Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-25-1997
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2281
ORDERDibyendu Bhusan Dutta, J.1. The present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the proceedings in Case No. C. R. 235 of 1996 pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur.2. The above case arose out of a written complaint lodged by an Inspector of Legal Metrology, Durgapur subdivision with the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur.3. The complainant's case may be stated as follows. In course of, a surprise visit of LPG bottling plant of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the petitioner No. 1 Company at Durgapur on 22-3-9.6 along with Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology, Burdwan and Inspector of Legal Metrology, Dusgapur, the petitioner No. 3 who happened to be the acting plant manager of that bottling plant was asked to produce filled LPG cylinders for checking of their net content. The checking was undertaken in presence of the petitioner No. 3 and the complainant verified and checked the cylinders ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-28-1997
Reported in : 1998(4)ALD545
ORDER1. The petitioner's claim for appointment as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation was negatived by the Corporation on the ground that she is found to be under height and this is the second round of litigation. The facts leading to filing of this case are: for the first time the respondent-Corporation has taken a Policy decision to recruit women as Conductors to the extent of 33% in consonance with the Policy of the Government in all the services. Thereafter, the Regional Manager, Nalgonda sent requisition to all the Employment Exchanges in the Nalgonda Zone to sponsor the eligible candidates both men and women for appointment as Conductors Grade-Ill as per the qualifications specified in the requisition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's name under the women category was also sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Nalgonda and the respondent-Corporation seemed to have sent a call letter dated 10-12-1996 directing her to appear for interview on 25-01-1997. On the date of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-29-1997
Reported in : 1997(3)CTC255
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. All these actions-this Batch of Writ Petitions-filed by Importers-Dealers or otherwise - of motor vehicles into local area from any 1997/3/17 place outside the State of Tamil Nadu for use or sale herein- owning motor vehicle at the time of its entry into the local area-are analogous in nature.2. The thrust and focus - either on pure questions of law constitutional or otherwise or on facts the existence of which is a matter of proof-giving risk to legal figment ~ are mostly common or similar.3. Irrespective of the nomenclature of these actions-Writs - Whether for Declaration, mandamus. Prohibition and what not - the fact remains-constitutional questions revolving on :(i) Legislative competence ;(ii) Colourable piece of Legislation;(iii) Violation of rights under Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India (for short Constitution);(iv) Absence of prior approval of the President of India under the Proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution.;(v) Challenge on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-1997
Reported in : 1997IIIAD(Delhi)333; 2(1997)CLT273; 67(1997)DLT145; 1997(42)DRJ131
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) There are two sets of writ petitions before us. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1016/92, 1272/92, 1631/92, 1749/92 the petitioners challenge certain amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991 whereby the trade in imported ivory and articles made there from have been banned. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1303/92 and 1964/93 the grievance of the petitioners is that though they are not covered by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991, the authorities are taking action against them for their being in possession of mammoth ivory and articles made there from. Besides, like Writ Petition No. 1016/92 etc. they also challenge the amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991.(2) In so far as the first category of cases are concerned it will be convenient to deal with Writ Petition No. 1016/92 as the points raised in this writ petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-10-1997
Reported in : 1998(5)BomCR620
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. By consent of all the learned Counsel, these two petitions were taken up for hearing and final disposal together. Since the facts are common and identical contentions have been raised before us, we find it convenient to dispose of both the petitions by this common Judgment and Order.2. Writ Petition No. 1212 of 1996 is filed by Zahoor Ahmed Peshimam, father of the detenu, Sajid Ahmed Peshimam. He was an employee of Al Samit International Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'Al Samit I T & T'). Writ Petition No. 1385 of 1996, is filed by Smt. Hussaina Kasim Dhorajiwala, wife of the detenu, Kasim Dhorajiwala. He is a partner of the firm Travel Fuel Exchange Bureau, (for short T.F.E.B.) which is a full fledged money changer firm, licensed under the provisions of section 73 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (F.E.R.A.). In respect of both the detenus, separate orders have been issued on 3rd September, 1996, by the detaining authority Shri K.L. Verma, Join...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-1997
Reported in : AIR1997Delhi267b; ILR1997Delhi22
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J. 1. There are two sets of writ petitions before us. In Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1016/92, 1272/92, 1749/92, 1631/92, the petitioners challenge certain amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991 whereby the trade in imported ivory and articles made there from have been banned. In Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1303/92 and 1964/93 the grievance of the petitioners is that though they are not covered by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991, the authorities are taking action against them for their being in possession of mammoth ivory and articles made there from. Besides, like Writ Petition No. 1016/92 etc. they also challenge the amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991. 2. In so far as the first category of cases are concerned it will be convenient to deal with Writ Petition No. 1016/92 as the points raised in this writ pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-19-1997
Reported in : [1995]95CompCas663(Guj)
R. Balia, J. 1. The two petitions raise substantively identical questions and have been heard together at the request of counsel for the parties. Hence, I propose to deal with the same by a common order. First about facts : The facts and preliminary objections relating to Special Civil Application No. 2224 of 1996. 2. This petition has been filed in the circumstances to be stated hereinafter and raises the issue about the authority of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short, 'the SEBI') to order impounding and/or confiscation of the whole or a part of the consideration of a completed transaction, which in ordinary circumstances concerned the party to the transaction is entitled to receive and for whom it is an actionable claim, under the existing provisions of law under which the Securities and Exchange Board of India functions. This issue is similar to the one raised in Special Civil Application No. 5483 of 1996 - D. M. Investments v. Securities and Exchange Board of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-11-1997
Reported in : AIR1997SC3297; JT1997(6)SC449; 1997(4)SCALE746; (1997)8SCC191; [1997]Supp2SCR305
K. RAMASWAMY, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed to resolve mutually inconsistent law adumbrated by two Division Benches of Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appeals arising from SLP (C) No.17080-81/95 are filed against the judgement passed on April 28, 1995 in Writ Petition Nos.9513/93 and 7725/94 in which the Division Bench has held that the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation (1 of 1959), as amended by Regulation II of 1970 (for short, the 'Regulation') and the Mining Act (67 of 1957) do not prohibit grant of mining leases of Government land in the scheduled area to the non-tribals. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short, the 'FC Act') does not apply to the renewals. The Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 also does not apply to the renewal of the leases. It, accordingly, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant challenging the power of the Government to transfer the Government land si...
Tag this Judgment!