Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3116; [2000(87)FLR638]; 2000(6)SCALE461; (2000)8SCC61; [2000]Supp3SCR379
A.P. Misra, J.1. Leave granted.2. The question raised in this appeal is drawing attention of this Court since very inception when Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was enacted and even after the passage of more than 50 years, issue remains in the fertile field of it yielding fresh crops time and again because of wide vaporous definition of the word 'industry' under the said Act. We shall be referring about some of these cases in the later part of our judgment. This wide definition has given an opportunity to both employer and employee for raising issues, one trying to pull out of this definition, to be out of the clutches of the said Act, other bringing within it, to receive benefit under it. Because of width of the periphery of the word 'industry' there is tug of war repeatedly between the two, in spite of various decisions of this Court. This situation has led this Court, in Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage Board, Etc. v. R. Rajappa and Ors. : (1978)ILLJ349SC to record with anxiety and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC493; [1960]2SCR569
Shah, J.1. Sardar Kapur Singh (who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant) was admitted by the Secretary of State for India in Council to the Indian Civil Service upon the result of a competitive examination held at Delhi in 1931. After a period of training in the United Kingdom, the appellant returned to India in November, 1933 and was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Ferozepore in the Province of Punjab. He served in the Province in various capacities between the years 1933 and 1947. In July, 1947, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at Dharamsala and continued to hold that office till February 11, 1948, when he was transferred to Hoshiarpur at which place he continued to hold the office of Deputy Commissioner till a few days before April 14, 1949. On April 13, 1949, the appellant was served with an order passed by the Government of East Punjab suspending him from service. On May 5, 1950, the appellant submitted a representation to the President of India protesting agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori47
Narasimham, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment of the District Judge of Cuttack dismissing their suit for a declaration that the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939 (Orissa Act, IV of 1939) was ultra vires of the Orissa Legislature and for other consequential reliefs. The appellant plaintiffs are all Mahants of various Maths situated in the Province of Oriasa and the suit was brought by them in a representative capacity under Order X, Rule 8, Civil P. C. No evidence was led by either side and the sole question in dispute is a question of law regarding the competence of the Orissa Legislature to enact the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act.2. The impugned Act was passed by the Orissa Legislative Assembly and received the assent of the Governor. General on 31st August 1933. The Assembly passed the said Act in exercise of the legislative powers conferred on them by Sections 99(1) and 100(3), Government o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1976Delhi753
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) An Act to establish a Press Council for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the Press and oF maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India was enacted by Parliament, being Press Council Act 1965 (Act 34 of 1965), (hereinafter called the 'Act'). In furtherance or its object the Press Council is empowered to help newspapers and news agencies to maintain their independence. The Jurisdiction of the Press Council was invoked by two complaints under sections 12(2) (a) and (e) of the Act. What is the meaning and scope of the terms 'Freedom of Press', Independence of Newspapers' and the Independence of the Editor of a Newspaper' is one of the interesting questions which goes to the 'out of the jurisdiction of the Press Council that has arisen in this case. (2) On November 4, 1974. respondent 27, Shri D. R. Mankekar, addressed a complaint to the Press Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Press Council') under section 12(2)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The present petition by Prempal (Petitioner No. 1), his wife, Munni Devi (Petitioner No. 2) and his four children (Petitioners 3 to 6) claims compensation for the undue harassment that Prempal and his family have been subject to at the hands of the Delhi Police.The judgment of the learned ASJ2. The basis for the claim is a judgment dated 28th September 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), New Delhi in SC No. 29 of 2002 (State v. Prempal) acquitting the Petitioner of the offence under Section 376 IPC. In the process, the learned ASJ observed:This case is a glaring example that the poor in this country have no say and if they cry for justice, their cries fall on deaf ears. They are made to suffer and pay by their life and liberty, when they complain against police officials.3. After narrating the long history of the suffering undergone by Prempal, at the hands of the police for about 15 years in a number of false cases, including the one in which he was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(6)ALD19(SC); 2008(4)AWC3875(SC); JT2008(9)SC622; RLW2008(4)SC2794; 2008(12)SCALE367; (2008)9SCC552; 2008(6)Supreme402
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. All these appeals are filed by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in various Letters Patent Appeals as also in Writ Petitions. By the said orders, the High Court rejected the prayer of the appellants for quashing proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for acquisition of land being illegal, unlawful, mala fide and in colourable exercise of power by the State.Factual background3. To appreciate the controversy in the present appeals, it is appropriate to refer to the facts in the first matter i.e. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 2239 of 2006 (Sooraram Pratap Reddy and Ors. v. Deputy Collector, Ranga Reddy and Ors.). It was the case of the appellants before the High Court that the Government of Andhra Pradesh sought to acquire a large chunk of land in the name of `public purpose' for the purported development of `Fin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000ACJ109; 1998VIAD(Delhi)380; 1999CriLJ1099; 75(1998)DLT822; 1998(47)DRJ648
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a petition whereby the petitioners claim compensation from the respondents on account of the death of Sonu, husband of the first petitioner and son of the second petitioner, in police custody. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :- 2. One Deepak Deepu, an accused in case FIR No. 364/96 under sections 24/54/59 of the Arms Act, escaped from the custody of the police party belonging to police station Sarojini Nagar. A case FIR No. 374/96 under section 224 IPC was registered against him at Police Station Sarojini Nagar. It is not disputed that police party belonging to Police Station Sarojini Nagar picked up deceased Sonu, brother of accused Deepak, on August 29, 1996. On the next day, viz., August 30, 1996 the dead body of Sonu was brought to the casualty of Safdarjung Hospital by the staff of Police Station Sarojini Nagar. The body bore fifty-one injuries. These facts are not denied by the respondents. Rather they have been admitted in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001CriLJ238
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This is a pathetic case of a young widow aged about 22 years has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of custodial death of Sri Nanjunda the husband of the petitioner and further sought for direction to the State Govt. to give a suitable job to the petitioner for having lost her husband Sri Nanjunda in the custodial death case at her young age. Further the petitioner has sought for issuance of an appropriate direction to the first and second respondents to take appropriate action against the erred police personnel and officers who are responsible for causing custodial death of her husband late Nanjunda at Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to Police Station in short) and further direct them to hold an enquiry against all the Police Personnel who have been arrayed as accused persons in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1107; 1982LabIC876; (1982)IILLJ259SC; 1982(1)SCALE342; (1982)2SCC273; [1982]3SCR628; 1982(1)SLJ604(SC); 1982(14)LC445(SC)
1. In these writ' petitions, the petitioners who were holders of posts of part-time village officers in the State of Tamil Nadu or associations of such persons have questioned the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Abolition of posts of part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1980 Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 10 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') and the Tamil Nadu Abolition of posts of part-time Village Officers Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act No. 3 of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) which replaced the Ordinance. The total number of posts abolished by the Act is 23,010.2. In Tamil Nadu, as in other parts of India, the village has been the basic unit of revenue administration from the earliest times of which we have any record. The administration was being carried on at the lowest level by a chain of officers in regular gradation one above the other at the commencement of the Christian era. The same system has been in vogue uptil now. It was generally known as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1994]81CompCas50(Raj)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This petition was filed before this court under Section 439(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, on September 15, 1990, with a prayer for winding up the non-petitioner company under Section 433(c) and 433(f) of the 1956 Act and with a further prayer for appointment of the official liquidator as liquidator of the company. Other ancillary prayers have also been made.2. Notice of the petition was ordered to be issued on April 26, 1991. After service of notice none appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner. Therefore, on September 26, 1991, the court ordered advertisement of the petition. On December 20, 1991, it was recorded by the court that in Company Petition No. 6 of 1982, a stay order has been passed by the court in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985'). The court, therefore, directed that this petition be placed along with Petitions Nos. 6 of 1982 and 8 of 1983. On May 28, 1993, ...
Tag this Judgment!