Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal311
1. The plaintiffs are the widow and minor children of one Sanat Kumar Dutta-Gupta who was killed in an air crash. They have instituted this suit under the Fatal Accidents Act for the recovery of damages against the defendant Corporation. It is pleaded in the plaint that the deceased Sanat Kumar purchased a ticket as a passenger from Dum Dum Airport to Jorhat on the defendant's scheduled route known as the Calcutta-Mohonbari route. On March 21, 1956 at about eleven o'clock in the morning the aircraft crashed while landing at Salami Airport. Sanat Kumar was killed in the crash. The plaintiffs' case is that the death of Sanat Kumar was caused by the negligence of the defendant Corporation or its employees. The particular of negligence are set out in paragraph 5 of the plaint. Leave to furnish further particulars of negligence and/or misconduct however was reserved after discovery. Such further particulars were furnished at the time of the opening of the case by Mr. Dutt Roy the learned co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Fong Yue Ting v. United States - 149 U.S. 698 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) Fong Yue Ting v. United States Nos. 1345, 1346, 1347 Argued May 10, 1893 Decided May 15, 1893 149 U.S. 698 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The right to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign nation. In the United States, the power to exclude or to expel aliens is vested in the political departments of the National Government, and is to be regulated by treaty or by act of Congress, and to be executed by the executive authority according to the regulations so established, except so far as the Judicial Department is authorized by treaty or by statute, or is required by the Constitution, to intervene. The power of Congress to expel, like the power to exclude, ali...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1990)IILLJ416MP
ORDERT.N. Singh.J1. Dedicated to the hallowed memory of the legendary heroine of the First War of Independence, Maharani Laxmibai, is the National College of Physical Education at Gwalior, popularly called LNCPE. Established by the Union Ministry of Education and Culture., its management currently vests in the Sports Authority of India, successor to the erswthile Society for the National Institute of Physical Education and Sports, shortly, SNIPES.2. From what has come on record, it is established that the petitioner was working as Resident Audit Officer at the Bhilai Steel Plant in the year 1985 when he appeared at an interview held on 14th April 1985 for the post of Administrative Officer at LNCPE, Gwalior. From Annexure R/1 it is disclosed that he was selected and was offered appointment in the said post, said to be a 'permanent post', on the following, among other, terms and conditions:'4. You will be on probation for a period of two years from the date of your joining and during wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2004(52)BLJR149; [2004(1)JCR285(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the Judgment dated 14.07.2003 by the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in WP (S) No. 711 of 2003, whereby the prayer of the petitioner-appellant for quashing the order dated 06.01.2003 (Annexure 28/A to the writ petition which is Annexure 10 in this appeal) passed by respondent No. 5 Registrar, Co-operative societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi by virtue of which he was compulsorily retired by way of punishment in a disciplinary proceeding has been refused and the said writ petition was dismissed.2. The learned Single Judge in para 5 of the impugned Judgment while dismissing the writ petition has observed thus :'From perusal of the affidavits it transpire that the departmental proceeding was conducted and the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Taking into consideration that the charges against the petitioner were prima facie proved, the impugned order of compulsory retireme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Garrison v. Louisiana - 379 U.S. 64 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) Garrison v. Louisiana No. 4 Argued April 22,1964 Restored to the calendar for reargument June 22, 1964 Reargued October 19, 1964 Decided November 23, 1964 379 U.S. 64 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus Appellant, a District Attorney in Louisiana, during a dispute with certain state court judges of his parish, accused them at a press conference of laziness and inefficiency and of hampering his efforts to enforce the vice laws. A state court convicted him of violating the Louisiana Criminal Defamation Statute, which, in the context of criticism of official conduct, includes punishment for true statements made with "actual malice" in the sense of ill-will, as well as false statements if made with ill-will or without reasonable belief that they were true. The state supreme court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute did not unconstitutionally abr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR257]; 2008(1)KLJ607; 2008(1)KLT858; (2008)IILLJ985Ker; 2009(2)SLJ78(Kerala)
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. A very difficult question arises for consideration in this case, on the question of interpretation of Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act on which there are two conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court, one by a three Member Bench and the other by a two Member Bench. The situation arises in the following factual scenario.2. The petitioners in this original petition filed an application under Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act before the 1st respondent seeking overtime wages. As per the settlements arrived at between the management and the Unions, the workmen were actually getting wages in excess of the minimum wages prescribed as per notifications issued under the Minimum Wages Act. The authority under the Minimum Wages Act, by Ext.Pl order, following a decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council. Hatta v. Bhagat Singh and Ors. 1998 (1) LLJ 815, denied jurisdiction on the ground that Section 14 can be invoked only by persons who are getting minimum rate of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(2)BomCR480; (1993)95BOMLR909
H.W. Dhabe, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the orders of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Akola i.e. the respondent No. 1 dated 1-9-1992 and 1-10-1992 refusing him permission to withdraw his notice of retirement dated 31-7-1992. He has also challenged in this writ petition the validity of Rule 66(5) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, 'the Pension Rules') applicable to the Government Servants. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Section Writer in the District Court, Akola on 5-7-1970 and was promoted thereafter as Clerk-cum-Steno on 1-8-1976. According to him, he had completed 20 years of service when he gave the notice of voluntary retirement dated 31-7-1992 in accordance with Rule 66(1) of the Pension Rules which provides that at any time after a Government servant has completed 20 years qualifying service, he can by giving a notice of three months in writing to the Appointing Authority, ret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)692
1. These appeals by the assessees are directed against orders of CITs refusing to register these assessees under Section 12A of the IT Act.2. All the applicants, i.e., Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and various marketing committees at different places in Punjab, Haryana and Delhi were created under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (PAPMA). All the assessees were enjoying exemption from income-tax under Section 10(20) of IT Act which prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2002, w.e.f. 1st April, 2003, provided as under : "Section 10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included-- (20) the income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources" or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)BomCR550; 2004(2)MhLj874
C.K. Thakker, C. J.1. All these petitions have been placed for hearing before a Full Bench on a reference being made by a Division Bench consisting of one of us (B.H. Marllapale, J.) and N.H. Patil, J. In all the three petitions, a common question of law has been raised viz., the extent of power, authority and jurisdiction of the Collector under Sub-section (1) of Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to suspend an order or resolution passed by a Municipal Council.2. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present group of petitions, few relevant facts in the First matter i.e. Writ Petition No. 1928 of 1996, Sanjay Govind Sapkal and Ors. v. The Collector of Dhule and Ors., may be stated.3. The said petition was filed by fourteen petitioners claimed to have been appointed by Municipal Council, Dhule, respondent No. 2 herein. The President of respondent No. 2-Council made several a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC41; (1955)57BOMLR595; [1955]1SCR777
Bose, J.1. This judgment will govern Civil Appeals Nos. 146 and 147 of 1952 as well. We will first deal with the questions that are common to them all. They arise out of three petitions made in the Bombay High Court for writs of mandamus under article 266 of the Constitution. The writs have been granted and the State of Bombay appeals. 2. The facts are these. The Governor of Bombay, acting through the Assistant Controller of Accommodation, issued orders under section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, in Civil Appeals Nos. 145 and 146 of 1952 and under section 5(1) in Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1952, requisitioning the premises of the three respondents. The question is whether these orders are ultra vires. They are attacked on a number of grounds the first of which goes to the root of the matter. It is contended that these two sections are ultra vires articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution. 3. The respondents are either the owners or the tenants of the premises req...
Tag this Judgment!