Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-22-1985
Reported in : AIR1986Cal338
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. This is an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an umpire. The petitioner entered into a contract on 22nd/23rd Nov. 1982 by accepting the tender submitted by the respondent. The contract contained an arbitration clause that disputes arising out of the contract would be decided by arbitration. Disputes arose and reference was made to the joint arbitrators in accordance with the agreement. By a letter dt. 13-4-84 the arbitrators intimated the petitioner that they had received the statement of claim from the respondent and called upon the petitioner to submit its counter-statement on or before 2-5-84. The petitioner alleges that the joint arbitrators entered upon the reference without appointing an umpire. The petitioner by letter dt. 23-4-84 pointed out to the joint arbitrators that they did not appoint an umpire before entering upon the reference and requested them to appoint the umpire. It is alleged that in spite of such n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-11-1985
Reported in : ILR1985KAR2132; 1985(2)KarLJ172
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. Whether the suo moto revisional power conferred by Section 22-A(1) of theKarnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('the Act') has been exercised or initiated within a period of four years from the date of the order or not as required by Section 22-A(2) of the Act and therefore barred by time or not is the short and interesting question that arises for determination in these cases. In order to appreciate the same, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 16098 of 1981 in some detail as illustrative only and the other cases in general.2-1. WRIT PETITION NO. 16098 OF 1981 : For the assessment years 1970-71 the purchase turnovers of paddy effected by the petitioner amounting to Rs 12,69,286-25 and Rs. 29,93,521-26 was brought to tax under the Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi ('CTO') in hisassessment orders made on 29-9-1973 and 30-4-1974. Against the said orders of the CTO, the petitioner f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-19-1985
Reported in : AIR1986MP165; 1986MPLJ261
J.S. Verma, Ag. C. J. 1. The only question for decision by us is whether an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is tenable against an interlocutory order passed in an election petition by a single Judge which amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of that expression used in Clause 10. This question has to be answered on the assumption that the . right of appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent subsists notwithstanding the enactment of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam (29 of 1981) abolishing the right of such appeals since this enactment has been held to be constitutionally invalid by a Full Bench of this Court in Balkrishna Dass v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. AIR 1985 Madh Pra 42. In case it is held that such an appeal is tenable, the appeal has to be heard and decided on merits by a Division Bench which will also decide whether the impugned interlocutory order passed in the election petition amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-20-1985
Dept. of Inc. Maintenance v. Heckler - 471 U.S. 524 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Dept. of Inc. Maintenance v. Heckler, 471 U.S. 524 (1985) Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance v. Heckler No. 83-2136 Argued March 27, 1985 Decided May 20, 1985 471 U.S. 524 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus The Medicaid Act does not cover services performed for patients between the ages of 21 and 65 in an "institution for mental diseases" (IMD). In the absence of a statutory definition, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) has promulgated a regulation defining an IMD as "an institution that is primarily engaged in providing diagnosis, treatment or care of persons with mental diseases," and providing that whether an institution is an IMD is determined by its "overall character." The Middletown Haven Rest Home in Connecticut is an "intermediate care facility" (ICF) that provides care for persons with mental illness as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-08-1985
Reported in : AIR1986Guj156; (1986)1GLR101
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant, original plaintiff, of Civil Suit No. I of 1985 in the District Court of Panchmahals at Godhra has brought in challenge the judgment and order of learned single Judge of this Court, M. B. Shah, J. in Appeal from Order which was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court in exercise of his powers under O. 43. R. 1 of the Civil P.C., 1908. The appellant-plaintiff had moved an interim injunction application Ex. 5 under O. 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with S. 151 of the Civil P.C. praying for interim injunction pending the suit against the respondents-defendants. After hearing the concerned parties, the learned Joint District Judge of Panchmahals at Godhra dismissed the application Ex. 5 for interim injunction and vacated the ad interim relief. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial Judge, the appellant preferred Appeal from Order as miscellaneous appeal under O. 43, R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-25-1985
Reported in : 1985(2)WLN729
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (for short the Ordinance') against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated November 8, 1985 affirming the order dated December 8, 1976 passed by the District Judge, Pratabgarh.2. The matter arises out of the proceedings under the Arbitration Act. The Arbitrators filed their Award against which objections were filed before learned District Judge, Pratabgarh by his order dated December 8, 1976 rejected the objections and made the Award rule of the Court against which appeal was preferred by the objector Shri Chhabildas. That appeal was dismissed.3. Mr. D.S. Shishodia appearing for respondent No. 1 as Caveator raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the appeal. He submitted that the appeal is barred under Sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 39 bars the second appeal from an order passed in appeal under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-07-1985
Reported in : (1985)(22)ELT844TriDel
1. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Limited is a public company limited by shares and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and dealing in Ayurvedic medicines/drugs and other allied products. Besides manufacturing Ayurvedic drugs/medicines, they also manufacture Surmas like Himalaya Surma, Moti Surma etc. and also Dant Manjans like Dant Manjan Lal, Dant Manjan Black, Dant Manjan White.2. Prior to March 1, 1975 'Dant Manjan Lal' manufactured by the appellant was considered to be a patent or proprietary medicine falling under Item 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, but considered as not excisable to duty by virtue of the express exclusion in the description of the Tariff Item itself in favour of "medicines" which are exclusively Ayurvedic, Unani Sidha or Homoeopathic.3. Immediately after March 1, 1975, when a residuary item being Item No. 68 came to be introduced into the Central Excise Tariff Schedule for "All other goods, not elsewhere ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-08-1985
Park N' Fly Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc. - 469 U.S. 189 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Park N' Fly Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) Park N' Fly Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) No. 83-1132 Argued October 9, 1984 Decided January 8, 1985 469 U.S. 189 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner operates long-term parking lots near airports in St. Louis Cleveland, Houston, Boston, Memphis, and San Francisco. In 1969, petitioner applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register a service mark consisting of the logo of an airplane and the words "Park 'N Fly." The registration issued in 1971, and nearly six years later petitioner filed an affidavit with the Patent and Trademark Office to establish the incontestable status of the mark under 33(b) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), which provides that "registration shall be conclusive evidence of the registrant's ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-12-1985
Reported in : AIR1986Ker3
Narendran, J.1. Questions of considerable importance in the law of Arbitration arise for consideration in this case. The questions are : (1) Whether the dismissal by court of an original petition by the Arbitrator under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to enlarge the time for making the Award, will amount to 'superseding an arbitration' and whether an appeal will lie under Section 39 of the Act from the order of dismissal; (2) whether the Arbitrator can file an appeal from an order of the Court refusing to enlarge the time for making the Award; and (3) when the Arbitrator dies pending the appeal can any of the parties to the Arbitration agreement get himself transposed as the appellant. A question whether an Award passed in violation of an injunction restraining the Arbitrator from passing an Award has to be ignored also arises in the case.2. This appeal was filed by the Arbitrator against the order of the Court below dismissing his original petition for enlargement of time for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-11-1985
Reported in : AIR1985HP82
H.S. Thakur, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Single Judge (M. R. Ansari, J.), dated May 19, 1970. The appellant in the present appeal is the defendant in the suit whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs. The appellant shall hereinafter he referred to as the 'defendant' and the respondents as the 'plaintiffs'.2. A few facts relevant to decide this appeal may be stated. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they were in possession of the suit property as its owners and, in the alternative, for possession of the suit property. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit property originally belonged to one Onkar Singh. He died on March 20, 1933 and. on his death, the property was inherited by his widow Smt. Giano Devi, the defendant, as a life tenant and mutation was attested in her favour on April 22, 1933. Four or five years after the death of Onkar Singh, the defendant contracted a second marriage with one Girdh...
Tag this Judgment!