Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj87; (1964)10GLR769
Miabhoy, J.(1) In this group of six appeals, a preliminary objection has been raised for decision. The objection was first raised when Letters Patent Appeal No. 8 of 1960 was called out for hearing. As the objection affected a number of other Letters Patent Appeals, we adjourned the hearing of the appeal and directed that all other Letters Patent Appeals in which the same objection was likely to be raised should be fixed for hearing them together so that the preliminary objection, if raised, could be decided after hearing all the learned Advocates appearing therein. It is in pursuance of that order that all the above appeals are fixed for hearing the preliminary objection if the same happens to be raised. This judgment will dispose of the preliminary objection which is raised by all the learned Advocates for the respondents in all the appeals.(2) The preliminary objection is that the present appeals are incompetent without the certificate of the learned Judgers of he Bombay High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)ILLJ572Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. A very interesting question arises with regard to the proper construction of S. 59 of the States Reorganization Act, and the question arises under the following circumstances. A petition was filed by one Surjuprasad Gumashta against the State of Madhya Pradesh alleging that he had been wrongfully dismissed, and this petition was presented before the Nagpur High Court and the petition was admitted by that High Court. Then came the States Reorganization Act and this petition was transferred to the Bombay High Court under Sub-section (2) of S. 59. The petition now comes before the Bombay High Court for final disposal and the question that arises is whether this High Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ against the State of Madhya Pradesh. We are only dealing with this petition to the extent that the complaint made is that the dismissal is by the State of Madhya Pradesh and that the State of Madhya Pradesh is liable to reinstate the petitioner in its service. 2. Now, the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR60; 2006(2)MhLj825
P.S. Brahme, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for the petitioner. Rule returnable forthwith, Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.C. Mehadia, Advocate waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.2. By consent, heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.3. By this petition, the petitioner is questioning the orders dated 16-10-2004 and 8-12-2004 respectively passed by respondent No. 1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee and respondent No. 2 - Maharashtra State Regional Transport Corporation.4. The petitioner belongs to 'Gond' community which is specified as Scheduled Tribe in relation to the Maharashtra State. He was issued Caste Certificate to that effect dated 6-7-1995 by the Competent Authority at Ramtek on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate, Patwari's report and affidavit. The father of the petitioner, who was permanent resident of Chabhata, Tq. Dongargarh, Distt., Rajnandgaon (Madhya Pradesh), shifted and settled at Tot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1532; 1998(2)KarLJ621
ORDER1. A question of considerable public importance arises for consideration in this writ petition. The question precisely is whether the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is in its application to what are known as Bombay Karnataka Areas of the present day State of Karnataka unconstitutional being discriminatory hence offensive to Article 14. In order to correctly appreciate the rival contentions urged at the Bar, it is necessary to briefly trace the historical background, in which the impugned enactment continues in its extra territorial application beyond the limits of the erstwhile State of Bombay now the State of Maharashtra.2. Consequent upon the enactment of the States Reorganisation Act, State of Mysore-now the State of Karnataka was carved out as an independent administrative unit comprising the following:(1) Areas included in the erstwhile Princely State of Mysore;(2) Areas from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad presently known as the Hyderabad Karnataka areas;(3) Areas from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1964)IILLJ433Kant
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J.- 1. Petitioners, who are allottees to the State of Mysore under Sub-section (3) of S. 115 of the States Reorganization Act. 1956, from the Department of Excise and Prohibition under the Board of Revenue from Madras State, have filed this writ petitione under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the action of respondent 3, the Commissioner of Excise, who has included the names of the petitioner in the provisional inter-State seniority list of Excise Assistant Inspectors as on 1 November 1956, on the ground that respondent 3, when he prepared and published the inter-State seniority list, was not the head of the department. Though in their petition the petitioners had claimed a large number of distinct and separate reliefs, they restricted their prayer in their affidavit filed on 9 April 1964 to the following two reliefs : '(i) to declare that the petitioners constitute a separate department, viz., Excise and Prohibition Department, under the Inspector-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1640; (1971)3SCC697; [1972]1SCR896; 1972(4)LC170(SC)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is by Special leave against the summary rejection of the Letters Patent appeal challenging the Judgment of a Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appellant was an Assistant Grade Clerk in the Police Department in the State of Punjab prior to its Reorganisation. Respondent 4 was also occupying a similar post in the Patiala & East Punjab States Union (hereinafter called 'Pepsu') as Head Assistant which was equivalent to the post of an Assistant. At the time of the States reorganisation a provisional list of the persons in this service was prepared and published in 1957 in which the 4th Respondent was given 36th place while 5 others namely Prakash Chand, Jaswant Singh, Gurcharan Dass Vaid (the Appellant), Santokh Singh and Hem Raj were given 17th 18 th, 19th, 20th and 21st place respectively. Respondent 4 appealed to the Govt. of India which under the States reorganisation Act 1956 was the competent authority to determine this question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant275; AIR1960Mys275
Narayana Pai, J.(1) The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, impugns in this writ petition the legality of tax imposed in respect of transactions covered by sales effected by him outside the District of South Kanara but within the areas of the old Mysore State, both of which were since integrated into the new Mysore State. This argument is pressed only in respect of the period 1-4-1957 to 30-9-1957 till which date different statutes levying sales tax were in force in different areas of the new Mysore State. Prior to the reorganisation of the States, territories of the old Mysore States as it then was and such turnover of the petitioner had been exempted or excluded from taxation under the Madras Act as constituting turnover in respect of transactions in the course of inter-State trade.It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the position was not different even after the reorganisation of States until on 1-10-1957 the Mysore Sales Tax Act was passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1179; [1964]52ITR443(SC); 1964MhLJ697(SC); [1964]6SCR846
Shah, J. 1. Bhopal Sugar Industrial Ltd. - hereinafter called 'the Company' - was incorporated under the Companies Act of the former Indian State of Bhopal. In 1953 the State of Bhopal, which was then a Part 'C' State under the Constitution of India, enacted 'the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act, IX of 1953' providing for imposition and levy of tax on agricultural income. The Act was applied to the territory of the entire State of Bhopal and was brought into force on July 15, 1953. 2. By the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (No. 67 of 1956), territory of the Part 'C' State of Bhopal was incorporated with effect from November 1, 1956, into the newly formed State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, enacted that by the constitution of the reorganized State, no change in the laws in force which immediately before November 1, 1956, extended or applied to any constituent regions, was effected, and territorial references in the laws to an existing Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1992Bom435; 1992(3)BomCR494; (1992)94BOMLR984
ORDER1. The Petitioner, who is the Chairman of Airfreight Limited and claims to be the Director of 14 other Public Companies espousing the cause of litigants in Greater Bombay, by way of public interest litigation has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of the Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdic-tion and Amendment) Act, 1986 (Maharashtra Act No. XV of 1987) -- hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act'. 2. Apart from challenging the competency of the State Legislature as regards the impugned Act the Petitioner has also sought a declaration that the Notification dated 20th August 1991 -- Exh. B to the petition, issued by the State of Maharashtra is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 3. This petition raises pure questions of law relating to the legislative competence of the State Legislature. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj234a
Desai, C.J. (1) This special civil application raises important questions of law relating to the construction of some of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. There has been a divergence of opinion between the State Government on the one hand and the Central Government on the other, and divergent views have been held at different times. The petitioners are persons employed in the subordinate secretariat service of the Government of the State of Gujarat. Prior to the reorganisation of the State of Bombay on 1st November 1956, they were employed in the subordinate secretariat service of the existing State of Bombay. They have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to restrain the State of Gujarat, its agents and servants from implementing the resolution dated 1st April 1960,passed by the Government of the former State of Bombay where under an alteration had been made in the previous...
Tag this Judgment!