Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT502
k. balakrishnan nair, j. 1. the petitioner is an importer of fish meal and it is challenging ext.p4 public notice dated 9.7.2001 issued by the commissioner of customs, ext.p5 notification dated 17.10.2001 issued by the central government and ext.p6 public notice dated 21.1.2002 issued by the commissioner of customs. the brief facts of the case, are the following.2. the import of live-stock to india, is governed by the provisions of live-stock importation act, 1898. section 2(a) of the act defines the expression 'infections or contagious disorders' as including tick-pest, anthrax, glanders, farcy, scabies and any other disease or disorder, which may be specified by the central government by notification in the official gazette. section 2(b) defines live-stock as 'live-stock includes horses, kine, camels, sheep and any other animal which may be specified by the central government by notification in the official gazette'. the parliament has amended the live-stock importation act of 1898 by livestock importation (amendment) act, 2001. the definition 'live-stock products' has been incorporated in section 2 of the act as section 2(d). the said definition reads as follows: 'live-stock products includes meat and meat products of all kinds including fresh, chilled and frozen meat, tissue, organs of poultry, pig, sheep, goat; egg and egg powder, milk and milk products, bovine, ovine and caprine, embryos, ova, semen; pet food products of animal origin and any other animal product which .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2002LC130(Madras); 2003(151)ELT520(Mad)
orderv.s. sirpurkar, j.1. this judgment shall govern and dispose of two writ petitions, which were initially filed in the gujarat high court and originally registered as special civil application nos.3282 and 3279 of 1989. while spl. c.a. no. 3282 of 1989 was filed by adani exports limited, spl. c.a. no. 3279 of 1989 was filed by one inter continental (india), a partnership firm.2. both these special civil appeals as they were filed before the gujarat high court were allowed by the high court by a common judgment dated 3-4-2000 and 17-2-2000. this judgment was challenged before the apex court by the union of india, respondents herein vide civil appeal nos.6320 and 6321 of 2000. the apex court allowed these appeals only on the ground of 'territorial jurisdiction'. following is the operative part of the judgment:'for the reasons stated above, these appeals succeed and the same are hereby allowed. the impugned judgment is set aside. we further direct that special civil application nos.3282/99 and 3279/99 filed by the respondents are hereby directed to be transferred to the high court of madras at chennai forthwith and on receipt of the papers, we request the chief justice of the high court of madras to place them before an appropriate bench for disposal in accordance with law. we are also of the opinion that since the parties have already undergone one round of litigation before the high court at ahmedabad and thereafter in these appeals before us, it is appropriate to request .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2015
1. this is an application filed by the original accused in criminal appeal no. 415 of 1983. this court, by a final judgment and order dated 26-8-1991, allowed the criminal appeal which had been filed by the state of maharashtra. that appeal was directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned additional chief metropolitan magistrate, 38th court, ballard pier, bombay, on 3-5-1983. the accused, who is a businessman, was charged with having committed an offence punishable under s. 5 of the imports and exports (control) act, 1947, essentially in so far as having obtained an import licence valued at rs. 47,84,761/- had imported items on the basis that they were for his actual use and that the same had been sold in the open market. the appeal preferred by the state of maharashtra against the order of acquittal was admitted by this court and notice in respect of the same was served on the accused on 5-10-1983. the accused, though a well-placed businessman, did not take any action on that notice and did not have any appearance filed on his behalf. even though the appeal related to the year 1983, it was only in october, 1989 that the same finally appeared on board. my learned brother, moharir, j., after hearing the matter for a considerable length of time, made an endorsement in the case papers that the accused should be served once again. though it is now contended before me by mr. vashi, learned counsel who represents the applicant-accused, that the court directed that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(1)BomCR3; (1994)96BOMLR831; [1994]81CompCas132(Bom); 1993CriLJ3370
m.f. saldanha, j.1. this proceeding is reminiscent of the allegoric reference to the proverbial serpent that attempted to sting the hand that was feeding it milk. harsh as this may seem, a narration of the facts would indicate how appropriate the analogy is. the central issue canvassed in the case being one that is customarily pleaded as a defence in prosecutions under section 630 of the companies act, 1956, the law on the point requires to be settled. it has almost become routine in this class of litigation, for a contention to be adopted by the defence, that a promise was made to the accused ex-employee by or on behalf of the company that the premises in question would be sold to the employee at book value or, in other words, for a fraction of the real market value or, in the case of rented premises, that the tenancy would be surrendered in favour of the occupant. this contention is pleaded in all seriousness and it is contended that the accused is entitled to enforce his rights by insisting on specific performance by the company and that, consequently, the ingredient of wrongful retention or withholding of the premises is absent. litigations are commenced in the civil courts for a declaration that the accused should be declared a tenant or that he is entitled to enforce the sale at book value to himself for a totally unreal consideration on the ground that he is an intending purchaser, apart from other parallel proceedings in various courts, and the criminal prosecution .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All121
malik, c.j.1. this is a plaintiffs' appeal against the order of the lower court dismissing their suit for possession of certain properties as against defendants 1 to 8 and 29 to 31. the plaintiffs had claimed the properties as the reversionary heirs of lal bishwanath singh who died on 26/27th april 1872. after the death of his widow, mt. sheobachan kuer, on 7th october 1926, the suit wag filed on the last date of limitation, i. e., 6th october 1938.2. the pedigree of the family is printed at page 7 and there is no dispute as regards the pedigree. on the death of mt. sheobachan kuer, lal shanker nath singh, who was the nearest collateral of lal bishwanath singh, became his legal heir. the suit was filed by somnath singh, son of lal shanker nath singh, the other two plaintiffs being his cousins to whom the plaintiff had agreed to give a portion of the property.3. the property is divided into six schedules. the appeal relates only to schedules a and d, as the plaintiffs entered into compromises with the other defendants who were interested in schedule b, c, e and p., and decrees: have been passed in terms of the compromises and we are, therefore, no longer concerned with these items of property. defendants 1 to 8 are in possession of schedule a property and defendants 29 to 31 are interested in schedule d property. defendants 1, 2 and 3 are represented by mr. pathak and defendants 6 and 7 are represented by mr. krishna shankar. defendant 8 is not represented before us, while .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(3)BomCR148
a.v. savant, j.1. this is a petition seeking to challenge the letter/order at ex. c dated 7th july 1987 issued by the second respondent - director (engineering services and projects) of the first respondent municipal corporation of greater bombay. under the said letter/order ex. c the petitioner had been informed that under office order dated 24th november, 1986 he was promoted to the post of assistant engineer on ad hoc basis with effect from 4th november 1987. however, it had subsequently come to the notice that at the time of the petitioner's promotion to the post of asstt. engineer, he was involved in a criminal case in connection with the approval of the building proposal based on fraudulently increased area of plots of city survey nos. 233 and 234 of byculla division, bombay. para 2 of the order states that the anti corruption bureau (a.c.b.) had investigated the complaint and, prima facie criminal case was made out against certain accused including some municipal employees, petitioner being one of them. it was, therefore, stated that a prima facie case for having committed offences under section 120-b read with 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477a, 420 i.p.c. and 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1947 was made out. the impugned order at ex. c further stated that in view of the aforementioned facts relating to the criminal cases in which the petitioner was involved he was found to have been wrongly promoted to the post of asstt. engineer when a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1959P& H313
1. the facts giving rise to this second appeal are as under: on 29-4-1924 one gokal chand mortgaged the suit property with possession in favour of jamna das. in a court sale held thereafter the father of defendants nos. 1 to 6 purchased the mortgagee rights. on 14-5-1924 gokal chand made a will bequeathing the property to the present plaintiffs who were minors at that time. on 28-11-1928 lal devi, mother of the plaintiffs, was appointed their guardian under the guardians and wards act. on 6-6-1936 lal devi sold the equity of redemption in the property in dispute to the father of defendants nos. 1 to 6 with the result that the equity of redemption as also the mortgagee rights vested in the same person, that is, the father of defendants nos. 1 to 6.on 13-8-1947 the plaintiffs brought the present suit for redemption of the mortgage alleging that the sale of equity of redemption by their mother lal devi was not binding on them and they were entitled to redeem the mortgage. the suit was contested by the defendants (their father in the meantime having died) on various pleas including (1) that the suit was barred by time, and (2) that a suit for setting aside the sale of equity of redemption having not been brought within the period of limitation prescribed by article 44 of the indian limitation act, the present suit for redemption could not be maintained.the defendants also pleaded that the plaint was not properly stamped and that the property in dispute had been valialy sold by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
r.s. bindra, j.c.1.the facts relevant to this revision petition filed by nine convicts under sections 148 and 427 of the indian penal code are that the deputy commissioner, manipur, settled a part of naibi river in favour of the complainant t. mohori singh, the respondent no. 2 herein, and five others on 6-5-1962 for the purpose of pisciculture, and mohori singh and his associates constructed embankments for rearing fish. the chief commissioner vacated the settlement order on 7-8-1962 in an appeal filed against the same and directed the complainant and others to remove the fish fingerlings from the river by 7th of september 1962. on the morning of 9-9-1962, according to the allegations of the complainant, all the nine petitioners went to the site of the embankments, armed with dao and spades, and made cuts therein. the complainant and one indrajit singh, who alone were present at the site, registered a protest. the petitioners charged at them and so the two victims had to flee from the place to save their lives. the petitioners made such extensive cuts in the embankments that all the fish fingerlings were washed away by the gushing waters. aggrieved by the action of the culprits, mohori singh filed a complaint against them under divers charges. the trial magistrate convicted each one of them under sections 148 and 427 i.p.c. and sentenced them to a fine of rs. 50a on each count. on failure to pay the fine on either count, the convicts were directed to suffer two months' .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(2)ALLMR675; 2001(2)BomCR621; (2001)2BOMLR399; 2001(3)MhLj450
orderh. l. gokhale, j.1. heard mr. bharucha in support of these two notice of motions which are taken out by the plaintiff and mr. vashi appears for the defendants.2. the plaintiff is a society registered under the societies registration act, 1860, and amongst others its alms and objects are to undertake, organize and perform beneficial acts in the interest of parsi zoroastrians meaning thereby persons who are parsi by birth being born of parsi parents and also professing zoroastrian religion. this plaintiff society is a owner of land situated at oshlwara, jogeshwari (west), mumbai known as 'behram baug'. over the years, it has developed a residential colony meant for the parsi zoroastrfans on that land. the persons who are interested in staying in that residential colony had to be parsi zoroastrians as stated above and had to sign necessary declarations for that purpose.3. the case of the plaintiff-society is that husband of defendant no. 1, one narlman gusta jogina hailing from agra, wanted to settle down in mumbai and, therefore, sought a flat in this residential colony. he gave a declaration in the necessary form on 9th of may. 1995 and. therefore, the plaintiff, by its letter dated 20th july, 1995 agreed to allot the flat to him. subsequently, an agreement of sale was signed with nariman jogina on 22nd of april, 1996. this nariman jogina expired on 16th october, 1996 before being put in possession leaving behind him his wife (defendant no. 1) and son (defendant no. 2). .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1980Bom250
1. the petitioner before this court was admittedly a tenant in respect of the suit premises which consist of a single room tenement, being room no. 12, chawl no. 42, situate at kol dongri, andheri, bombay. the chawl belongs to the present respondent no. 1, who will be referred to hereinafter as 'the respondent',2. by a notice dated 15-10-1969 the respondent terminated the petitioner's tenancy and demanded the arrears of rent due from the petitioner. however, it is clear that even before this notice, an application was filed by the petitioner, along with the other tenants of the chawl, for fixation of standard rent in respect of the various tenements in the chawl including the suit premises. in those proceedings for fixation of standard rent, the court also passed an order fixing interim rent with effect from 1-5-1969 at the rate of rupees 8-00 p. m.3. later on, on 1st february, 1971, the respondent gave another notice to the petitioner. in the notice the fact that the tenancy was terminated previously by his notice dated 15th oct. 1969 was referred to. likewise the fact that the court had fixed interim rent with effect from 1-5-1969 was also referred to. by that notice dated 1st feb., 1971, the respondent alleged that the petitioner had unlawfully sublet the suit premises to another person and that he was not staying in the suit premises. statement was made in the said notice that the respondent would file a suit for ejectment against the petitioner in those circumstances.4. .....
Tag this Judgment!