Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR481; [1986]61STC107(Kar)
Puttaswamy, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Srinivasa Iyengar and Rama Jois, JJ., has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of the Full Bench : '(1) Whether section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, confers power on the Commissioner to interfere with an order made by an appellate authority under section 20 of the Act (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether section 22-A of the Act is void as offending article 14 of the Constitution ?' In order to appreciate the questions referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts of the case that are not in dispute in the first instance. 2. The petitioner who is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tobacco products is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('the Act'), on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Tiptur ('CTO'). 3. For the assessment year 1972-73 the petitioner filed his return before the CT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The Petitioner, Bharti Cellular limited (‘BCL’) [earlier known as Bharti Mobile Limited (‘BML’)], has in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) challenged an Award dated 20th December 2002 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent Department of Telecommunications (‘DOT’) arising out of a license agreement dated 26th December 1995 for provision of Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (‘CMTS’) in various telecom circles including Punjab. By the impugned Award the learned Arbitrator rejected the claim of BML for refund of the amount of license fee together with interest paid by it to the DOT subject to the finding that if the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (‘TDSAT’) or in any further appeal/further proceedings, it was finally held that BML was not liable to pay interest for the period ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE DR. K B S RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The question is short. When the vacancies pertain to the period anterior to 31st August 2001, the date when Recruitment Rules (to the post of Junior Accounts Officer -JAO, for short) were amended, whether the unamended Recruitment rules should be followed or the amended. The law on the subject is no longer res-integra. In the case of Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284 the Apex Court has categorically held as under: "We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules." 2.An exception had been carved out of the above law laid down by the Apex Court as could be seen in the judgment in the case of K. Ramulu (Dr) v. S. Suryaprakash Rao (Dr), (1997) 3 SCC 59 , wherein the Apex Court has held as under: "When the vacancies were not being filled up in accordance with the existing Rules, this Court had pointed out that prior to the amendm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. We propose to deal with the above mentioned writ petition, the criminal appeals and the contempt petition by this judgment. The question of law involved in these cases is identical, therefore, all these cases are being dealt with by a common judgment. In order to avoid repetition, only the facts of the writ petition of Lalita Kumari's case are recapitulated.2. The petition has been filed before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the nature of habeas corpus to produce Lalita Kumari, the minor daughter of Bhola Kamat.3. On 5.5.2008, Lalita Kumari, aged about six years, went out of her house at 9 p.m. When she did not return for half an hour and Bhola Kamat was not successful in tracing her, he filed a missing report at the police station Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.4. On 11.5.2008, respondent no.5 met Bhola Kamat and informed him that his daughter has been kidnapped and kept under unlawful confinement by the respondent nos.6 to 13. The respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. These petitions have been filed by the owners of the land acquired by the State Government in favour of the opposite party Anil Agarwal Foundation (hereinafter in short called as Foundation') for establishment of a University in exercise of its eminent domain power under the provisions of Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the L.A. Act' in short). The public interest litigation petitions have been filed both on behalf of the land owners who have no access to justice and also on behalf of the public of the locality of the lands whose public interest is affected by violating Rule of Law in acquiring vast tract of both Government, Temple and private lands in favour of the Foundation. They were listed and heard together by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment. With a view to avoid repetition of pleadings and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we would briefly state the necessary fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
1. These petitions have been filed by the owners of the land acquired by the State Government in favor of the opposite party Anil Agarwal Foundation (hereinafter in short called as Foundation') for establishment of a University in exercise of its eminent domain power under the provisions of Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the L.A. Act' in short). The public interest litigation petitions have been filed both on behalf of the land owners who have no access to justice and also on behalf of the public of the locality of the lands whose public interest is affected by violating Rule of Law in acquiring vast tract of both Government, Temple and private lands in favour of the Foundation. They were listed and heard together by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment. With a view to avoid repetition of pleadings and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we would briefly state the necessary fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of learned Counsel representing the parties. Heard submissions.2. The Petitioner prayed for issuance of the writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding Respondent no. 2 to forthwith file a FIR and carry out a thorough investigation in to the offences set out in the complaint of in the said complaint for punishment of the Accused therein and all persons connected with the said offence in accordance with law.3. Facts briefly stated are-The Petitioner- Complainant had by an communication dated 25th April 2008 addressed to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Crime branch C.I.D., Mumbai, made accusations that Shri Vijay Kirtilal Mehta, in pursuance of Criminal Conspiracy alongwith Dr. Narendra Trivedi, Dr Sanjay Prabhat Kapadia, Shri Rozario F. Paacheco, Shri Anant Kamath, Shri Lawrence Pareira, Shri Rajendra Kairnar, Shri Charanjit Singh Rekhi, Shri Dushyant Madhukant Mehata, Smt Jasm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: V.V.S. Rao, J. PROLOGUE In this group of seven writ petitions, the issue is whether the notification issued by Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board (the Wakf Board, for brevity) declaring certain lands as wakf properties is illegal and whether the allotment of those lands by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) and further allotment by the latter to third party industries is not illegal. Three writ petitions, being W.P.Nos.17192, 20614 and 20372 of 2007 challenge allotment of land and the remaining are filed for invalidation of the Wakf Board notification issued in 2006. The two questions need to be addressed without ignoring the fact that persons interested in the wakf have already filed suits before the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal (the Wakf Tribunal) under the Wakf Act, 1995 (the Wakf Act, for brevity) and are pending for trial. The battle line between the group opposing the wakf board’s decision and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No.116 of 2019 Forum for Peoples Collective Efforts (FPCE) & Anr. Petitioners Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr. Respondents 1 JUDGMENT Dr Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud A The challenge B Legislative history C RERA - the legislative process D Salient features RERA E Salient provisions of WB-HIRA F RERA and WB-HIRA provisions at variance G Submissions G.1 For the petitioners G.2 For the Union of India G.3 For the State of West Bengal H Analysis H.1 Entry 24, List II West Bengals housing industry defense H.2 The Constitutional Scheme of Article 254 and repugnancy H.3 Repugnancy RERA and WB-HIRA2H.3.1 Meaning of is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law H.3.2 Meaning of law for the time being in force H.3.3 Knitting it together H.4 Lack of Presidential Assent for WB-HIRA I Conclusion 3 PART A A The challenge 1 The constitutional validity of the West Bengal Housing Industry Regul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2008Cal118
ORDERSanjib Banerjee, J.1. An examinee has come a knocking imploring that he be granted another look at his answered paper, citing a statute standing on the bedrock of a right ordained unto every citizen by the Constitution. The only question, one of some importance, that is raised in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether an examinee has access to his evaluated answerscript under the Right to Information Act, 2005.2. The petitioner appears to be a reasonably meritorious student. He obtained 91.6 per cent in his Madhyamik (Class X) Examinations and 80.8 per cent in his Higher Secondary (Class XII) Examinations, fie enrolled for the mathematics honours course of the Calcutta University in Presidency College where admission itself is an acknowledgment of merit. In 2006, the petitioner took his Part I Bachelor's degree examinations and secured a somewhat modest 52 per cent score. In the following year he appeared for his Part II Examinations and secured 208 ...
Tag this Judgment!