Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-07-1990
Reported in : AIR1990Bom299
ORDER1. These are Matrimonial Petitions and Suits which involve a common question of law, namely, whether these matters stand transferred or should be transferred to the Family Court, Bombay established the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. LXVI of 1984). The Family Court was established in the City of Bombay as from 7th October 1989, and the Act has been brought into force for the purpose of the said court as from that day. Since the question involved is likely to arise in several other Matrimonial Suits or Petitions pending in this court, I thought it convenient to request the counsel appearing in all these matters to address me, in the first instance, on this question, withoutgoing into the merits of each case which willbe done separately.The question that arises for consideration may be formulated thus:--Whether the matrimonial jurisdiction ex-ercisable by this Court (High Court) on its Original Side is not affected by S. 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and whether consequently th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Apr-06-1990
S.N. Phukan, J. 1. This Revision petition is by the Union of India through the Chief Engineer, Shillong Zone against the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, by which the learned lower appellate court affirmed the judgment of the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. 2. On first of May, 1973 a contract was entered into between the parties herein for construction of the main sewers at Dinjan within the district of Dibrugarh. The agreement was executed at Shillong. After completion of the work a dispute was raised by the contractor viz. the opposite party herein and as per the terms of the agreement it was referred to the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator gave a non-speaking award, awarding a sum of rupees five lacs and odd in favour of the contractor. It may be mentioned that during the arbitration proceeding the petitioner herein filed a petition under Sections 5 & 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for short 'the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-21-1990
Reported in : AIR1991SC460; 1991CriLJ494; JT1991(1)SC54; 1991LabIC1368; 1990(2)SCALE1312; (1991)2SCC288; [1990]Supp3SCR691; 1991(2)SLJ106(SC); 1991(1)LC341(SC)
ORDERM.H. Kania, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana summarily dismissing Letter Patents Appeal No. 210 of 1990 filed by the appellants herein.2. The respondent was an officer commissioned in the Indian Army. In 1983 the respondent held the rank of Lt. Colonel and was commanding the support Company for IInd Sikh Light Infantry.On June 12/13, 1983, the loss of one Stengun belonging to 'C'-Company and held in the charge of Sepoy Sital Singh, was reported to the Commanding Officer of 261KHLI. An investigation was ordered by the Commanding Officer. It was reported at about 12.00 P.M., on June 14, 1983, that Sepoy Sital Singh had expired and Sepoy Sir Singh had sustained several injuries in the course of an investigation by the respondent and some others. A suspicion arose that these injuries were caused on account of torture inflicted on these sepoys. An F.I.R. was filed with the Police Station, Charinda, Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-10-1990
Reported in : AIR1991P& H159; (1991)99PLR260
ORDERJ. V. Gupta, C. J.1. Civil Writ Petition No. 1870 of 1986, when came up for motion hearing, the same was admitted to the Full Bench with the following order.'Counsel for the respondents cites DivisionBench decisions in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 1 Land LR 385 and Gurnara Singh v. Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, 1984 Pun LJ 580 which have taken a view contrary to each other on the same point.'Later on when L.P.A. No. 13 of 1986, came up for final hearing, this fact was brought to the notice of the Bench and consequently, the said L.P.A. which was against the judgment in Civil Writ Petn. No. 217 of 1985, which was decided on November 1, 1985 (now reported in 1986 Pun LJ 404) was also ordered to be heard and decided by a Full Bench along with the said writ petition.2. The facts giving rise to the said L.P.A. were that the Gram Panchayat of Village Bathoi Kalan, Tehsil and District Patiala, filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-16-1990
Reported in : 1999(I)OLR46
P.C. Misra, J.1. Appellants in this appeal were plaintiffs in a suit (O.S. No. 126/75-1) in the Court of Munsif, Bhadrak. The suit was dismissed on merits by judgment dated 12.12.1977 passed by the learned trial Court against which they preferred Title Appeal No. 2/78 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak. The said appeal was posted to 3.4.1980 for hearing on which day the Advocate appearing for the appellants filed an application praying for an adjournment on the ground of illness of their Advocate of Cuttack, who had been engaged to argue the appeal. The appeal was adjourned to 7.5.1980 on which day the appellants also applied for adjournment on the very same stand. The court reluctantly allowed adjournment on payment of cost of Rs. 100/- and the appeal was posted to 9.5.1980 for hearing. On that day also adjournment was applied on the ground of continuous illness of Advocate of Cuttack. The learned lower Appellate Court did not allow any further adjournment and dismissed the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-25-1990
Cruzan v. Director, MDH - 497 U.S. 261 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health No. 88-1503 Argued Dec. 6, 1989 Decided June 25, 1990 497 U.S. 261 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI Syllabus Petitioner Nancy Cruzan is incompetent, having sustained severe injuries in an automobile accident, and now lies in a Missouri state hospital in what is referred to as a persistent vegetative state: generally, a condition in which a person exhibits motor reflexes but evinces no indications of significant cognitive function. The State is bearing the cost of her care. Hospital employees refused, without court approval, to honor the request of Cruzan's parents, copetitioners here, to terminate her artificial nutrition and hydration, since that would result in death. A state trial court authorized the termination, finding that a person in Cruzan's condition has a fundamental right under the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-18-1990
Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. - 496 U.S. 661 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661 (1990) Eli Lilly and Company v. Medtronic, Inc. No. 89-243 Argued Feb. 26, 1990 Decided June 18, 1990 496 U.S. 661 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Syllabus Claiming infringement of two of its patents, petitioner Eli Lilly's predecessor-in-interest filed suit to enjoin respondent Medtronic's testing and marketing of a medical device. Medtronic defended on the ground that its activities were undertaken to develop and submit to the Government information necessary to obtain premarketing approval for the device under 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and were therefore exempt from a finding of infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1), which authorizes the manufacture, use, or sale of a patented device "solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-23-1990
Reported in : 1991(3)ALT1
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J., M. Jagannadha Rao and Upendralal Waghray, JJ.1. This reference to the Full Bench has been made by Jeevan Reddi, J. (as he then was) and Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, J. doubting the correctness of an earlier Full Bench decision in Sattemma v. Vislmumurthy, : AIR1964AP162 . (F.B.) in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jaber, : [1982]1SCR187 . The question is whether a Letters Patent Appeal lies to a Division Bench under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (Madras) as applicable to Andhra Pradesh High Court, against an order of a learned single Judge refusing to review under Order 47 Rule 4(1), CPC and whether Order 47, Rule 7 (1) is a bar to the maintainability of such an appeal. The Division Bench thought that what the Supreme Court, they thought, stated in the above case in the context of the bar created in Section 104(2) C.P.C. to the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeals, equally applied to a similar bar created in Order 47, Rule 7(1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-21-1990
Reported in : (1990)98PLR375
G.R. Majithia, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of L. P. A. No. 1087 of 1988 and connected L. P A. Nos. 1019 to 1086 of 1988. 1088 of 1988, 1089 of 1988 and 1091 to 1102 of 1988 as common questions of law arise in these appeals.2. In order to appreciate the contention raised, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts. Land measuring 566.025 acres situate in the revenue estate of Gobindpura was acquired by the Punjab Government vide notification No 13/2/78/JJ-II (8) PB/5408/E/Act/5893 dated May 10, 1970 Published on June 8, 1979 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act). Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on October 26, 1979. The Special Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on March 31, 1981 The claimants, dissatisfied with the award got the reference under Section 18 of the Act made to the Land Acquisition Court. The Land Acquisition Court vide its award dated August 11, 1986 held that the Collector had correctly assessed the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-20-1990
Reported in : 1991ACJ954; (1991)93BOMLR556; (1993)IIILLJ804Bom; 1991(1)MhLj624
Desai, J. 1. This appeal raises a question of general importance relating to the tenability of Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court (Bombay) against a judgment of a Single Judge in a appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. On December 28 of 1865 Her Majesty, the Queen Victoria of England (as she then was) inter alia ordained vide Clause 15 that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court ....... from the judgment ....... of one Judge of the said High Court....... pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1915').Section 108 deals with the exercise of jurisdiction of Single Judge or Division Court and further authorises prescribing of rules for exercise of jurisdiction of Judges of the High Court - original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the Court. Clause 16 of the Letters Patent has further ordained that the said High ...
Tag this Judgment!