Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(3)KLJ502
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the Food Corporation of India challenging the orders Em. P1, P3, P5, P6, P7 and P8. The further relief sought for is to declare that the provisions of the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Act are not applicable to the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to make any contribution as demanded by the respondents.2. The Food Corporation of India is a statutory Corporation established by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Food Corporation Act 1964. The entire capital of the petitioner Corporation as provided by the Central Government and the Chairman as well as the Managing Director and Directors other than the Managing Director of Central Warehousing Corporation are all appointed by the Central Government. The contention raised is that in view of the various features under which the Food Corporation of India has come into existence, it actually belongs to the Central Government and hence is an establishment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2008(1)CTC449; (2008)3MLJ351
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The appellant/petitioners in these batch of writ appeal/writ petitions are educational institutions. They challenge the correctness of the demand for property tax under Section 172 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, on the ground that buildings used for educational purpose are exempt from liability under Rule 15(c) of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Assessment and Collection of Taxes) Rules, 1999.2. It is seen that on the issue of exemption, there are two decisions of this Court taking two different views. In the decision reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 1068 (Kamaraj College of Engineering And Technology, Managing Board, rep. by its Secretary, Virudhunagar v. President, K. Vellakulam Panchayat, Madurai District), Justice P.Jyothimani considered the question of exemption on the assessment of house tax on the educational institutions under Rule 15(c) of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Assessment and Collection of Taxes) Rules, 1999. The learned Judge held th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(3)SC630; 2007(3)SCALE598; (2007)2SCC777
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 12.01.2005 under COFEPOSA Act, 1974 issued against the petitioner by respondent No. 2 -Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.2. The petitioner was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act') in pursuance of the impugned order of detention. The petitioner by way of this writ petition is challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order of detention passed by respondent No. 2 at pre-execution stage in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. It is stated that two similar orders of detention dated 12.01.2005 and 31.01.2005 were issued under the COFEPOSA Act by respondent No. 2 against the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(4)ALT71
ORDERVilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.1. In this batch of cases the question posed for consideration is regarding the validity of AP Act 9 of 2008, which amended the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short 'HMC Act'), Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Act, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Act, Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and G.O.Ms. No. 901 dated 31.12.2007 issued thereunder.2. By the aforesaid amendment Act the HMC Act was amended by inserting Sections 452-A, 455-A and 455-AA apart from substituting Schedule U and V of the HMC Act. Similarly, with respect to the other allied Acts, in the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, Section 218-A was inserted and in the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 under Section 2h(h) high rise buildings was defined and Sections 41 and 43 were amended by inserting sub-sections. Further, Section 46 was substitu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1908; 2006(5)ALD51(SC); 129(2006)DLT719(SC); [2007(1)JCR110(SC)]; JT2006(5)SC168; 2006(2)KLT700(SC); RLW2006(3)SC2129; 2006(5)SCALE1; (2006)5SCC603; [2006]145STC57
Ruma Pal, J.1. By an order dated 13th October, 1999 in Sunrise Associates v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. : (2000)10SCC420 , the decisions of this Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu : AIR1986SC63 as well as Vikas Sales Tax Corporation and Anr. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Anr. : 1997(57)ECC1 (in so far as it affirmed the decision in the H. Anraj) have been referred to this Bench for re-consideration.2. The question in H. Anraj was whether sales tax can be levied by States on the sale of lottery tickets. A bench of two-Judges held that a lottery involved (i) the right to participate in the lottery draw, and (ii) the right to win the prize, depending on chance. The learned Judges were of the opinion that while' the second right was a chose in action and therefore not 'goods' for the purposes of the levy of Sales Tax, the first; was a transfer of a beneficial interest in moveable goods and was a sale within the meaning of Article 366(29-A)(d) of the Constituti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1984(2)ECC265; 1983(13)ELT909(Mad); (1983)IIMLJ92
ORDER1. Both these writ petitions raise identical questions of law and for the purpose of appreciating that questions it is enough if I refer to the facts in W.P. 298 of 1979 alone. 2. The writ petition is for issue of a writ of certiorified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Import department serial No. 000699 dated 13.12.1978 of the first respondents, to quash the order passed on 21.1.1979 by the first respondent and to direct the first respondent to release the goods without payment of any duty or additional duty. 3. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under the companies Act, 1956. It is carrying on business in the manufacture of Cotton Yarn, cotton/viscose blended yarn. For manufacturing cotton/viscose staple fibers blended yarn, the petitioner company is importing Viscose stable fibre yarn from foreign countries. It had imported under Open General Licence O.G.L. No. 3/78, 142 bales of viscose staple fibre (29999.8 kgs.) valued about Rs. 3,11,465 fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(4)KCCR2566(D.B)
I. CORE ISSUES1. The above batch of writ appeals are directed against the order dated 7th August, 2008 made in writ petition No. 21608 of 2005, raising the following core issues for our consideration:(i) Whether it is proper for this Court to exercise its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate on the policy decision with respect to substantial development of the State and quash the notification made under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'MC Rules') notifying the area available for mining iron ore?(ii) Whether the application, for grant of mining lease for an area, without a notification under Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules, 1960 notifying the said area as available for mining, can be considered for grant of mining lease under Section 11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, (for short 'MMDR Act') as, such application is premature and shall not be entertained as per Rule 60 of the MC Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(5)SC301; 1991(2)SCALE1142; 1993Supp(233)SCC1; [1991]Supp3SCR30
N.D. Ojha, J.1. These two appeals by special leave have been preferred against the judgment dated 8th October, 1982 of the High Court of Kerala in A.S. No. 210 of 1979. Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 534 of 1983 instituted Original Suit No. 253 of 1976 against the since deceased respondent No. 1 (who shall hereinafter for the sake of convenience be referred to as the appellant and respondent No. 1 respectively) for partition and rendition of accounts in the court of Subordinate Judge, Trivandrum. Respondent No. 1 till the integration of the States of Travancore and Cochin on 1st July, 1949 was the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Travancore and thereafter until the formation of the State of Kerala on 1st November, 1956 he was the Rajapramukh of the State of Travancore-Cochin. The suit was instituted by the appellant on the assertion that defendants 1 to 34 (respondent No. 1 being the defendant No. l in the suit) were members of the Travancore Royal Family. This family according to the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2006)4MLJ517
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J. 1. With the consent of either counsel, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal.2. All the petitioners herein are occupying different extents of land, by raising pucca buildings in S.Nos.12/1 and 12/2, Ward-B, Block-12 in Kombainagar to Sengondanpalayam Road, Kailasampalayam Village, Trichengode Municipality. 3. One A.A. Loganathan, the impleaded fourth respondent in some of the writ petitions, who is a resident of Weavers Colony, Tiruchengode, had filed W.P.No. 32224 of 2005 before this Court, as against the District Collector, Namakkal and the Commissioner of Tiruchengode Municipality, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents therein, to take emergent steps to remove the entire encroachments on the Kombainagar to Sengodampalayam Road in T.S.Nos.12/1, 12/2 and 12/3 of Tiruchengode Municipal limits, by considering his representation dated 23.9.2005 in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipali...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 92(2001)CLT71; 2001(I)OLR145
A. S. Naidu, J.1. The' petitioner challenges the order dated 14-12-98 (Annexure-3) passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 3057(c) of 1994.2. The dispute centres round the process of selection to the post of Fishery Production Officer in the establishment of the Director of Fisheries, Orissa. Admittedly, the post of Production Officer is an ex-cadre post. The said post fell vacant with effect from 30-6-90 due to superannuation of the incumbent who was holding the post and opposite party No. 3 was kept in charge. In the year 1994, opposite party No. 3 filed O. A. No. 3057(C) of 1994 before the State Administrative Tribunal praying for issuance of a direction to regularise him in the post with effect from 1-7-99 i. e. the date from which he is continuing as in-charge, with all consequential benefits. It was alleged in the Original Application that as the Government, without regularising the services of the applicant (opposite party No. 3), directed to fil...
Tag this Judgment!