Court : Mumbai
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing. CHALLENGE: 3. Petitioner “ Company is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer “ Respondent No.2 herein dated 05/06/2015 whereby Petitioner was directed to stop manufacture, sale and distribution etc of nine types of variants of noodles manufactured by them and also gave other directions by the impugned order which is at Exhibit-A to the Petition. Petitioner is also challenging the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Food Safety, State of Maharashtra “ Respondent No. 4 which is at Exhibit-B. 4. Petitioner has challenged these two impugned orders principally on the following five grounds:- (i) Firstly, it was contended that the said two impugned orders have been passed in complete violation of principles of natural ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.P. Katakey, J.1. The State Legislature of Assam, on obtaining previous Presidential sanction under proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution, enacted the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2001 (Assam Act 4 of 2001)(in short, 'the principal Act') with a view to levy tax on entry of goods, into any local area of Assam for consumption, use or sale therein, which came into force on October 1, 2001, on publication of a notification dated September 28, 2001 in the Assam Gazette (Extraordinary) specifying the said date, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 1(3) of the said Act. Clause (b) of Section 2(1) defines 'entry of goods into a local area' as entry of goods as specified in the schedule into a local area from any place outside the State for consumption, use or sale therein. Section 2(1)(d) defines 'importer' as a person who brings specified goods into the local area from any place outside the State for consumption, use or sale including for consumption or use of such goods in works...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5826 OF2011Mukund Dewangan Appellant Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. Respondents [With SLP [C]. Nos.32828, 32833 and 32835/2010, 8709-8710 and 8712- 8713/2014, 20072, 3300 and 3302/2015, 887-890/2013, 16082/2012, 28455- 28456/2013, CA No.6379/2013, SLP (C) Nos.13008, 15759-15760 and 14333- 14334/2014, 6429/2015, 36364-36365/2014, 15924/2015, CA No.9990/14, SLP (C) Nos. 8704-8706/2014, CA Nos. 4068-4069/2012, SLP (C) No.32827/2010 and CA No.8992/2012]. ORDER ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The question raised is whether for the drivers having licence to drive light motor vehicles there is a necessity of obtaining endorsement to drive the transport vehicle when the transport vehicle is of class of light motor vehicle.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. For consideration of aforesaid question, it is necessary to refer to various provisions and decisions.3. Driving licence has been define...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC545REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.115 OF2004GENE CAMPAIGN & ANOTHER PETITIONERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.260 of 2005 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.840 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL NO.4086 OF2006CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.295 OF2007IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.260 of 2005 CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.6 OF2016IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.260 of 2005 Writ Petition (Civil) No.115 of 2004 Etc. Page 1 of 260 JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA, J Table of Contents Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ 4 Preface: ................................................................................................................................ 7 Birds eye view of the controversy: ............................................................................. 9 Pleadings: ............................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC591
1. These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Original No. 3/95, dated 29-12-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi.Following are the particulars of the appellants :______________________________________________________________Appeal No. Name of the appellant Referred to asE/ 209/ 96- A M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. ITCE/210/96-A J.N. Sapru -E/211/96-A J. Narayan -E/288/96-A M/s. Asia Tobacco Ltd. ATCE/289/96-A M/s. Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette HDCF Factory Ltd.E/290/96-A M/s. Lakshmi Tobacco Co. LTCE/291/96-A M/s. Reliable Cigarettes RCTI and Tobacco IndustriesE/292/96-A M/s. Master Tobacco Co. MTCE/293/96 M/s. Crown Tobacco Co. CTCE/294/96-A R. Bhoothalingam 2. The particulars of demand of duty proposed in the show cause notice for the period 1-3-1983 to 28-2-1987 and demand confirmed and penalty imposed on the assessees are as follows :-_____________________________________________________________Concern Duty proposed Duty confirmed Penalty Penalty (in rupees) (in rupees) in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE19H DAY OF MARCH201528TH PHALGUNA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 2429 of 2013 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST41162011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,NEDUMANGAD ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. SHANTANU KHOSLE (MANUFACTURER) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO PROCTER AND GAMBLE & HOME PRODUCTS LIMITED P AN G PLAZA, CARDINAL GRACIAS ROAD, CHAKALA ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400099.2. BHARAT PATEL NON-EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN PROCTER AND GAMBLE & HOME PRODUCTS LIMITED P AN G PLAZA, CARDINAL GRACIAS ROAD, CHAKALA ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400099.3. M/S.PROCTER AND GAMBLE & HOME PRODUCTS LIMITED P AND G PLAZA, CARDINAL GRACIAS ROAD, CHAKALA ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400099. BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)BomCR419
Singh, C.J. 1. This batch of appeals has been preferred by the several defendants against the order passed by a learned Judge of this Court exercising original jurisdiction in Notices of Motion No. 3120 of 1997 and 3932 of 1998 in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 M. Sreenivasulu Reddy v. Kishore R. Chhabria [2001] 34 SCL 1. In the suit, the plaintiffs have challenged the substantial acquisitions of shares of defendant No. 12 by some of the defendants on the ground of the acquisitions being in breach of regulations framed by the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which had come into force with effect from 7-11-1994. The learned Judge, by the impugned common order, made the notices of motion absolute in part. It was held that the plaintiffs do have a prima facie right to maintain the suit to seek a declaration that the acquisition of the disputed shares is void being in breach of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers), Regulations, 1994 ('the 1994 Regulations'). It has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2004)187CTR(SC)219; [2004]266ITR721(SC); JT2004(1)SC375; 2004(1)SCALE425; (2004)10SCC201
CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 1532 of 1993PETITIONER:State of West BengalRESPONDENT:Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/01/2004BENCH:V.N.Khare CJI & R.C.Lahoti & B.N.Agarwal & S.B.Sinha & A.R.LakshmananJUDGMENT:JUDGMENTDELIVERED BY:R.C.LAHOTI, J.S.B.SINHA, J.WITHCivil Appeal Nos. 3518-3519 and 5149-54 of 1992, 1532-1533 and 2350 of 1993and 7614 of 1994 and C.A. Nos. 297, 298 and 299 of 2004 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3986 of 1993, 11596 and 17549 of 1994) with W.P. (C) Nos. 262,515, 641 and 642 of 1997, 347 and 360 of 1999, 50 and 553 of 2000, 207, 288and 389 of 2001 and 81 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 5027, 6643 to 6650 and6894 of 2000 and 1077 of 2001Decided On: 15.01.2004JUDGMENTR.C. Lahoti, J.This batch of matters, some appeals by special leave under Article 136 ofthe Constitution and some writ petitions filed in this Court, raise a fewquestions of constitutional significance centering around Entries 52, 54and 97 in List I and Entries 23, 49, 50 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1987]62CompCas769(Delhi)
Rajinder Sachar, C.J.1. This and the connected writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of Chapter II-C read with section 58B (5A) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, introduced by the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 1 of 1984) (to be called 'the impugned legislation'). They would be disposed of by this common judgment. The main averments of facts are being taken from this petition for illustrative purpose, otherwise the arguments on questions of law are all common. The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of the said Chapter, particularly section 45S read with section 58B (5A) are vocative of the petitioner1`s fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 19 and 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also challenges the legislative competence of Parliament to enact the said impugned provisions. 2. The newly incorporated section 45S of the Reserve Bank of India Act provides that no individual or firm or an unincorporated association of individu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3125; 1999(4)ARBLR502(SC); 1999(3)BLJR2191; JT1999(5)SC422; 1999(4)SCALE516; (1999)9SCC620; [1999]Supp1SCR146
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.2. These appeals and writ petitions mainly raise the question regarding the legality of the levy of market fee under the provisions of Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Market Act' for short). The grievance made by the appellants/writ petitioners pertained to the following commodities with which the respective proceedings are concerned.1. Sugarcane, Sugar and Molasses (briefly referred to as 'Sugar matters');2. Wheat products Atta, Maida, Suzi, Bran etc.;3. Vegetable Oil;4. Rice milling;5. Milk and milk products;6. Tea.It will, therefore, be appropriate to deal seriatim the grievances centering round the levy of market fee on transactions concerning the aforesaid commodities.GRIEVANCES IN CONNECTION WITH MARKET FEE CONCERNING SUGAR MATTERS3. So far as this group of matters is concerned, first two Civil Appeal Nos. 398 and 399 of 1977 arise out of certificates of fitness gra...
Tag this Judgment!