Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(4)ALLMR683; 2000(1)BomCR670; (2000)2BOMLR891
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. This Court by order dated 20-12-1988, while admitting the Civil Revision Application, has directed that the Civil Revision Application to be heard along with Writ Petition No. 1692 of 1988. In view of this order both these matters are listed together for final hearing. The parties in both the proceedings are same and the subject-matter of immovable property involved is also the same. However, both the proceedings arise in between the parties from the different proceedings, namely, writ petition arises from the proceedings under section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act filed by the respondents against the original landlord in which the petitioners also participated at a later stage and the order for delivery of the possession have been passed in favour of respondents upto the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Petition No. MRT/AH-V-3/88, decided on 14th September, 1988 and the said order is under challenge in the writ petition.2. The Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1970)ILLJ305Kant; (1969)1MysLJ325
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. When there was re-organization of States, and the new State of Mysore came into being, the petitioner who was an employee in the former State of Bombay became an employee of the new State of Mysore. When the Government of the new State of Mysore prepared a provisional inter-State seniority list on 13 November, 1957, his name was not included in the cadre of the secretariat stenographers. But on representation made by the petitioner to the State Government, his name was included in the revised provisional inter-State seniority list prepared on 13 September, 1962, by which he was assigned the fifth rank. 2. The sequel to the preparation of the provisional inter-State seniority list was the preparation of the final inter-State seniority list by the Central Government which was prepared on 30 April, 1965, and published on 6 May, 1965. That list did not contain the name of the petitioner in the cadre of the secretariat stenographers. In this writ-petition in which the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1974(1)KarLJ95; (1974)IILLJ19Kant
1. N. S. Subba Rao, the petitioner, is a village accountant. In this petition under Art. 226, he complains about the discrimination made in the pay scale given to him with effect from 1-1-1970. 2. Briefly stated the facts are these. The petitioner was appointed as a village accountant in the year 1943 under the provisions of the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908. The said Act was repealed by the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. Thereafter the Mysore General Services Revenue Subordinate Branch Recruitment Rules, 1961 were framed under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. By the said Rules, provision was made for the recruitment of village accountants. Qualification fixed for the direct recruitment was a pass in S.S.L.C. examination. The said qualification was relaxed in respect of persons who had already served as village accountants under the M.V.O. Act, 1908. For them, it was sufficient, if they have passed VIII standard and were within 50 years of age. 3. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant158; AIR1959Mys158; 1959CriLJ746
ORDER1. The respondent before me filed Order P. No. 117/1956 before the Court of the District Munsiff of Puttur, South Kanara, under Seections, 195and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the Court may be pleased to make a complaint against the petitioners before me for offences-said to have been committed by them under Sections 193, 209, 467 and 471 read with Sections 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The allegations in support of this application are that a certain lease deed, on the strength of which Original south No. 391/1952 was filed by the second petitioner before me against the respondent in the District Munsiffs Court of Puttur, was fabricated by the first petitioner in connivance with the other petitioners and that he also made petitioners 3 and 4 to give false evidence in support of it. The suit had been dismissed on the finding that the lease deed in question was false.This petition was filed on 26-10-1956. Notice-returnable 19-11-1956 was issued to the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(2)KarLJ400
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are persons on whom liability is created for payment of what is known as electricity tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Ordinance No. 8 of 2003, which amended Section 3 of the Karnataka Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1959 [for short 'the Act'] and levied a tax burden on persons like the petitioners in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 as amended by the Ordinance.2. Petitioners who were essentially persons who either generate themselves such electricity which is sought to be taxed under the amended provisions or who got it from any other non-licensee suppliers tree of cost and on whom is created this liability for payment of tax, are complaining that the levy itself is bad as the levy on electricity generated amounts to levy on generation at the generating point and not a levy on consumption; that it is beyond the competence of the state government to have issued an ordinance of this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(3)ALD304
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Four, erstwhile Junior Assistants (Purchase), question the action of the A.P.S.R.T.C, in notifying them in the cadre of Junior Assistants (Material), as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and seek a direction that they be placed in the seniority list of Junior Assistant (Purchase), pursuant to the conversion order dated 9.11.1989, with all consequential benefits. 2. Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the 1st petitioner was appointed as a conductor on 9.3.1978, the second petitioner was appointed as comptist on 17.5.1978 and the 3rd and 4th petitioners were appointed as conductors on 13.2.1981 and 26.8.1985 respectively. All the four petitioners were selected, appointed by transfer as Junior Assistants and allotted to the personnel department. The 1st petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 29.8.1986, the 2nd petitioner on 26.5.1985 and 3rd and 4th petitioners on 1.9.1987 and 5.8.1987 respectively. The petitioners submitted a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971MP15; 1970MPLJ563
Raina, J.1. This is a Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia.2. The petitioner is an employee of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Madhya Pradesh and is at present posted as professor of Agronomy in the Agricultural College at Gwaliorwhich is affiliated to the University. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he is senior to Shri Solanki his claims for the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Agronomy were not duly considered and that he was not even interviewed for the said post along with Shri Solanki. He, therefore, prayed for a writ of mandamus against the University directing them to respect seniority of the petitioner amongst the existing employees for the post of Associate Professor and to extend all consequential benefits to him.3. On behalf of the University a preliminary objection has been raised to the effect that the Gwalior Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has no jurisdiction to hear this petition in view of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIIIAD(SC)165; AIR1999SC166; 1999(1)BLJR255; JT1998(7)SC478; 1998(6)SCALE71; (1999)1SCC705; [1998]Supp2SCR583
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. The river Ganga has been changing its course over a period of years and a dispute has arisen in regard to a large tract of land on the borders of the State of UP and State of Bihar as to whether this land is to be treated as part of the State of Bihar or the State of Uttar Pradesh.2. The appeal has arisen out of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10266 of 1986 filed by six persons (appellants) claiming to be the old residents of village Hansnagar, UP as it stood at the time of survey of 1981- 83. The Union of India, the State of U.P. and the State of Bihar were impleaded as respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The Board of Revenue, UP and the Record Officer, Ballia (UP) were impleaded as respondents Nos. 4 and 5. The appellants sought a writ of mandamus restraining the Record Officer, Ballia, UP from carrying on survey and record operations in regard to village Hansnagar, UP otherwise than on the basis that it was always a part of the State of UP and on the basis that it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)106CALLT612(SC); JT2008(7)SC601; (2008)7MLJ152(SC); 2008(9)SCALE745; (2008)7SCC788; 2008(2)LC795(SC);
C.K. Thakker, J.1. The present writ petition is instituted by the petitioners as pro-bono publico and is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The petitioners have approached this Court by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution praying for an appropriate writ, direction or order, restraining respondent No. 2 - State of Karnataka and respondent No. 4 - Sree Swarna Energy Limited, from constructing a Mini Hydro Power Project at Rajolibanda Diversion Scheme (`RDS' for short), Raichur District, Karnataka, by quashing and canceling the Power Project. A prayer is also made to direct the State of Karnataka to regulate water at RDS anicut and to ensure smooth flow of water in the RDS canal to the extent of full allocated water of 15.9 TMC to the State of Andhra Pradesh. By way of interim relief, a prayer is made to grant stay against construction of Power Project at RDS.2. It is stated by the petitioners in the petition that they are citizens of India and are residents of Distric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1958Raj60
Bapna, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Civil Judge, Baran.2. In an execution petition before the learned Civil Judge, the judgment-debtor raised an objection that he was a resident of Sironj, which is now in Madhya Pradesh under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and, therefore, the Court at Baran had no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings. The learned Civil Judge has referred the matter to this Court for decision under Section 125(2) of the States Reorganisation Act.3. On going through the record, it appears that suit No, 3 of 1952, which ended in a decree, was instituted by Surajmal, Ramgopal, and Rajmal, residents of Chhipabarod in Rajas-than against Hiralal, Pannalal and Dhannalal, residents of Sironj, on the allegations that 100 bags of maize were sent by the firm of the plaintiffs carrying on business at Chhipabarod on the 5th of December, 1950, to the defendants' firm at Sironj for sale and remittance of the sale proceeds to the plaintiffs.The allegation of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!