Court : Allahabad
1. PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 26.10.1996, passed by the Labour Court Faizabad in Case No. 22 of 1994 under Section 33 -C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the prayer to compute his wages in terms of notification dated 31.1. 1991 whereby wage structures of the different kind of employees in the Vaccum Pan Sugar Factories have been revised. The petitioner claims his status as a Seasonal Guard in the factory of opposite party no. 2. It is stated that he worked during the crushing season 1982-83 to 1992-93, but he was not paid the wages as was admissible to the Seasonal Guards of the factory. He claimed difference of salary amounting to Rs.41723. 25. The claim was referred for its adjudication under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and was registered as Case No. 22/1994. 2. THE respondents contested the matter and contended that the petitioner was purely a Daily Wages employee. He was never engaged as a Seasonal Guard in the mill; therefore, he w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1996(1)ALT(Cri)275; ILR1995KAR1090
Mirdhe, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 30.6.92 passed by the Sessions Judge, Madikeri, in S.C. 33/86 acquitting the respondents - accused of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 302 read with Section 114 and Section 304B I.P.C.2. We have heard Sri Marigowda, learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant - State and Sri Bhagwan, learned Counsel for the respondents, fully and perused the records of the case.3. The case of the prosecution is as follows :- The deceased Leelavathy was the legally wedded wife of accused No. 1. Her marriage with accused No. 1 took place on 18.6.86 at Shetty Chatram, Ramanathapuram. Before the finalisation of the marriage with accused No. 1, the accused demanded a dowry of Rs. 30,000/- and 15 tolas of gold, but due to the intervention of the elders that demand of dowry came to be reduced and it was agreed by the father of the deceased that he woul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC38; (1957)ILLJ226SC; [1956]1SCR781
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. Disputes having arisen between Messrs Burn and Company, Calcutta, hereinafter called the Company, and a section of their employees in Howrah Iron Works, hereinafter referred to as the Union, the Government of West Bengal issued a notification on 16-12-1952 referring the same to the First Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Though there were as many as 13 items comprised in the reference, we are concerned in these appeals only with four of them viz., (1) revision of pay of clerical and sub-staff, (2) grades of sarkars and checkers, (3) bonus, and (4) reinstatement of four employees, S. N. Chatterjee, Ashimananda Banerjee, Panchanan Rana and Joydeb Banerjee and/or payment of compensation to them. By this award dated 24-6-1953, Shri Banerji the Industrial Tribunal, held (1) that there were no grounds for revising the scale of pay of the clerical and sub-staff; (2) that the pay of checkers should be increased and that they should be paid according to the scale as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1990ACJ909
B.M. Thulasidas, J. 1. The 2nd respondent in O.P. (M.V.) No. 55 of 1987 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Quilon, is the appellant.2. The above petition for compensation was filed by the wife, two minor children and the mother of deceased Babukutty, who died in a motor cycle accident that took place on 10.8.1986 around midnight at Punnala in Pathanapuram-Punnala Road. At the time of the accident, the deceased was travelling in motor cycle No. KRQ 8812 that belonged to him, as a pillion rider. The vehicle had been insured with the appellant, and at the time of the incident, it was driven by one M.K. Daniel, the 5th respondent in this appeal who was the 1st respondent before the Tribunal. An amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was claimed as compensation.3. The 5th respondent was ex parte. The appellant, 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, contended that there was collusion between the 1st respondent Daniel and the petitioners, and stated that the deceased, who was the owner of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1987(2)BomCR691; 1990(27)ECC203; 1988(38)ELT401(Bom)
Dr. Couto, J.1. The facts and the issues that gave rise to these writ petitions are intimately connected and hence, this common judgment.2. Petitioners, a Private Limited Company with registered office at Mormugao Harbour, challenge in these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the validity of the directives given by the second respondent by his letters dated 26th March and 10th April, 1987, as well as the orders dated 26th, 31st March and 9th April, all of 1987. They further seek a Mandamus directing the second respondent to withdraw the said directives and orders, to assess the wreck of the 'S. S. Maratha Transhipper' to duty on the assumption that the vessel is not exigible to duty and to forbear from levying any customs duty as well as additional or auxiliary duty, in respect of the import of the said vessel, giving them the benefit of the Exemption Notification No. 262 of 1958 or of the Notification No. 133 of 1987.3. In October, 1969, the 'S. S. Marat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2677; (2005)4CompLJ283(SC); JT2005(2)SC8; (2005)4SCC649
N. Santosh Hegde, J. 1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of Sinha, J. I regret I cannot persuade myself to agree with the conclusions recorded in the said judgment hence this separate opinion. The Judgment of Sinha, J. has elaborately, dealt with the facts, relevant rules and bye-laws of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (the Board). Hence, I consider it not necessary for me to reproduce the same including the lengthy arguments advanced on behalf of the parties except to make reference to the same to the extent necessary in the course of this judgment.2. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the Board has raised the preliminary issue in regard to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that under Article 32, a petition is not maintainable against the Board since the same is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is this issue which is being considered in this judgment.3. In support of his argumen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1978Bom103; 1978MhLJ158
Deshmukh, J.1. This petition under the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 represents a glaring instance of misplaced enthusiasm of the AuthorisedOfficer under the Act who has transgressed all limits of procedure, propriety and principles of justice.2. One Bharat Dandekar is a resident of Chiplun. He claims to own a house and some adjoining land as his ancestral property. He had taken loan from time to time from the present petitioner Punamchand Oswal and during the course of his dealings executed an agreement dated 29-12-1971 to sell his property. By that time the loan was Rs. 4,000/-. Subsequently Bharat incurred further liability for the purpose of continuing his own business or profession of preparing brass and copper vessels. Ultimately the total liability amounted to Rs. 8,000/-.3. When this happened he executed a sale-deed dated 14th Oct. 1974 for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/- in respect of his house along with the open plot of ground in favour of the petitioner. A regular sale-d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1977Raj89; 1976(9)WLN820
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the appointment of non-petitioner No. 3 Dr. S. Divakaran as Professor Structural Engineering, Dean Faculty of Engineering and his nomination to the Syndicate in the capacity of Dean and prays for quashing the same. It has also been prayed that the petitioner be declared entitled to be nominated to the Syndicate instead.2. The case of the petitioner as set up in the writ petition, briefly stated, is as follows:--3. The petitioner was authorised to exercise the powers of Dean of Faculty of Law by the Vice Chancellor's order dated 8-10-1974 till further orders. The petitioner alleges that this order did not meet the requirement of Statute 4 (1), and was rather made with malice and bias which the Vice Chancellor bore against him as he did not like to nominate the petitioner on the Syndicate. The petitioner further avers that under Statute 4 of the University Statute...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G. S. Singhvi, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents were allowed, Section 32(5A) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, `the 1976 Act') was declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, void and inoperative and the conditions incorporated in the orders passed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA)sanctioning residential layout plans or work orders in terms of which respondents were required to pay/deposit various charges/sums specified therein were quashed and a direction was issued for refund of the amount. 2. With the formation of the new State of Mysore, it was considered necessary to have a uniform law for planned growth of land use and development and for the making and execution of town planning schemes. Therefore, the State Legislature enacted the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short, `the Town Planning Act')....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1983(1)BomCR345
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. This revision arise out an order passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Summary Suit No. 2115/2510 of 1978 pending in his Court on September 14, 1981 by which he dismissed the application of the original defendant to refer the issue to the officer under the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act. The facts giving rise to this revisions, are, the plaintiff respondent filed a summary suit on the basis of a Hundi executed by the defendant. This suit was filed under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code. The defendant filed his written statement to which I will refer later. The suit procedure for trial and it appears that a conditional leave was granted to the defendant to defend the suit and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was also deposited accordingly. During the pendency of the suit on July 14, 1981 the suit was proceeded ex parte and the plaintiff's evidence was recorded. It appears that on July 15, 1981 the defendant filed an application in this suit pra...
Tag this Judgment!