Court : Chennai Madurai
(PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2000 made in MACT OP No.192 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nagercoil.) Is the widow who is expected by the society to live a life of austerity and abnegation, on remarriage is entitled to compensation in respect of death of her deceased husband is the issue to be decided. 2. The first respondent is the claimant who filed the petition for compensation claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- in respect of death of her husband, impleading her father-in-law as the respondent, who is the sixth respondent herein. The claims Tribunal gave a finding that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of TATA Sumo Car and awarded a sum of Rs.5,28,000/- as compensation. 3. Challenging the finding on negligence, the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 4. The appellant is the insurer of the TATA S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Rakesh Ranjan Singh and three others, have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to declare the process of region-wise selection for the post of Enforcement Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer (EO/AAO) as illegal and unjustified, and in consequence thereof to direct the respondents to declare them as selected for the post of EO/AAO and promote them as per rules, as also to quash and set aside the selection made by the respondents region-wise and direct them to declare the select list on all India basis. The applicants also seek a declaration that the scheme of examination for the post of EO/AAO circulated vide letter dated 18.12.2002 and applied in their case, is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts on which the reliefs as indicated above are sought to rest reveal that as per the Employee’s Provident Fund Organization (Enforcement Officer/Assistan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1963]50ITR43(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This is an income-tax reference arising under the following circumstances. One Arunachalam Chettiar (senior), a resident of Devakottah, owned a large extent of properties of great value in Ceylon. He had three wives, Valami Achi, Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi. Valami Achi died as early as 1913, leaving behind her a son, Arunachala (junior), and three daughters; Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi had no issues. Arunachala (junior) died on the 9th July, 1934, and Arunachala (senior) died on the 23rd February, 1938. He was survived by his two wives, Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi and by Umayal Achi, the widow of his predeceased son, Arunachala (junior). Disputes arose between these three widows, two of them, the widows of Arunachala (senior) and the other widow of Arunachala (junior). They formed the subject-matter of the suit in O. S. No. 93 of 1938, on the file of the Sub-Court, Devakottah. During the pendency of that suit, the estate was placed in custodia legis and two advoca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Original Civil Jurisdiction Writ Petition (C) No.118 of 2016 Shayara Bano Union of India and others Petitioner Respondents versus with Suo Motu Writ (C) No.2 of 2015 In Re: Muslim Womens Quest For Equality Jamiat Ulma-I-Hind versus Writ Petition(C) No.288 of 2016 Aafreen Rehman Union of India and others versus Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition(C) No.327 of 2016 Gulshan Parveen Union of India and others versus Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition(C) No.665 of 2016 Ishrat Jahan Union of India and others versus Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition(C) No.43 of 2017 Atiya Sabri Union of India and others versus Petitioner Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI. 2 Sl. No.1. Divisions Part-1 2. Part-2 3.4.5. Part-3 Part-4 Part-5 6.7. 8.9. A. B. C. Part-6 Part-7 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. Part-8 Part-9 Consideration of the rival contentions, and our Index Contents The petitioners marital discord, and the petitioners prayers The prac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]87ITR602(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act is this :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the shares held by the assessee in the Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. has been valued in accordance with the Wealth-tax Act '2. The assessee held 50 shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each in a public limited company called the ' Madras Motor and General Insurance Company Ltd. ', which carried on business of motor and general insurance. The shares of the company are not quoted in the share market. As on the valuation dates, on March 31, 1960, and March 31, 1961, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively, the assessee had valued these shares for the purpose of inclusion in his net wealth at their face value of Rs. 100 per share. The Wealth-tax Officer did not accept the said valuation. He worked out their value on the basis of the balance sheet of the company as on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR580
R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by Management takes exception to award by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur, in Reference No. (IT) 5 of 1983 before him, whereby he upheld the demand of workmen for reclassification of the establishment in Class-II for the purpose of determining service conditions of workmen as per Palekar award.2. Facts, which are material for deciding this petition, are as under:In 1937, Late Ramgopal Maheshwari started daily newspaper 'Navbharat' at Nagpur as proprietory concern. By 1960, he was printing and publishing the newspaper from Nagpur, Jabalpur, Bhopal, Raipur and Indore, as also an English daily 'Madhya Pradesh Chronicle' from Bhopal and Raipur as Karta of a H.U.F. comprising of himself and his three sons. This was converted into a registered partnership of the four members of H.U.F. on 1-4-1963, which continued till 31-12-1982, after addition of a fifth partner M/s. Nav Bharat Press Pvt. Ltd. on 27-10-1982.3. Palekar Award for news...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(5)ALT54; (1998)ILLJ28AP
1. The controversy between parties is in a very narrow compass in this Writ Petition. The question regarding recognition of trade union of Officers of a bank is at stake. A declaration is sought by Petitioner-Union that the action of the respondent (Andhra Bank) in not following the procedure contemplated in the Schedule appended to the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980 (for short the 'Scheme') for recognition of majority union of Officers is ultra vires and illegal. A further direction is sought to be issued to the 3rd respondent to conduct verification for the purpose of recognition of the majority status of Officers' union. 2. The 4th respondent (All India Andhra Bank Officers Federation) is strenuously contesting the claims advanced by the petitioner-Union as regards the petitioner's eligibility for recognition. After narrating the requirements of the Scheme as regards the constitution of Board of Directors as contemplated by the Schedule ann...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC113IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No.880 of 2017 Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents With Writ Petition (C) No.59 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.975 of 2022 And With Writ Petition (C) No.1132 of 2022 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI A. Background ................................................................................................... 4 i. Corporate Contributions ........................................................................... 5 ii. Curbing black money .............................................................................. 10 iii. Transparency ........................................................................................... 11 iv. Objections of RBI and ECI to the Electoral Bond Scheme .................. 13 v. Electoral Bond Scheme .......................................................................... 18 B. Is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC213IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DIARY No.21994 OF2022IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8625-8626 OF2019JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT(S) JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.The applicant, Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (APRL), is a generating company as per Section 2(28) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (2003 Act). It operates a thermal power plant in the State of Rajasthan. There were three appellants (1 to3) in the main set of appeals, in connection with which the present application has been taken out, being the distribution licensees of the State of Rajasthan as per the provisions of the 2003 Act. They shall, henceforth in this judgment, be collectively referred to as Rajasthan Discoms. Rajasthan Urja Vikas Nigam Limited was the 4th appellant in the main set of appeals. It appears to have been formed by the 1 Government of Rajasthan for the purpose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2007]138CompCas204(Guj); [2007]79SCL47(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. This judgement shall dispose of Company Petition Nos. 9 and 10 of 2006. 2. Company Petition No. 10 of 2006 has been filed under Sections 78, 100, 391 and 393 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short) by the Company named Core Healthcare Limited, a company incorporated under the Act in the matter of a composite Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of compromise with the lenders and reconstruction, reorganisation of capital and demerger between Core Healthcare Limited and Nirma Limited and their respective shareholders. The petitioner-Company has prayed for the following reliefs:(a) The Modified Composite Scheme of Arrangement referred to in para-15 of this petition and being Annex. with this petition hereto, be sanctioned by this Hon'ble Court so as to be binding on all Equity Shareholders, Class 'A' Lenders and Class 'B' Lenders of the Petitioner Company and on the Petitioner Company;(b) That the Petitioner Company do within 30 days from the date of sealing of the...
Tag this Judgment!