Court : Karnataka Dharwad
- 1 - WA No.100139 of 2022 C/W WA No.100062/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE20H DAY OF JULY, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT WRIT APPEAL No.100139 OF2022(LA-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.100062 OF2022(LA-RES) IN WA NO.100139/2022 BETWEEN:1. MR. GOPAL S/O GOVIND KARJOL AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. KHB COLONY,MUDHOL2 MR. UMESH S/O. GOVIND KARJOL AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. KHB COLONY, MUDHOL, MODHOL TALUK DIST. BAGALKOT3 MR. ARUN S/O. GOVIND KARJOL AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. KHB COLONY, MUDHOLD, MUDHOL TALUK AND DIST. BAGALKOT APPELLANTS (BY SRI. C V ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND:1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT - 2 - WA No.100139 of 2022 C/W WA No.100062/2022 M S BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT (R AND R) LAND ACQUISITION, EX- OFFICIO SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, UPPER...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
- 1 - WA No.100139 of 2022 C/W WA No.100062/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE20H DAY OF JULY, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT WRIT APPEAL No.100139 OF2022(LA-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.100062 OF2022(LA-RES) IN WA NO.100139/2022 BETWEEN:1. MR. GOPAL S/O GOVIND KARJOL AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. KHB COLONY,MUDHOL2 MR. UMESH S/O. GOVIND KARJOL AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. KHB COLONY, MUDHOL, MODHOL TALUK DIST. BAGALKOT3 MR. ARUN S/O. GOVIND KARJOL AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. KHB COLONY, MUDHOLD, MUDHOL TALUK AND DIST. BAGALKOT APPELLANTS (BY SRI. C V ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND:1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT - 2 - WA No.100139 of 2022 C/W WA No.100062/2022 M S BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT (R AND R) LAND ACQUISITION, EX- OFFICIO SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, UPPER...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW5121; AIR2009SC3194; 2009LC(SC)227; JT2009(11)SC164; 2009(8)SCALE108; 2009(5)LC2521(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.INTRODUCTION2. Constitutional validity of clauses (b) and (f) of Regulation 6A of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Procedure, Terms and Conditions for Grant of Trading License and other related matters) (Amendment), Regulation 2006 (hereinafter referred to and called for the sake of brevity as 'Amended Regulation') is the question involved herein.BACKGROUND FACTS3. It arises in the following factual matrix.The Parliament enacted Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the said Act'). In exercise of its jurisdiction conferred by Section 178 of the said Act, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short, 'CERC') made Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Procedure, Terms and Conditions for Grant of Trading License and other related matters), Regulation 2004 (for short, 'the Regulation') Indisputably, in terms of the provisions of the said Act as also the Regulations, inter alia, license is required to be taken by a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1988Delhi599
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This appeal by the plaintiff is against an order of the sub-judge, 1st class, returning his plaint fix presentation to a proper court, which would mean the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). (2) The plaintiff on 19-9-86 instituted a suit against the respondent-defendant. Union of India, through the Secretary Ministry' of Health and Family Welfare, for recovery of Rs. 25,0001- because of certain tortious act of the defendant. On that account he alleged mental torture, loss of reputation- loss suffered by him on being lowered in the estimation of his colleagues and the loss suffered by him in defending certain disciplinary proceedings. The plaintiff had, in fact. assesses his damages at Rs. 1,00,000.00 but claimed only Rs 25,000.00 Plaintiff said he was an eve surgeon of renown and retired from Government service on 31-10-80. Re was to be paid his retirement benefits in the first week of November, 1980, but these were paid only on 29-10-81, The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 112(2004)DLT420; 2004(75)DRJ739
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. These writ petitions raise an important question of law having far-reaching consequences. The issue arises in relation to the acquisition of land for a public purpose, namely, Prem Nagar Station, which is part of Mass Rapid Transit System (in short 'the MRTS'), a Project undertaken by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (in short 'the DMRC'). There is no denying the fact that in Delhi land can be acquired by the Government, for public purpose, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the LA Act'). However, the Parliament, way back in the year 1978, also enacted another Legislation, namely, the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Metro Railways Act') and, this Act also contains the provisions for acquisition of land required for specific purpose viz. for the construction of Metro Railways or other works connected therewith. In the present case, land is acquired under the provisions of the LA Act for MR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : II(1989)ACC486; AIR1988Bom377
1. Jugalkishor Darak, a trader of Rahuri in Ahmadnagar Districttravelled on 20th May 1975 from Bombay V.T. to Rahuri by Bombay-Pune-Manmad Passengar. As the railways do not allow heavy parcels of luggage in the passenger compartments, Darak had to load some bales in the brake van for which he obtained a luggage ticket bearing No. 904141. Jugalkishor arrived at Rahuri, the brake van was opened and while taking delivery of one of the bales, he found that it was in a tampered condition. He asked for an open delivery which having been given cloth weighing 33 Kgs. was found missing when compared with the bijak. Jugalkishor filed Regular Civil Suit No. 601of 1976 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar for price of goods short-delivered but the railway administration disclaimed liability to pay compensation as the plaintiff had failed to comply with provisions of Section 77B of the Indian Railways Act (the Act'). The trial Judge negatived the defence and decreed the suit whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2001(4)AWC3045
G.P. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, an advocate, practising in Allahabad High Court, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying that (a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued declaring Section 35(2) of the U. P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, as ultra vires of the Constitution, and (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued declaring the power of the Chief Justice under Section 35 (2) of the Act to be judicial in nature and further that the Chief Justice should exercise the power of grant of certificate after hearing the parties who invoke such jurisdiction and after recording reasons and that too only in exceptional cases.2. The Parliament enacted the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Act No. 29 of 2000) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to provide for reorganistion of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh and for matters connected therewith. The Act cameinto force on August 25, 2000 and the 'appointed d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1980)2SCC665; 1980Supp(1)SCC249
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. These two criminal appeals are directed against a judgment dated 27th February 1979 of the Sessions Judge, Delhi by which the accused (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) have been convicted under various Sections of the Penal Code and awarded sentences of various terms of imprisonment not exceeding two years (which have been ordered to run concurrently) in addition to fines2. Both the appeals were originally filed before the Delhi High Court and were admitted by it on the 21st March 1979 when the sentences of the appellants were suspended and they were released on bail. On the 17th May. 1979, the State also filed an appeal to the Delhi High Court for enhancement of the sentences. The Special Courts Act (No. 22 of 1979 and hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') was passed by Parliament and received the assent of the President on 16th May 1979. On the 27th June 1979, the Central Government made a declaration Under Section 5(1) of the Act as a conse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1962Bom53; (1961)63BOMLR774; (1963)IILLJ264Bom
Tambe, J.(1) These four Petitions have been placed before us for hearing on being referred to by Mr. Justice K. K. Desai. These four petitions gives rise to some common questions of law and can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. In the first two petitions, M. P. Nos. 248 and 254 of 1960, constitutionality of the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960, No. 1 of 1960, promulgated by the President has been challenged, while in the other two petitions, M. P. Nos. 255 and 256 of 1960, constitutionality of Rule 4 (A) and rule 4 (B) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, has been challenged. The questions raised are of considerable importance.(2) Facts giving rise to these petitions may be briefly stated. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 123 of the Constitution, the President of India promulgated as Ordinance called 'Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960', hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. It is in the following...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1511; 1971CriLJ1157; 1983(13)ELT1450(SC); (1971)2SCC119; 1971(Supp)SCC359; [1971]SuppSCR359
Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, hereinafter called the 'Act' and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with the aforesaid section and Section 5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act 1947. The main point for determination is whether Section 187-A of the Act is unconstitutional on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The facts to the extent they are necessary may be set out.2. The appellant carried on business in the name of M/s. Jaihind Ex-Import Coporation as its sole proprietor. He also carried on business as a partner in another firm run under the name and style of Alram Optics (India) Corporation. The offices of the two firms were situate at New Charni Road, Bombay. According to the case of the prosecution the appellant with the object of defrauding the Government of customs duty payable ...
Tag this Judgment!