Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-16-1991
Reported in : AIR1991SC140; [1991]72CompCas651(SC); (1991)2CompLJ1(SC); JT1991(2)SC218; 1991(1)SCALE675; (1991)3SCC153; [1991]2SCR329
B.C Ray, J1. One Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, a practising advocate of the High Court of Bombay and a policy-holder under the Life Insurance Corporation of India and also holder of units issued by the Unit Trust of India and Mr. Shamit Majumdar, a holder of shares and debentures of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. filed a writ petition being No. 2595 of 1980 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay against the Union of India and Ors. including the financial institutions questioning the legality and validity of the consent given by the Controller of Capital Issues for the proposed issue of convertible secured debentures aggregating Rs. 820 crores by Larsen & Toubro Limited insofar as the said issue seeks to offer such convertible debentures to persons other than the existing shareholders and members and the employees of Larsen & Toubro Limited and praying for quashing the same as well as for a declaration that the transfer of 39 lakh shares of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. held by Unit Trust of India, Life Insuran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-02-1991
Reported in : AIR1991SC1260; 1991(2)BLJR767; (1991)2CompLJ197(SC); 1991CriLJ1438; 1991(2)Crimes113(SC); JT1991(2)SC147; 1992Supp(1)SCC222; [1991]2SCR1; 1992SCC(Cri)192
Kuldip Singh, J. 1. The Bihar State cooperative Marketing Union Limited (BISCOMAUN) (hereinafter called 'BISCO') is an apex body operating in the State of Bihar. It is a federation of Cooperative Societies and its primary function is to supply fertiliser to farmers through its depots and godowns numbering about 550, spread-over the State of Bihar.2. Shri P.P. Sharma, IAS took over as Managing Director of BISCO on May 26, 1986 and continued to hold the said office till June 14, 1987. From December, 31, 1986 to June 14, 1987 he was also Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Government of Bihar and Registrar, Cooperative Societies, State of Bihar. G.D. Mishra was working as Advisor to BISCO during 1986-88. He resigned from the said post on August 3, 1988. It may be mentioned that one Tapeshwar Singh was the Chairman of BISCO during the above said period.3. M/s. Rajasthan Multi Fertiliser Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur, Rajasthan (hereinafter called the 'firm') was holding a Certificate of Registratio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-30-1991
Reported in : AIR1991SC1605; 1991LabIC1525; (1994)IIILLJ583SC; 1991Supp(2)SCC404
1. This is an appeal from a, decision of the High Court of Orissa which allowed the claim of the respondent for appointment as a Medical Officer in Homeopathic Dispensary.2. The respondent is a registered Homoeopathic Practitioner within the meaning of Section 21 of the Orissa Homoeopathic Act, 1956 which is hereinafter referred to as the 'State Act'. There is also a Central enactment called Homoeopathic Central Council Act, 1973 (Act No. 59 of 1973) on the same subject, which is hereinafter referred to as the 'Central Act.'3. The respondent was originally holding the post of Distributor and thereafter he was appointed as Medical Officer in a Homoeopathic Dispensary. After coming into force of the Central Act, the respondent was reverted to his original post of Distributor. The reversion was based perhaps on the ground that the respondent was not duly qualified to hold the post of Medical Officer in the dispensary in view of the bar imposed either by the Central Act or by the State Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-14-1991
Reported in : [1991(63)FLR549]; JT1991(3)SC525; 1991(2)SCALE325; (1991)4SCC171; [1991]3SCR595a; 1991(2)LC519(SC)
ORDERRanganath Misra, C.J.1. The main application is under Article 32 of the Constitution while the Contempt Petition and the Interlocutory Applications in the connected Writ Petition are for orders and directions. The common aspects in all the three proceedings are that the petitioners before this, Court are Research Scholars connected with Projects entrusted to different Institutions. They are before the Court for security of employment and improvement of conditions of service.2. In Writ Petition 999 of 1988, along with Writ Petition No. 1043 of 1989 we gave our judgment on March 22, 1990. We then indicated; The Institute set up by Statute is intended to carry on research in a continuous way to improve the level of medical knowledge. Under the Act the Institute is an autonomous body though the Chairman thereof is no other than the Union Minister of Health. It is true that the Institute is entrusted from time to time with research projects by the World Health Organisation, the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-22-1991
Reported in : AIR1992SC522; JT1991(4)SC361; 1991(2)SCALE1049; [1991]Supp2SCR497
ORDERSawant, J.1. On July 27, 1991 the President, under Article 143 of the Constitution, referred to this Court three questions for its opinion. The Reference reads as follows.:Whereas, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Central Government constituted a Water Disputes Tribunal Called 'the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal' (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') by a notification dated 2 June, 1990, a copy whereof is annexed hereto, for the adjudication of the Water Dispute regarding the Inter-State River Cauvery; WHEREAS on 25 June 1991, the Tribunal passed an interim Order (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order'), a copy whereof is annexed hereto; WHEREAS, differences have arisen with regard to certain aspects of the Order; WHEREAS, on 25 July 1991, the Governor of Karnataka promulgated the Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-03-1991
Reported in : I(1992)ACC332; AIR1992SC248; (1991)3CompLJ213(SC); JT1991(6)SC8; 1991(2)SCALE675; (1991)4SCC584; [1991]Supp1SCR251; 1992(1)LC505(SC)
Ranganath Misra, C.J.1. I entirely agree with my noble and learned Brother Venkatachaliah and hope and trust that the judgment he has produced is the epitaph on the litigation. I usually avoid multiple judgments but this seems to be a matter where something more than what is said in the main judgment perhaps should be said.2. Early in the morning of December 3, 1984, one of the greatest industrial tragedies that history has recorded got clamped down on the otherwise quiet township of Bhopal, the capital of Madhya Pradesh. The incident was large in magnitude - 2,600 people died instantaneously and quite a good number of the inhabitants of the town suffered from several ailments. In some cases the reaction manifested contemporaneously and in others the effect was to manifest itself much later.3. Union Carbide Corporation ('UCC for short), a multi-national one, has diverse and extensive international operations in countries like India, Canada, West Asia, the Far East, African countries, L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-27-1991
Reported in : AIR1991SC2150; 1992(2)BLJR803; (1992)2CompLJ315(SC); JT1991(4)SC276; 1991(2)SCALE670; (1991)4SCC406; 1992Supp(1)SCC16; [1991]Supp1SCR219
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Poisons Act, 1919 (12 of 1919) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The grounds on which the vires of the provisions is attacked are that the section gives an unguided, unchanellised and arbitrary power to the State Government to include any substance as poison for the purpose of restriction to be imposed on the possession for sale and sale of the same. It was further contended that the restriction imposed on possession for sale and sale were not reasonable restrictions. The petitioner's have also taken the plea that though the Act is a Central enactment it is possible of unjust and unjustified discriminatory application as it is left to each State Government to determine what substance they would include as poison and regulated and the decision in one State to include the substance as poison is not automatically made applicable to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-04-1991
Reported in : AIR1991SC1676; JT1991(2)SC439; 1991(1)SCALE617; 1991Supp(1)SCC430; [1991]2SCR105
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J.1. These are connected batches of Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions. We grant special leave to appeal in all the petitions (condoning the delay in the filing of the unnumbered one referred to below) and proceed to dispose of all the appeals by this common judgment. The details of the appeals and petitions are, for sake of convenient reference, tabulated below: High CourtDate of judgmentCivil Appeal/ S.L.P. Nos.Name of Appellant1. Orissa17-4-1980C.A. 2053-2080/80Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.7-3-1983C.A. 4353-4354/83Orissa Cement Ltd.22-12-1989S.L.P. 1479/90State of Orissa22-12-1989S.L.P./90Orient Paper &Industries; Ltd. & Anr.13-7-1990S. O. P. 11939/90- do-2. Bihar10-2-1986C.A. 592/86Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.3. Madhya Pradesh28-3-1986C.A. 1641-1662/86State of M. P.2. We shall discuss later the manner in which these appeals and petitions have arisen. THE ISSUE3. The validity of the levy of a 'cess', based on the royalty derived from mining lands, by the State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-10-1991
Reported in : AIR1991SC1557; JT1991(2)SC503; 1991(1)SCALE939; (1991)3SCC375; [1991]2SCR752a; 1991(2)LC692(SC)
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Special leave granted in all SLPs. 2. Mizoram acquired Statehood on February 20, 1987. At the general election held on January 21, 1989, the respondents of this batch of appeals contested the State Assembly elections as candidates of the Mizo National Front (MNF) from different constituencies. The results of the election were declared on January 23, 1989. They lost to candidates fielded by the Indian National Congress (I). The unsuccessful MNF candidates challenged the election of the Congress (I) candidates mainly on the ground that they had indulged in and were guilty of corrupt practices. As many as fifteen such election petitions came to be filed in the Gauhati High Court on one single day, March 9, 1989. Although fifteen petitions were filed, one Congress (I) candidate had succeeded from two constituencies and one candidate belonged to the Mizo National Front (Democratic) Party. On service of notice of the filing of the election petitions, the returned candi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-29-1991
Reported in : AIR1992SC320; JT1991(6)SC184; 1991(2)SCALE844; (1991)4SCC699; [1991]Supp2SCR1
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.These writ petitions raise certain constitutional issues of quite some importance bearing on the construction of Articles 121 and 124 of the Constitution of India and of the 'The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968' even as they in the context in which they are brought, are somewhat unfortunate.Notice was given by 108 members of the 9th Lok Sabha, the term of which came to an end upon its dissolution, of a Motion for presenting an Address to the President for the removal of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of this Court. On 12th March, 1991, the motion was admitted by the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha who also proceeded to constitute a Committee consisting of Mr. Justice P.B. Sawant, a sitting Judge of this Court, Mr. Justice P.D. Desai, Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay, and Mr. Justice O. Chinappa Reddy, a distinguished jurist in terms of Section 3(2) of The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.The occasion for such controversy as is raised in these proceedings is the refusal of the Un...
Tag this Judgment!