Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-14-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Cal176,89CWN493
B.C. Ray, J.1. This is an application for stay of operation of the order made on 17th May, 1984 by Mrs. Khastgir, J. as well as stay of all further proceedings in the application for transfer filed under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent read with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Matter No. 490 of 1983 pending the hearing of the appeal. The appeal was filed against the said order dated May 17, 1984 whereby the respondents were restrained by an order of injunction from giving effect to the purported two deeds dated 7th July, 1976 and/or acting as shebaits under the said deeds in respect of the said properties No. 70B, Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta or the property at Mayapur Srichaitanya Math situate at Mayapur. There was a further order restraining the respondents from having their names mutated in the records of the settlement department and also restraining them from filing up the disputed vacancy caused by the death of the shebaits. In the meantime the respondents were al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-26-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Ker134
M.P. Menon, J. 1. A.S. No. 17/78 wan appeal from a decree in a suit. The respondent in the appeal passed away on 12-12-1981 and as his legal representatives were not impleaded in time the appeal abated. The appellant thereafter filed C.M.P. Nos. 6533/82 and 6534/82 for impleading legal representatives and for setting aside abatement, but these were dismissed by a learned single judge. C.M.A. 185/84 is an appeal against that dismissal, and the question is whether an appeal would lie to a Bench of two judges of this Court, from an order of a single judge refusing to set aside the abatement of a First Appeal. According to counsel, such an appeal would lie either under Order 43 Rule 1(k) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 104 thereof, or under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 2. Section 104(1) of the Code conceives of appeals against certain classes of orders, and one such order, under Order 43 Rule 1(k) is 'an order under Rule 9 of Order 22 refusing to set a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-03-1984
Reported in : AIR1986Kant119
..... act according to the directions of the government. these provisions are patently unreasonable and totally unrelated to the object of the act. the section converts owners of the institution into subordinates of the government. sub-sec. (5) of s. 5 which requires the submission of the programmes or plans for improvement of the institution for approval of the government i am also of the view that even on the basis that the object of the act as set out in the preamble falls within the directive of art. 39 ..... have in authorising the imposition of the restrictions, considered them to be reasonable.'on the some point, in the case of mohamud faruk v. state of m. p. : [1970]1scr156 the supreme court stated as follows10. the impugned notification though technically within the competence of the state government, directly infringes the fundamental right ot ..... term by the supreme court in the case of ranganatha reddy : [1978]1scr641 . if the object of a law is to secure bicycle at fair prices to all and the law compels the manufacturer to sell bicycles at half the manufacturing cost, the consequence is obvious. the main material resource, namely, the factory would stiffer heavy loss ..... necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business and therefore the petitioners cannot question the validity of the law relying on sub cl. (1) of c1. (g) of art. 19 of the constitution.(ii) though this point was not pleaded in the statement of objection, being a pure question .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-26-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Cal334
ORDERPadma Khastgir, J.1. The petitioner Guest Keen Williams Ltd., cany on business in manufacture and sale of divers equipments and products, connected with the operation of the railways in India and abroad. According to the petitioner, sometime before 1976 the petitioner invented a rail clip adapter for the purpose of fitting in the railway track assembly. On the 8th June, 1976 the petitioner applied for grant of a patent in favour of the petitioner in regard to the said adapter, being application for patent No. 145211 and along with the said application filed a complete specification of the said adapter. Thereafter the respondent No. 4, that is the Research, Designs & Standards Organisation of the Ministry of Railways, filed an opposition to the said application on 31st Jan., 1979 inter alia on the ground of prior public knowledge and prior public use in India of the petitioner's invention as claimed. The said opposition was filed in accordance with Rules 35 and 36 of the Patents Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-01-1984
Reported in : AIR1985P& H43
1. This is defendants' appeal against whom the suit for declaration and the grant of the permanent injunction has been decreed by the trial Court.2. The plaintiff Chetan Dev. proprietor, M/s. Ahuja Thread Mills, filed the suit for a declaration to the effect that the alleged infringement to which the threats of the defendants towards the plaintiff relate, was, in fact, not the infringement of any legal rights of the defendants, and permanent injunction restraining them from continuing their threats towards the plaintiff and desisting therefrom. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he was the sole proprietor of M/s. Ahuja Thread Mills, and dealt with the manufacture and sale of threads for the last more than two years while the defendants were the manufacturers and representatives of M/s. Madura Coats Ltd., also dealing with the sale of threads. It was also alleged that the plaintiff, about two years ago, manufactured thread with the trade mark 'Swastik Super-shine 50' with the insignia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-05-1984
Reported in : AIR1985SC371; 1984(2)SCALE1039; (1985)1SCC436; 1985(17)LC561(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 80 of 1967 dated September 9, 1969 upholding the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated July 27, 1967. It follows the earlier common judgment delivered by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 357-359 of 1967. By the judgment the learned Single Judge allowed three writ petitions filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are purchasers from the original land-holder Kulwant Rai and have been held to be mere benamidars in Civil Suit No. 23 of 1967 decided on January 6, 1967 brought by respondent Nos. 3 to 14, the legal heirs of the aforesaid Kulwant Rai.2. The arguments in the appeal mainly revolved around the question as to the applicability of the rule laid down by this Court in Rameshwar and Ors. v. Jot Ram and Ors. : [1976]1SCR847 to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Rameshwar's case, this Court held ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-27-1984
Reported in : 1(1985)ACC172
Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. The matter comes before us on a note by the Office of this Court regarding maintainability. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras has passed an order on 1st February, 1980 in O.P. 182 of 1979, dismissing the said petition preferred under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act IV of 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the appellants in the proposed civil miscellaneous appeal, for a compensation of Rs. 75,000, relatable to the death of one Mohan in a motor accident on 7th December, 1978. The proposed civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of the Claims Tribunal. Pleading that they are indigent persons the appellants have filed a petition under Order 44, Rule 1, C.P. Code, hereinafter referred to as the Code, for leave to file the appeal as indigent persons. The Office of this Court felt a difficulty and a doubt as to the propriety of the appellants invoking the provisions of the Code and that too, Order 44 and the allied...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-29-1984
Reported in : [1985]151ITR389(Guj)
Poti, C.J.1. The question raised in this special civil application under article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the ITO to pay interest under s. 214(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is one on which differing views have been expressed by the High Courts in India. The matter arises under the I.T. Act, 1961. In a case where an assessee pays advance tax under ss. 207 to 213 in excess of the amount of tax determined on regular assessment, provision is made for payment by the Central Government of interest on the excess under s. 214(1) of the Act. The interest is payable for the period from the 1st of April next following the financial year in which advance tax is paid and in cases where any such instalment is paid after the expiry of the financial year during which it is payable, the interest on such instalment will run from the date of payment. As to the point of commencement of the period for which interest is thus payable under s. 214(1) there is no controvers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-23-1984
Pennhurst State Sch. v. Halderman - 465 U.S. 89 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Pennhurst State Sch. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman No. 81-2101 Argued February 22, 1983 Reargued October 3, 1983 Decided January 23, 1984 465 U.S. 89 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent Halderman, a resident of petitioner Pennhurst State School and Hospital, a Pennsylvania institution for the care of the mentally retarded, brought a class action in Federal District Court against Pennhurst, certain of its officials, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, and various state and county officials (also petitioners). It was alleged that conditions at Pennhurst violated various federal constitutional and statutory rights of the class members as well as their rights under the Pennsylvania Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966 (MH/MR Act). Ultimately, the District Court awarded injunct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-14-1984
Reported in : (1985)2MLJ15
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. In these writ petitions, petitioners seek for a declaration that Rules 1-A, 3(b), 2, 3(iii) and 8(4) of the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are null, void and hence unenforceable against the petitioners. The relevant rules under challenge are Rules Nos. l-A (3)(b), 2, 3(iii), and 7(4). Though at the time of the filing of the writ petitions, these are the relevant rules, petitioners by misconception have referred to different rule numbers, as if they are the relevant rules. It was by G.O.Ms.No. 518, Agriculture, dated 23.2.1968, and as amended from time to time, Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules were made, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 35 and 36 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 (III of 1882) a pro-Constitution enactment. The said Act was enacted 'for the protection and management of forests' in the State of Tamil Nadu. Apart from this Act, Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, Tamil Na...
Tag this Judgment!