 of 2007. The aforesaid order has been impugned by the appellants (writ petitioners in the High Court) Jatya Pal Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. in C.A.No.2147 of 201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).6507 OF2009DR. (MRS.) CHANDA RANI AKHOURI & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DR. M.A. METHUSETHUPATHI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. The sad demise of husband of appellant no.1 after his long illness on 3rd February, 1996 has resulted in initiation of the legal proceedings at the instance of appellant no.1 along with her children on a bona fide belief that the cause of death of her late husband was post operative medical negligence and follow-up care. 12. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter the Commission), after appreciating the material on record, including the evidence led by the parties, arrived to a conclusion that it was not a case of post operative medical negligence as being alleged by the appellants and dismissed the complaint by the judgment impugned dated 21st July, 2009 which is the subject matter of appeal filed at the instance of the appellants under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... act in 2017, section 7 expressly delinked the offence of bribery from the actual performance of the act for which the undue advantage is received. the provision read as follows: 7. public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. whoever, being, or expecting to be a public ..... infirmity or error on which a plea for a review and revision of the earlier view is based?. on the earlier occasion, did some patent aspects of the question remain unnoticed, or was the attention of the court not drawn to any relevant and material statutory ..... 105 reads as follows:38. granville austin, the indian constitution: cornerstone of a nation, oup (1972), xiii. 39 cad vol viii19may, 1949 draft article 85. page 44 of 135 part f 105. powers ..... 98 of 135 part h his purpose in speaking on both occasions is the same or very closely related. [ ].145. the courts in the uk have, overtime, advanced a narrower view than the earlier cases governing the field of privileges. they ..... of the function of a democratic legislative institution. members of parliament and legislatures represent the will of the people and 41 (1970) 2 scc272 page 47 of 135 part f their aspirations. the constitution was adopted to have a modernizing ..... distinguished from a single member, orders the publication and/or public distribution of committee hearings, reports, or other materials. of course, art. i, 5, cl. 3, requires that each house 'keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5983 OF2007Union of India & Anr. ... Appellants VERSUS S.N. Maity & Anr. ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.In this appeal, by special leave, the justifiability and soundness of the judgment and order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P.(Service) No.6106 of 2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has overturned the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('tribunal' for short), Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No.215 of 2005, is called in question.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be stated are that the 1st respondent was working as a Scientist E-II in the Central Mining Research Institute (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research). On 29.07.2003, he was appointed on deputation to the post of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks ( (for short, 'CGPDTM'). After serving there for one year, by order F.N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC967; (1959)ILLJ644SC; [1959]1SCR925
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a demand for bonus made against the appellants by their workmen for the year 1953-54. The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Bombay, the Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd., Bombay and the Concrete Association of India, Bombay, were faced with a demand of their workmen employed in their offices at Bombay for bonus equivalent to seven months' basic wages with dearness allowance. The industrial dispute arising out of this demand was referred by the Government of Bombay for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and it was numbered I.T. No. 10 of 1956. The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Dwarka Cement Works, Dwarka, was similarly faced with a demand of its workmen for bonus equivalent to 50% of total earnings or six months' total earnings. This dispute was referred to the same tribunal and was numbered I.T. No. 13 of 1956. By consent of parties both the references were hea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC137; 1985(2)SCALE933; (1986)1SCC465; [1985]Supp3SCR264
D.P. Madon, J.1. This Appeal has been filed pursuant to a certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court against its judgment and order dated December 16, 1969, in Appeal No. 165 of 1968. The certificate has been given by the High Court under Sub-clauses (a) and (c) of Clause (1) of Article 133 prior to the substitution of that clause by a new Clause (1) by the Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment) Act, 1972. The grounds on which the certificate has been given are (i) that the value of the subject-matter in dispute in the court of the first instance and still in dispute on appeal was and is not less than Rs. 20,000 and that as the judgment in appeal was one of affirmance, the appeal involves a substantial question of law, and (ii) that the case was a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court observed:The appeal raises a question of great importance in Trade Marks Law, that is to say whether a proprietor of a trade mark who intends to use it solely by a registered user is ent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC434; (1999)3CALLT90(SC); I(2000)DMC1SC; JT1999(9)SC242; 1999(7)SCALE224; (2000)2SCC139; [1999]Supp4SCR522; 2000(1)LC505(SC)
Umesh C. Banerjee, J.1. Two specific questions arise for determination in this appeal by the grant of special leave against a Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court: Firstly, whether re-marriage of a widow prior to Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would divest her of even the limited ownership of her deceased husband's property, having due regard to the provisions of Section 2 of Hindu Widow's Re-marriage Act, 1856 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1856'); and secondly, whether disqualification of inheritance, if any, by reason of re-marriage would stand obliterated by reason of the provisions of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, 1949.2.The factual score in the Appeal presently before us reveals that one Rosaiah was the owner of a large extent of properties. He died in February, 1937 leaving behind him his wife Lakshmamma and mother Venkayamma. Rosaiah executed a will on 11th January, 1937 wherein he bequeathed all his properties to his mother Venkayamma. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2550; [2006]283ITR1(SC); JT2006(4)SC611; 2006(4)SCALE300; (2006)7SCC241; [2006]145STC544(SC)
ORDER:5. In Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. etc. v. State of Assam and Ors. : [1961]1SCR809 , it was held that taxing laws are not excluded from the operation of Article 301, which means that tax laws can and do amount to restrictions on the freedoms guaranteed to trade under Part-XIII of the Constitution. However, the prohibition of restrictions on free trade is not an absolute one. Statutes restrictive of trade can avoid invalidation if they comply with Article 304(a) or (b).6. In Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 0065/1962 : [1963]1SCR491 , it was held that only such taxes as directly and immediately restrict trade would fall within the purview of Article 301 and that any restriction in the form of taxes imposed on the carriage of goods or their movement by the State Legislature can only be done after satisfying the requirements of Article 304(b). The statute which was challenged in Atiabari Tea Co. : [1961]1SCR809 was the Assam Taxation (on goods carried by Roads an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Tatachari, J. (1) This letters patent appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Punjab originally came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court (S.S. Dulat and S.K. Kapur, JJ). The learned Judges took the view that the case involved a question of limitation which should be decided by a larger Bench. The Appeal, has, therefore, been posted before us. The appellant, M/s. Bhajan Singh Hardat Singh and Co., filed a suit No. 718 of 1954 in the Court of Shri Munnilal Jain, P.C. S., Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, for recovery of Rs.3392/9/6 from the respondents , herein Karson Agency (India) and another who were impleaded as defendants in the said suit. (2) The case of the appellant-plaintiff was: (a) That on 14-2-51, the respondents defendants agreed at Delhi to purchase from the appellant '500 Yards of worsted (Woolen cloth) of Indian Woolen Mills, steel colour, June - July, Challan at Rs.23/4/ per yard and paid Rs.1,000/- as advance that on 25-7-1951...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC68; (1977)4SCC608; [1978]2SCR1
Beg, C.J.1. 'India, that is Bharat, shall be union of States'. The very first mandate of the first article of our Constitution to which we owe allegiance thus prohibits, by necessary implication, according to the plaintiff in the original suit now before us under Article 121 of the Constitution of India, any constitutionally unjustifiable trespass by the Union Government upon the domain of the powers of the States. The State of Karnataka, has, therefore, sued for a declaration that a notification dated 23-5-1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Central Notification') constituting a Commission of Inquiry in purported exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is illegal and ultra-vires. This declaration is sought on one of two alternative grounds : firstly, that the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, does not 'authorise the Central Government to constitute a Commission of Inquiry in regard to matters falling excl...
Tag this Judgment!