Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1081; 2009(2)BomCR110; JT2008(13)SC525; 2008(16)SCALE115; (2009)2SCC109:2009AIRSCW239:2009(2)LHSC1124
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant claims to be belonging to the carpenter caste. According to her, she hails from the Vidarbha area which is the border area of the State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Carpenters in the State of Madhya Pradesh are known as `Badhai', whereas in the State of Maharashtra, they are known as `Sutar'. Their occupation is said to be the same. According to appellant, in both the States, people belonging to the said caste are entitled to be considered as Other Backward Class (OBC).3. It is not known when the family of the appellant migrated from the State of Madhya Pradesh to the State of Maharashtra. Inter alia on the premise that she belongs to OBC, she contested an election for a Member of Panchayat in Village Chincholi. The post of Sarpanch was reserved for the OBC category candidates. She was elected in the said category. An application, however, was filed before the Caste Scrutiny Committee by respondent No. 4 contending that she does not bel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1963)IMLJ365; [1963]14STC424(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in various kinds of oil at Asaripallam and Vadaseri within the district of Kanyakumari. Before the reorganisation of States in 1956 they were places within the Travancore-Cochin State. In respect of his turnover for the year 1956-57, he claimed that the sum of Rs. 91,755-11-0 should be excluded from the taxable turnover. This sum related to sales of laurel oil effected after 1st November, 1956, to dealers at Alleppey and other places situated in the Kerala State. The assessment in respect of that year was governed by the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act. Under that Act the assessment was to be made only on the last purchaser in the State. The contention of the petitioner was that he was not the last purchaser and that the purchasers at Alleppey and other places in the Kerala State should alone be treated as the last purchasers for the purposes of levy under the Travancore-Cochin Act. This contention was overruled by the Deputy Commercia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL No.5302 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.23592 OF2014 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS .. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS LAFARGE DEALERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.460 OF2005CIVIL APPEAL No.461 OF2005CIVIL APPEAL No.7073 OF2005CIVIL APPEAL No.2343 OF2007CIVIL APPEAL No.5303 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.10520 OF2013 CIVIL APPEAL No.5304 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.1334 OF2014 CIVIL APPEAL No.5305 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.10165 OF2014 CIVIL APPEAL No.5306 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.23297 OF2014 CIVIL APPEAL No.5308 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.6729 OF2016 Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.23592 of 2014 & Ors.Page 1 of 38 A N D (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.16550 OF2016 5307 CIVIL APPEAL N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1968Guj80
Vakil, J.(1) This Criminal Revision Application arises out of the Order passed by the City Magistrate, 6th Court, Ahmedabad discharging the opponent No. 1 of the charge of having committed an offence under section (16) (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the Gujarat Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1961 were not valid as they were not previously published as required by section 24 of the said Act. The learned Magistrate held that it is an admitted position that the draft rules were not published by the Government of Gujarat and the fact of the draft rules having been published by the Government of Bombay, before bifurcation, cannot be considered to be a compliance with the requirement of prior publication. It was necessary for the Government of Gujarat to publish the draft rules before publishing the final rules. The learned Magistrate relied on the decision of this Court by Raju J. In Criminal Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. - 467 U.S. 986 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. No. 83-196 Argued February 27, 1984 Decided June 26, 1984 467 U.S. 986 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use data submitted by an applicant for registration of a covered product (hereinafter pesticide) in evaluating the application of a subsequent applicant, and to disclose publicly some of the submitted data. Under the data-consideration provisions of 3, as amended in 1978, applicants now are granted a 10-year period of exclusive use for data on new active ingredients contained in pesticides registered after September 30, 1978, while all other data submitted after December 31, 1969, may be cited and considered in support of another application for 15 year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2003(2)BLJR1467; [2003(3)JCR302(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Jharkhand issued an order No. 52 dated 23rd November, 2001 under Sections 41 and 42 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 declaring the Ranchi dairy, Ranchi, Bokaro dairy, Bokaro, Jamshedpur dairy, Jamshedpur and Cattle Feed Factory, Ranchi of Bihar State Co-operative Milk Producer's Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as COMFED) as immovable and movable properties of the State of Jharkhand. The Chief Executive Officer/ Manager of the dairies and Cattle Feed Factory, Ranchi were directed to function under the control of Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Jharkhand with immediate effect.2. The Managing Director, COMFED by letter No. 7035 dated 26/27th November, 2001 informed the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Jharkhand that the provision of Sections 41 and 42 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 relates to divisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip - 430 U.S. 584 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584 (1977) Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip No. 75-562 Argued January 12, 1977 Decided April 4, 1977 430 U.S. 584 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Both the language and legislative history of the Acts of 1904, 1907, and 1910, whereby land in certain counties in South Dakota located within the boundaries of the Rosebud Sioux Reservation as defined in an 1889 Treaty was required to be ceded by the Reservation Indians to the Government for sale to settlers under the homestead and townsite laws with the proceeds to be credited to the Indians only as received or, with respect to certain parcels, for transfer to South Dakota for school use, held clearly to evidence a congressional intent to diminish the boundaries of the Reservation. Although such Acts were unilateral Acts of Congress without the consent of three-fourths of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co. - 337 U.S. 86 (1949) U.S. Supreme Court Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co., 337 U.S. 86 (1949) Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co. No. 24 Argued October 21, 1948 Decided May 31, 1949 337 U.S. 86 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Under 2 of the Act of May 1, 1936, the Secretary of the Interior issued Public Land Order No. 128, designating as an Indian reservation, for the use and benefit of the native inhabitants of Karluk, Alaska, certain described lands and the waters adjacent thereto extending "3,000 feet from the shore line at mean low tide." Claiming authority under the White Act, 43 Stat. 464, which prescribed drastic penalties for violations, the Secretary promulgated a regulation prohibiting commercial fishing in the waters of the reservation except by natives or their licensees. Companies which for years had engaged in canning fish taken from these waters, which depended on that source of supply for profita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS83368337 OF2011KRISHAN KUMAR MADAN AND ORS. ..... APPELLANTS Versus ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.1 Applications for impleadment are allowed. ..... RESPONDENTS2On 17 November 2011, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by respondents 1 to 5 and held that the appellants are not employees of the State of Uttarakhand. The High Court held that the appellants, who were initially appointed by the State of Uttar Pradesh shall remain employees 2 of that State. The review petition preferred by the appellants was also dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 23 March 2011. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order of the Uttarakhand High Court in the Writ Petition and in review. 3 On 28 March 1999, the U.P. Public Service Commission issued an advertisement, inviting applications for 170 vacancies in the post of Personal Assistant in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1970)ILLJ184P& H
Bal Raj Tuli, J.1. This petition has been filed by the Union of India for the quashing of the award dated 24 Jane 1967, made by the presiding officer, labour court, Jullundar, in the industrial dispute raised by Gopal chand Rana, respondent 2, against the management of Boas Dam Project, Talwara Township. The reference to the labour court was made by the Punjab Government in exercise of its powers under 01. ( of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by Labour Department Notification No. 102 SF-III L 67/10421, dated 3 April 1967. The matter referred to the labour court was:Whether the termination of services of Gopal Chand Rana is Justified and in order If not, to what relief he is entitled 2. The labour court held the enquiry and made its award on 24 June 1967, wherein it was held that the order of the management dismissing Gopal Chand Rana from service by order dated 23 June 1966, was Illegal and unjustified and that he should be reinstated with full back-...
Tag this Judgment!