Court : Mumbai
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. These appeals arise from a decision of a Learned Single Judge dated 5 March 2012 on an Originating Summons filed under Rule 238 of the Rules framed by this Court for the Original Side. 2. The Plaintiff, Charu K.Mehta, is a permanent trustee for life time of the First Defendant which is a public trust by the name of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. By an Indenture of Trust dated 5 July 1978, the Settlor, Kirtilal Manilal Mehta, established a Trust inter alia to afford medical relief and for the spread of medical science, including by the establishment, maintenance and support of hospitals. Under the Deed of Trust, the Plaintiff and the Second and Third Defendants were named as permanent trustees for life. The Plaintiff is the wife of the Second Defendant. The Second Defendant is one of the sons of the Settlor. The Third Defendant is the daughter of the Settlor. 3. The Second Defendant filed an application on 6 July 1978 before the Charity Commissioner for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 Writ Petition No.16730/2012 05/11/2012 Shri Sandesh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy. Advocate General, for the State. The petitioner has sought following relief:- (I) To call for the case record. (ii) To hold that the petitioner is entitled to exemption from commercial tax on sale of cement in residuary State of Madhya Pradesh manufactured in its cement manufacturing plant at Sonadih, following in bifurcated State of Chhattisgarh. (iii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of assessment (Annexure P/5) and the order in revision (AnnexureP/6).(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant exemption from payment of tax during the period of assessment under the eligibility certificate granted to it. (v) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of this petition. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for tax exemption as p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No 1356 of 2003 Vijendra Singh Bais & Others ...Petitioners VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh Others ...Respondents ! Shri K R Nair Advocate for the petitioners ^ Shri V V S Moorthy Depty Advocate General for the State No 1 Ms Renu Singh No 2 Shri Ashish Shrivastva No 3 Dr N K Shukla S Coram: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J Dated:29. 10/2012 : Judgement ORDER (Delivered on 29th day of October, 2012) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 15.01.2003 (Annexure P/1) whereby the pay scale granted to the petitioners i.e. Rs. 8000- 13500/- was reduced to Rs. 6500-10500/- on the objection taken in the audit conducted by the office of the Accountant General and to declare that the petitioners are entitled to receive pay scale of RS. 8000-13500/- The petitioners further pray that they may be granted promotion of rank or pay scale as they have completed 15 years of service.2. The facts, as projected by the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD REED 1. In this application under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 ("the 1984 Act"), Mr Walton challenges the validity of schemes and orders made by the Scottish Ministers under that Act to allow the construction of a new road network in the vicinity of Aberdeen. The basis on which the schemes and orders are challenged, as ultimately argued before this court, is that the Ministers have failed to comply with the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC, OJ 2001 L197/30) ("the SEA Directive"), or in any event with common law requirements of fairness. In the light of observations made by the Extra Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session (Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] CSIH 19), it will also be necessary to consider questions relating to remedies. These include the question whether, even if a failure to comply with the directive were established in the present case, Mr Walton should in any event be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Order: This writ petition along with some civil applications appeared on board under caption "for orders". When the civil applications were argued and since they were argued extensively, a suggestion was given to parties as to why the petition cannot be taken up and disposed of. All parties having consented to this course, the petition is heard and disposed of. 2. On 18th September 2003, this Court admitted the petition and made interim orders of status quo. That has led to filing of applications by several persons who are not even parties to the petition but who are anxious to have a decision on this petition. 3. In such circumstances, even those who have moved the applications, have been heard by me. 4. The petition is directed against an order dated 22nd October 2003 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies by which an appeal has been allowed, which appeal was preferred by the respondent No.3 to this petition. The appellate authority has allowed the appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Leave granted.2. Chandigarh, which is known all over the world as ‘the City Beautiful’, was planned by French Architect Monsieur Le Corbusier. The plan prepared by Le Corbusier in collaboration with two other architects, namely, Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew envisaged division of the city of Chandigarh into residential sectors with provision for markets, educational institutions, hospitals and other facilities.3. After finalisation of the plan, the Government of Punjab acquired land of various villages for establishing Chandigarh as the new capital of the State and also constituted various committees including Land Scape Committee for implementing the plan. In the meeting of the Land Scape Committee held on 3.9.1954, the Divisional Forest Officer, Rupar (now Ropar) suggested that the land lying along the right bank of Sukhna Choe and the left bank of Patiala Ki Rao where plantation had been started by the Forest Department should be declared as reserved fores...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 Petitioners, in both the petitions, are challenging the orders passed by Respondent No.2-Committee invalidating their caste claim on the ground that parents of petitioners are originally residents of District Bider, which forms part of Karnataka State and that they have migrated to the State of Maharashtra after 10.08.1950 i.e. after enforcement of Constitution Scheduled Castes Order, 1950. 3 It is not disputed that parents and forefathers of petitioners are original residents of District Bider, the geographical area, which was forming part of erstwhile State of Hyderabad, before States Re-Organization. The part of District Bider, after re-organization of States in 1956, has become part of State of Karnataka. It is also not disputed that petitioners originally belong to an area which is pre-dominantly a Marathi speaking area, which presently forms part of Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 Petitioners, in both the petitions, are challenging the orders passed by Respondent No.2-Committee invalidating their caste claim on the ground that parents of petitioners are originally residents of District Bider, which forms part of Karnataka State and that they have migrated to the State of Maharashtra after 10.08.1950 i.e. after enforcement of Constitution Scheduled Castes Order, 1950. 3 It is not disputed that parents and forefathers of petitioners are original residents of District Bider, the geographical area, which was forming part of erstwhile State of Hyderabad, before States Re-Organization. The part of District Bider, after re-organization of States in 1956, has become part of State of Karnataka. It is also not disputed that petitioners originally belong to an area which is pre-dominantly a Marathi speaking area, which presently forms part of Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: The Petitioner (original Respondent) has challenged the impugned Order dated 23rd January 2012 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Pune on the complaint under Section 28 read with Item 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTYU and PULP Act). The operative of the Order is as under: “1) The Complaint (U.L.P) No.12/2007 is allowed. 2) It is hereby declared that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labour practice within the meaning of item 9 of Schedule IV of the MERTU and PULP Act and the Respondent is directed to cease and desist from unfair labour practice. 3) The Respondent is directed to implement the terms of an Award in Reference (I.T.) No. 24/2002 as well as settlement Dt. 30/9/2004 in respect of the employees involved in the complaint with further direction to the Respondent to extend them the benefits of said Award and settlement to which they are entitled under law. 4) No ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: The Petitioner (original Respondent) has challenged the impugned Order dated 23rd January 2012 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Pune on the complaint under Section 28 read with Item 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTYU and PULP Act). The operative of the Order is as under: 1) The Complaint (U.L.P) No.12/2007 is allowed. 2) It is hereby declared that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labour practice within the meaning of item 9 of Schedule IV of the MERTU and PULP Act and the Respondent is directed to cease and desist from unfair labour practice. 3) The Respondent is directed to implement the terms of an Award in Reference (I.T.) No. 24/2002 as well as settlement Dt. 30/9/2004 in respect of the employees involved in the complaint with further direction to the Respondent to extend them the benefits of said Award and settlement to which they are entitled under law. 4) No order as t...
Tag this Judgment!