Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR3462; 2009(5)KarLJ480
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Advocate General on behalf of the respondents.2. The factual background is as follows:The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a subsidiary of M/s Flemingo International Limited, Dubai.The petitioner has set-up 'Duty-Free Shops' at various international airports in India. This was enabled by the Airports Authority of India (hereinafter called 'AAI' for brevity) calling for lenders to construct, develop and operate such shops at several International airports, including the Bangalore International Airport (hereinafter referred to as 'BIA' for brevity). The petitioner's parent company was a successful bidder. The AAI had awarded a licence in the year 2004 to establish and operate Duly-Free Shops at the arrival and departure terminals of the BIA. The petitioner is the recognised subsidiary in terms of the licence, authorised lo operate the shops.The petitioner has obtained a licenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1037; (1987)3CompLJ69(SC); JT1987(3)SC630; 1987(2)SCALE611; (1987)4SCC463; [1988]1SCR279; 1988(1)LC75(SC)
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This is a public interest litigation. The petitioner who is an active social worker has filed this petition inter alia for the issue of a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents other than Respondents 1 and 7 to 9 restraining them from letting out the trade effluents into the river Ganga till such time they put up necessary treatment plants for treating the trade effluents in order to arrest the pollution of water in the said river. Respondent 1 is the Union of India, Respondent 7 is the Chairman of the Central Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution, Respondent 8 is the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board and Respondent 9 is the Indian Standards Institute.2. Water is the most important of the elements of the nature. River valleys are the cradles of civilization from the beginning of the world. Aryan civilization grew around the towns and villages on the banks of the river Ganga. Varanasi which is one of the citi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD11(SC); 2007(3)ALT62(SC); 2007(2)BLJR1047; 2007(6)BomCR834; 2007(3)CTC464; I(2007)DMC597SC; JT2007(5)SC569; (2007)2MLJ1185(SC); (2007)146PLR618; 2007(5)SCALE1; (2007)4SCC511
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This is yet another unfortunate matrimonial dispute which has shattered the twenty two year old matrimonial bond between the parties. The appellant and the respondent are senior officials of the Indian Administrative Service, for short 'IAS'. The appellant and the respondent were married on 13.12.1984 at Calcutta under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The respondent was a divorcee and had a female child from her first marriage. The custody of the said child was given to her by the District Court of Patna where the respondent had obtained a decree of divorce against her first husband, Debashish Gupta, who was also an I.A.S. officer. The appellant and the respondent knew each other since 1983. The respondent, when she was serving as the Deputy Secretary in the Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal, used to meet the appellant between November 1983 and June 1984. They cultivated close friendship which later developed into courtship.2. The respondent's first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR1365; 1985(2)KarLJ397; [1985]60STC142(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us, these cases were posted before a Division Bench for disposal. 2. A statutory Board called 'the Coffee Board' ('the Board') which was formerly called the Indian Coffee Market Expansion Board constituted and functioning under the Coffee Act of 1942 (Central Act VII of 1942) ('the Coffee Act') is the common petitioner before us and the principal question that arises for our determination is whether it is exigible to purchase tax or not under section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('KST Act'). In order to decide that principal and certain other allied questions, it is necessary to notice the facts that are not also in dispute in the first instance. 3. On the out break of the II World War, the Indian coffee that enjoyed precious export markets in European and other advanced countries lost them and the industry was facing a crisis. With the object of rehabilitating the industry and placing it on a so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992(60)ELT674(SC); JT1994(4)SC655; (1995)2MLJ2(SC); 1994(3)SCALE575; (1994)5SCC509; [1994]Supp2SCR281
ORDERThe Government have decided to discontinue the granting/renewal of licences for bars attached to the Indian Made Liquor retail vending shops under the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending in Bar) Rules, 1992 with effect from the excise year commencing from the 1st June, 1993.2. The following Notification will be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette.NotificationIn exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 17C, 17D, 21 and 54 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1937). The Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby rescinds the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending in Bar) Rules, 1992, with effect on and from the 1st June, 1993.(By Order of the Governor)K. MalaisamySecretary to Govt.45. The effect of the above GO. is, on and from 1st June, 1993 the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending in Bar) Rules, 1992 came to be rescinded. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court under the impugned judgment have upheld the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 44 dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR587
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The first two Writ Petitions are public interest petitions, in which the petitioners have challenged the legality of an order of the State Government under which contract for bottling Arrack was granted to respondents 3 to 10 on the ground that a largess involving a total turnover of Rs. 50 crores had been granted to them, in flagrant violation of law and on collateral consideration. In the other petitions the petitioners therein have questioned the legality of the same Government order.2. The background and history of the cases are as follows : (i) Pursuant to the decision of the Government that arrack should be supplied to the consumers in sealed bottles or sachets, to avoid the possibility of adulteration, on 11th April, 1984, the Excise Commissioner invited applications from persons interested in undertaking the bottling of arrack at 18 places in the State most of which are District head quarters. The applicants were required to furnish their names and addresse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2187; (1989)1CompLJ105(SC); JT1988(3)SC787; 1988(2)SCALE1574; 1989Supp(1)SCC504; [1988]Supp2SCR690; 1988(2)LC680(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. On July 14, 1983, a letter received from the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendera, Dehradun, bearing the date July 2, 1983, was directed to be registered as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and notice was ordered to the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Collector of Dehradun. Allegations of unauthorised and illegal mining in the Mussoorie-Dehradun belt which adversely affected the ecology of the area and led to environmental disorder were made. Later on another application with similar allegations was directed to be tagged with the earlier one. That is how these two writ petitions were both in the registry of this Court in a very innocuous manner as public interest litigation. The number of parties inflated both under the orders of the Court and on application to be added. Apart from the Governments of the Union and of Uttar Pradesh, several governmental agencies and mining lessees appeared in the proceedings. What initially appeared to be two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR96
K.J. Rohee, J.1. This is an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 by an elector challenging the election of the returned candidate from 134-Nagpur East Legislative Assembly Constituency. 2. The facts which are undisputed can be stated thus:The Programme of General Election 2004 for Maharashtra Legislative Assembly was declared on 15.9.2004 as under:i) Last Date for submission of Nomination Papers 22.09.2004ii) Scrutiny of Nomination Papers 23.09.2004iii) Last Date for withdrawal of Nomination Papers 25.09.2004iv) Polling 13.10.2004.v) Declaration of Result 16.10.2004. 3. Shri Satish Jhaulal Chaturvedi (R-1) represented 134 Nagpur-East Legislative Assembly Constituency during the elections of 1980, 1990 and 1995 as the candidate of Indian National Congress. He had lost only one election of the year 1985 wherein he had contested as an independent candidate. On 22.9.2004 R-1 presented his nomination paper to the Returning officer of 134 -Nagpur East ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(3)ALT542; 1993CriLJ558
1. A 'Call Attention Motion' No. 329 of 1981 was moved in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 1981 regarding the execution of jungle clearance works in the Irrigation Circle, Nellore District, allegating that works costing more than 60 lakh rupees were entrusted to the contractors without calling for tenders. 2. Thereupon, the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh directed Mr. L. R. Kapoor, the then Chief Engineer, Major Irrigation, to conduct an enquiry into the allegations in the execution of the works. In that connection, he visited Nellore and conducted an enquiry from 4-4-1981 to 6-4-1981 and submitted his preliminary report to the State Government on 17-4-1981 pointing out various irrgularities and illegalities committed by the Engineers in the execution of the jungle clearance works in the Nellore Irrigation Circle. Then the State Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 313 dated 20-7-1981 appointing Mr. N. V. M. Krishna, the then Chief Engineer, (Investiga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR193; 1995(1)KarLJ632
ORDERSadashiva, J 1. This Petition was listed for orders, With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, the same was heard on merits and disposed of by this Order.2. The petitioners have presented this Petition for a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Directives dated 5.8.1994 issued by the first respondent in No. F.5(6)/94-P1ant (B) produced at Annexure-B and for a further Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to conduct all its future auctions of the coffee without reference to the Directives issued by respondent-1 at Annexure-B.3. That, in view of the sharp rise in auction prices of coffee and the resultant upward trend in retail prices, the first respondent in pursuance of Section 20 of the Coffee Act, 1942 (for short 'the Act'), directed the second respondent to implement the Directives mentioned in Annexure-B to arrest steep rise in retail prices of coffee in domestic market. The Directives issued vide Annexure-B reads as follows :'1) That the Coffe...
Tag this Judgment!