Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jun-03-1992
Reported in : AIR1993P& H28
ORDERM. Rama Jois, C. J. 1. In all thesepetitions presented under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have questioned the legality of the notification issued by the Central Government dated November 3, 1988, under S. 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), insofar as it bans the manufacture and sale of the fixed dose combination steroids on the ground that it is arbitrary and, therefore, not authorised by S. 26A of the Act, and also violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the Writ Petition No. 6882 of 1988 are these. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Inter alia it carries on the business of preparation, manufacture, sale and distribution of drugs and pharmaceutical products. Some of the formulations which are being manufactured by the company are Cortomine tablets; Cortomine Forte tablets and Beta-Asmatide tablets. These tablets are combin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-17-1992
Reported in : 1992(1)ALT713
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.1. In this batch of cases common questions arise for consideration and so we are inclined to deal with them by this common judgment. Writ Appeal No. 1402 of 91 is from the order of our learned brother Sivaraman Nair, J., in W.P.No. 15595 of 91 dismissing the writ petition filed by Dr. A.S. Chandra, a private medical practitioner running Sarada Nursing Home in Chirala, Prakasam district. The wife of the fourth respondent received treatment as an out patient between 15-7-91 and 26-7-91 at Sarada Nursing Home for Epigastrium and Chest pain and Nausea. After routine tests were conducted she was admitted as an inpatient on 26-7-91 and operated for Cystectomy, Hystrectomy and Appendectomy. When Laparotomy test was conducted upon her on 15-8-91 it was found that she developed Peritonitis. The nursing home collected Rs. 500/- towards medical fee and Rs. 200/- each for the anaesthetist and two surgeons, Rs. 1,100/- in all. The patient had to be removed to the Government Hospita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-06-1992
Reported in : 1992(24)DRJ463
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction in this Court against the defendants to desist forthwith from using, in any manner whatsoever, the casing, design/construction described and claimed by the plaintiff in its Indian Patent No. 164857 dated 12th May, 1987. (2) I.A.NO. 1069/92, under Order 39 Rules I and2C.P.C. has been filed in the suit for an Ex par lead interim injunction order.. This Court on January 31,1992, restrained the defendant from using, in any manner, whatsoever the casing, design/construction similar or deceptively similar to the casing/design/construction of the plaintiff in its Indian Patent No. 164857 dated May 12, 1987. (3) I.A.NO. 1992 of 92 under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . has been filed by the defendant for vacating the ex parte ad interim order made in favor of the plaintiffs and for declaring the patent as invalid. for the reasons as specified in the said application. Both the applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-07-1992
Reported in : (1992)103CTR(Guj)206; [1992]195ITR279(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani J. 1. The assessee, Gujarat State Co-operative Union, Ahmedabad, in its return for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76, claimed before the Income-tax Officer that the surplus realised by it should be set off against the past losses which were determined and ascertained. The application was made under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act'), after the original assessments were concluded The assessee-Co-operative Union also claimed that the activities carried on by it were covered by the provisions of section 10(22) of the Act as it was an educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and was, therefore, entitled to exemption from tax for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention of the assessee on both the counts. The assessee, therefore, appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for some years and to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for other ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-25-1992
Reported in : (1993)2MLJ154
Ratnam, J.1. This writ appeal at the instance of S.N.R. Sons Charitable Trust, Coimbatore, has -been preferred against the dismissal of W.P. No. 9701 of 1983, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ calling for the records of the respondent relating to the notice of demand in Assessment No. 60511, dated 30.9.1983 in Ref. No. 71240/82/A.7 and quash the said notice of demand relating to Sri Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore, run by the Appellant trust. In the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the writ petition, it was stated that after the formation of the trust on 9.2.1970 and in accordance with the terms of the Deed of Trust, the appellant has been running Sri Ramakrishna Hospital, Sri Ramakrishna Children's School, etc., and that the hospital was started in 1974. It was also stated that prior to the coming into force of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the appellant sought exemption from payme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-21-1992
Reported in : ILR1992KAR3068; 1992(3)KarLJ355
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In these Petitions, the petitioners seek quashing of the building licence and the sanctioned plan issued to the fourth respondent by the first respondent - Planning Authority and the second respondent -City Corporation. There is also a prayer for a direction to enforce the Zonal Regulations issued under the Outline Development Plan (ODP) and Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). The further prayer seeks the demolition of the offending structure put up by the fourth respondent. The petitioners also have filed I.As.II and III, I.A.II for the amendment of the Writ Petition and to treat I.A.III as additional statement. Petitioners are permitted to seek this additional prayer and these I.As.II and III are read part of these Writ Petitions. The result is that the petitioners seek the quashing of two Government Orders, one dated 8th November 1984 and another dated 17th October 1985. As per the earlier order dated 8.11.84 Government accorded approval for relaxatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-14-1992
County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation - 502 U.S. 251 (1992) OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Syllabus COUNTY OF YAKIMA ET AL. v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 90-408. Argued November 5, 1991-Decided January 14, 1992* Yakima County, Washington, imposes an ad valorem levy on taxable real property within its jurisdiction and an excise tax on sales of such land. The county proceeded to foreclose on various properties for which these taxes were past due, including certain fee-patented lands held by the Yakima Indian Nation or its members on the Tribe's reservation within the county. Contending that federal law prohibited the imposition or collection of the taxes on such lands, the Tribe filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief and was awarded summary judgment by the District Court. The Court of Appeals agreed that the excise tax was impermissible, but held t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-08-1992
Reported in : [1993]200ITR762(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. By the order dated January 12, 1981, the Income-tax Officer, Circle II, Ahmedabad, rejected the petitioner's application for grant of interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act as it was applicable for the assessment year 1973-74. It was held that under section 2(40) regular assessment would not include the order passed by the appellate authority and section 214 does not provide, for grant of interest in respect of excess advance tax paid as modified from time to time as a result of appeal, rectification, revision, etc. An appellate order cannot be termed as a regular assessment and any refund arising as a result of the appellate order cannot be considered to be a refund of advance tax. In this petition, the petition has challenged the aforesaid order by filing this petition. 2. For deciding the contentions in this petition in would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts. The relevant assessment year in this petition is 1973-74 which corresponds to the calen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-29-1992
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ1All; (1993)1UPLBEC251
ORDERM.L. Bhat, J.1. The petitioner is a retired employee of the State. In terms of Article 470(b) of the Civil Service Regulations relating to pension, his pension has been reduced to 50 per cent. The petitioner had challenged the impugned order of reduction in pension as also the snow cause notice issued to him for the proposed reduction, before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed his claim petition by its order dated August 31, 1982. The petitioner has now challenged the order dated April 4, 1980 as also the judgment of respondent No. 1 dated August 31, 1982, in this writ petition.2. Clause (b) of Article 470 of the Regulations reads as under:-'If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper.'3. The authorities have invoked the aforesaid provision of the Regulations to effect reduction in the petitioner's pension. It is advantageous to give brief resume of the facts w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-12-1992
Reported in : AIR1993Mad90; I(1994)DMC598; (1993)IMLJ163
ORDERMishra, J.1. Respondent Konel Parekh and the appellant Radhika were married in accordance with Hindu rites on 1st of April, 1990 and a male child was born to them on 30th March, 1991, On 16-12-1991, however, Konel filed O.P. No. 694 of 1991 in this court seeking his appointment as the guardian of the son born on 30th March, 1991, named parthiv and also for other reliefs. He applied for a direction that he be given interim custody of Parthiv in Application No. 6404 of 1991 in the said petition, O.P. No.694 of 1991. Radhika, the appellant, responded to the notice stating inter alia that she had moved the family Court at Bombay seeking reliefs inter alia of divorce and for the interim custody of the minor child Parthiv, maintenance and restraint orders on 6-12-1991. The Family Court at Bombay on 11 -12-1991 by an order, restrained Konel from forcingly removing the child from her custody. She stated in her return that the order of restraint became necessary in view of the fact that th...
Tag this Judgment!