Court : Guwahati
Amitava Roy, J. 1. This appeal while registering a challenge to the judgment and order dated 27.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Aizawl, in RFA 5/2003 raises a question of considerable moment relating to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the State of Mizoram. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff amongst others being barred by limitation.2. I have heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. Sailo, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.3. The pleaded facts are indispensable. The appellant/plaintiff instituted Money Suit No. 50/98 in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Aizawl, against the respondents praying for a decree, inter alia, for declaring that the respondents/defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,12,500 on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:02. 07.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI H.C.P.(MD) No.215 of 2014 H.C.P.(MD) Nos.216 to 217 of 2014 K.Thilagavathi ... Petitioner in H.C.P.(MD).No.215 of 2014 R.Rajendran ... Petitioner in H.C.P.(MD).No.216 of 2014 G.Meenachi ... Petitioner in H.C.P.(MD).No.217 of 2014 Vs. 1.The Union of India rep. by The Secretary to the Government Ministry of finance, Department of Revenue New Delhi. 2.The Union of India represented by The Joint Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, COFEPOSA Unit, New Delhi. 3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Central Prison, Trichy. ... Respondents in all the petitions Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in F.No.673/24/2013-Cus VIII with regard to detenue, namely, R.Kanthasa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing - 347 U.S. 409 (1954) U.S. Supreme Court Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing, 347 U.S. 409 (1954) Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing No. 11 Argued April 27-28, 1953 Reargued November 10, 12, 1953 Decided April 12, 1954 347 U.S. 409 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The owner and charterer of a vessel which collided with a pier and capsized in navigable waters in Louisiana filed consolidated petitions in admiralty in the Federal District Court in Louisiana to limit their liability under the provisions of 46 U.S.C. 183 and 186. Subsequently, basing jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship and the Jones Act, the representatives of five seamen who had drowned brought this consolidated action in the same District Court against the liability underwriters of the owner and charterer of the vessel. For their right to proceed against the insurance companies, the plaintiffs relied on 655 of the Louisiana Insu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenged the impugned Notification dated 5th December, 2001 issued by the Government of Mizoram, terminating the membership of the petitioners who were the nominated members of 'Mara Autonomous District Council' (shortly 'the ADC'). The said notification reads as under :Dated Aizawl, the 5th December, 2001No. DCA/E-108/88 : In exercise of the power conferred under sub-paragraph (6A) of paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India read with Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Mizoram Autonomous District Council (Constitution and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1974, as amended from time to time, the Governor of Mizoram is pleased to terminate the appointment of the following nominated members, viz., Pute C. Lawbei, S. Lalremthanga, Mylai Hlychho and Pi Lalbiaktiuangi Sailo from the membership of Mara Autonomous District Council with immediate effect.By Order and in the Name of the Governo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California - 509 U.S. 764 (1993) OCTOBER TERM, 1992 Syllabus HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 91-1111. Argued February 23, 1993-Decided June 28, 1993* Nineteen States and many private plaintiffs filed complaints alleging that the defendants-four domestic primary insurers, domestic companies who sell reinsurance to insurers, two domestic trade associations, a domestic reinsurance broker, and reinsurers based in London-violated the Sherman Act by engaging in various conspiracies aimed at forcing certain other primary insurers to change the terms of their standard domestic commercial general liability insurance policies to conform with the policies the defendant insurers wanted to sell. Mter the actions were consolidated for litigation, the District Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court of Appeals reversed, rejecting the District Court'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. - 348 U.S. 310 (1955) U.S. Supreme Court Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310 (1955) Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. No. 7 Argued October 14-15, 1954 Decided February 28, 1955 348 U.S. 310 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Under a policy of marine insurance, the owners of a small houseboat used for commercial carriage of passengers on an inland lake between Texas and Oklahoma sued the insurer to recover for the loss of the boat by fire while moored on the lake. The insurer defended on the ground of alleged breaches of warranties against sale, transfer, assignment, pledge, hire, charter, or use of the boat for commercial purposes without the insurer's written consent. Claiming that the policy had been made and delivered in Texas, the owners urged that the case was controlled by Texas law, under which no breach of the provisions of a fire insurance policy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By order, dated 23.3.2004, the appellant was appointed to the post of Head Constable (Operator) against an existing vacancy in 'the Mizoram Police Radio Organisation. The appellant submitted his joining report on the very day on which the appointment Order was issued. However, barely four days thereafter, i.e., by order, dated 27.2.2004, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Wireless, Mizoram, the, said Order of appointment of the petitioner was cancelled.2. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 27.2.2004, aforementioned, the petitioner came before this Court with a writ application, which gave rise to W.P.(C) No. 32 of 2004, wherein the petitioner/present appellant contended, inter alia, that cancellation of his appointment, without affording him any opportunity of showing cause or hearing, was illegal and the same may be interfered with. The State respondents resisted the writ petition by pointing out, inter alia, that the appointment of the petitioner was void ab i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
05.07.2012. None for the parties. Challenging the order-dated 9.12.2002 Annexure P/12 passed by the Director Works respondent No.2 from New Delhi, terminating the services of the petitioner, petitioner has filed this writ petition. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondents to the effect that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is pointed out by the respondents that even though petitioner was initially appointed in the State of Madhya Pradesh, but he was transferred from Madhya Pradesh in the year 1999. At the relevant point of time he was working at Bhopal, from where he was transferred as a Junior Engineer to Mizoram, in the year 1999. While working at Mizoram as Junior Engineer, it is stated that the petitioner was given the responsibility of supervising certain construction of road for Veterinary College and AH College Campus at Selesih, Aizwal, in the State of Mizoram and in the discharge of duties in the State of Mizoram as ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3536 OF2008J.Thansiama ... Appellant (s) Versus State of Mizoram & Ors. ... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. The Gauhati High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 01.08.2005 has held the Limitation Act, 1963 to be applicable to the State of Mizoram. Consequential to the said conclusion of the High Court, the suit filed by the appellant for declaration of title etc. was dismissed as being time barred. This was in reversal of the decree passed by the learned Trial Court on merits after holding that the Limitation Act, 1963 would not be applicable to bar the suit of the appellant-plaintiff.2. The High Court in a very exhaustive and illuminating judgment has traced the history of the creation of the present day State of Mizoram. Equally, the laborious arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have thrown further light into the evolution of the present day State. However,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.C. Phukan, J. 1. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the review petitioner State of Mizoram represented by the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Mizoram. 2. This petition is for review of the order dated 8.12.1999 passed by the Division Bench of this court disposing of the Writ Appeal No. 69/ 98 preferred against the order dated 7.1.1998 passed by the learned Single Bench of this court dismissing the Civil Rule No. 2112/ 92 filed by the opposite party No. 1, the writ petitioner Pu Shvanhnu At, President of Mizo Chief Council. 3. As per Sl. 2 of the Registry's Check Slip the appeal was disposed of on 8.12.1999 and the review petition was filed after 169 days and hence is barred by limitation, and no condemnation petition has been filed. 4. In the State of Gujarat v. Sardarbegum and Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 416, the Supreme Court found that the High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the State respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!