Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1954CriLJ1378
Manohar Pershad, J.1. Bhagoji and Rabhaji are charged of the offences of murdering one Gangadhar and also for causing disappearance of the evidence of the murder under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code respectively. Prosecution story is that Malan Bai the full sister of A-1 and the niece of A-2 had lost her first husband during childhood, but on attaining puberty, she inclined towards remarriage on coming in contact with the deceased. The deceased belonged to the Jadhav family while the accused were from Bhonsla family. There had been few marriages of Bhonsla girls with Jadhav boys. The accused always felt that Jadhavas were not equal in status and when Malan Bai told the accused that she was going to marry the deceased, the accused objected strongly and did all in their power to stop her from taking this step. They even threatened that if she would marry, she would not be allowed to enjoy married life peacefully.2. But in spite of this, Malan Bai succeeded in having 'gandharv (r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004(3)JCR455(Jhr)]; [2005]140STC134(Jharkh)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. Section 25-A of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 has been the subject matter of controversy. The section provides for advance recovery of tax payable under that Act. Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 26 of that Act, Section 25-A provides that every person responsible for making any payment of sale price or any amount purporting to be the full or part payment of sale price or any payment in discharge of any liability on account of valuable consideration payable in respect of transfer of property in goods, whether as goods or in some other form, involved in the execution of a works contract has to deduct an amount, at a rate specified by the State Government, in a notification published in the official Gazette purporting to be a part or full amount of tax payable on the sale of such goods from every bill or invoice raised by a works contractor engaged by him. The petitioner in this writ petition, M/s. Larsen & Tubro challenged the said provision, as it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1985Bom211; 1985(1)BomCR392; (1985)87BOMLR42; 1985MhLJ671
Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. This matter comes up before us on reference by a Division Bench to resolve the conflict of views in Punamchand v. Dattatraya : AIR1978Bom103 and Tukaram v. Shankar : AIR1983Bom116 on the question of jurisdiction of the Authorised Officer under section 7(6) of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act') to go behind the apparent nature of the transaction and determine the real nature of the transaction and grant relief to the debtor.In Punamchand's case : AIR1978Bom103 , the Division Bench held:--'If the transaction is expressed in the form of a sale-deed we do not understand how the Tahsildar acting under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act can go beyond the document and adjudicate that the transaction appears to be one of mortgage. The provisions of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 do not include any section which permits the Authorised Officer to go out beyond the transaction and find out the real nature thereof ....... The legislature lly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ468All; (1993)1UPLBEC183
Palok Basu, J.1. Since the petitions raise similar questions they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. In one of them, Rajiv Ratan Lal Srivastava is the respondent No. 3 who has been dismissed from the office of Cashier in the year 1979 by the petitioner U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. which has a Unit in Maunath Bhanjan, Azamgarh. In the other case, the respondent Surendra Singh's; tenure was terminated in the year 1984 when he was working as Assistant Fitter, that too in a mill in Maunath Bhanjan.3. The matters were raised in conciliation ; proceedings and the State U.P. was informed of the said controversy for making a reference, if any, under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. In Rajiv Ratan Lal Srivastava's case the State Government passed an order on October 30, 1990 that since the Government did not consider the matter fit, no case for reference was made out. It appears that another order was passed on October 1, 1984 reiterating the said stand when the workman was informe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1971)IILLJ169All
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. These two connected special appeals arise out of two references made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow. The Kanpur Sugar Works Limited carries on business of manufacture and sale of sugar. The Company employed Dr. Mohindra as a Medical Officer. He was dismissed from service on 12-1-1968. He complained that his dismissal from service was unjustified. Upon that complaint, the State Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow. This is reference No. 28 of 1969.2. Since there was some doubt about the validity of the order of dismissal, the Company decided to regularise the position. On 25-11-1968 the Company served upon Dr. Mohindra a notice terminating the contract of service. This order of termination of service was also challenged by Dr. Mohindra and a union of workmen. The dispute was again referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow. This is reference No. 48 of 1969.3. In each of the two references ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 66(1988)CLT456; [1988]71STC25(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. In these writ applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India levy of tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act') amended in the year 1986, pursuant to the 46th Amendment of the Constitution is assailed by various petitioners from whom the assessing authorities claimed 'tax in respect of their business of works contract. As common questions of law are involved in all these writ applications, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Since we are considering the question whether the goods transferred to the contractee by each of the petitioners would be in course of execution of the works contract, we are not going into the merit of the case whether the goods have been actually transferred. In case we come to the conclusion that tax is exigible in respect of the goods involved in such of the works contract, we shall give opportunity to the petitioners to approach the statutory authorities who shall find facts t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC605A
ORDER1. We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.' - Jonathan Swift2. Swami Vivekananda said -Religion is not in doctrines, in dogmas, nor in intellectual argumentation; it is being and becoming, it is realisation. This thought comes to mind as we contemplate the roots of this controversy. Genesis of this dispute is traceable to erosion of some fundamental values of the plural commitments of our polity.3. The constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (No. 33 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. 33 of 1993' or 'the Act') and the maintainability of Special Reference No. 1 of 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Reference') made by the President of India under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India are the questions for decision herein. The background in which these questions are to be answered is contained in the facts stated in the White Paper on Ayodhya, February 1993, issued by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC605; JT1994(6)SC632; (1994)6SCC360; [1994]Supp5SCR1
J.S. Verma, J.We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.- Jonathan Swift1. Swami Vivekananda said -Religion is not in doctrines, in dogmas, nor in intellectual argumentation; it is being and becoming, it is realisation.This thought comes to mind as we contemplate the roots of this controversy. Genesis of this dispute is traceable to erosion of some fundamental values of the plural commitments of our polity.2. The constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (No. 33 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. 33 of 1993' or 'the Act') and the maintainability of Special Reference No. 1 of 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Reference') made by the President of India under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India are the questions for decision herein. The background in which these questions are to be answered is contained in the facts stated in the White Paper on Ayodhya, February 1993, issued...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR912]
B.S. Chauhan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. These two writ petitions arise out of disciplinary proceedings initiated against Jeet Narain by the Railway authorities. The first writ petition has been filed by the Union of India against the order of the Tribunal dated 6.11.1997 passed in Original Application No. 461 of 1989. Under the said judgment the Tribunal has issued following directions:(a) Fresh departmental enquiry be conducted against the Jeet Narain, qua the charge of forged casual labour card being submitted by him.(b) Employee be reinstated pending enquiry.(c) A cost of Rs. 25,000/- be paid by the employer concerned.2. The Division Bench of this Court while entertaining the aforesaid writ petition suspended the payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- vide order dated 26.2.1998 however it was directed that the other two directions issued by the Tribunal be carried out. The Union of India, therefore after reinstating the petitioner proceeded with the departmental enquiry. After the enqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2006(4)CHN459,[2006(110)FLR606],(2006)3LLJ408Cal
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal is arising out of an order dated January 6, 2005, whereby the Hon'ble First Court was pleased to set aside the order and/or judgment passed by the learned Tribunal.2. Facts of the case briefly are as follows:Appellant was appointed by the respondent-company as a Medical Service Representative (hereinafter referred to as MSR) on probation at a monthly salary of Rs. 250/-. On June 27, 1973. Such appointment was confirmed by the company (respondent No. 1) and subsequent thereto appellant was promoted as Field Sales Officer on or about December 24, 1981 and thereafter on January 1, 1986 promoted to the post of Sales Trainee Officer. On or about January 1, 1988 he was promoted to the post of District Manager in the Junior Management Staff Cadre. Subsequent thereto, he was promoted to the post of Zonal Manager with effect from October 1, 1990. It further appears that on April 1, 1994 respondent by virtue of a Scheme of Amalgamation sanctioned by the Bom...
Tag this Judgment!