Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(1)CHN346
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioners and is directed against order dated 19th April, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship disposed of the writ application filed by the appellants by directing the Secretary, Irrigation and Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal to take necessary step for repairing the sluice-gate in question at an early date and at any rate, before 8th June, 2005. By the said order His Lordship further directed the said Secretary of the Government of West Bengal to provide necessary fund in this regard so that the maintenance and repairing works of the sluice-gate in question were not delayed in any circumstances.2. Being dissatisfied, the writ petitioners have come up with the present mandamus appeal.3. The case made out by the appellants in their writ application may be summed up thus:(a) The writ petitioner No. 1 is a bona fide bargadar in respect of the land mentioned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007ACJ682; AIR2007MP38; [2007(2)JCR115(MP)]; 2006(4)MPLJ5
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Division Bench of this Court to the Full Bench in a motor accident claims appeal.2. The background facts in which the reference has made, are that prior to the accident, Pancham Singh was a driver working in the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. On 29-9-1998 Pancham Singh while going towards his house in the noon, was hit by a Bajaj M-80 two wheeler bearing MP 07-Y/4003 driven by the respondent No. 1, owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 3. Pancham Singh filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on 1-4-1999 before the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, which was subsequently numbered as Claim Case No. 33/2002, alleging that as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said two wheeler by the respondent No. 1, he suffered fracture in the knee of the right foot and wrist of the left hand and he was admitted in the hospital and had to u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 133(2006)DLT627; 2007(98)DRJ568
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent to lay down the pipelines for carriage of petroleum products through various plots of land of the petitioner and has sought a prohibition in laying down the pipelines in the manner as proposed by the respondents and to rationalize laying down the pipeline so as not to obstruct the petitioner from beneficial use and enjoyment of his land and to consider an alternative proposal as given by the petitioner for laying down the pipelines and quash the notification of right of user of certain areas of the land of the petitioner in plots bearing Khasra Nos. 753, 758, 759, 761, 763, 764, 765, 778/2, 793, 794 and 795 in Village Rajokri, New Delhi.2. After the petition was filed by the petitioner, a Local Commissioner was appointed by the Order dated 16th November, 2005 to visit the site and submit report as to whether pipelines had been laid or only certain preparatory steps had been taken. The Local Commissioner appoint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(1)CHN20
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.1. In this public interest litigation, the petitioners have come up with a plea that a pond in the village, allegedly owned by the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 is not only being illegally filled up but a huge construction thereupon is coming up at the instance of those respondents.2. According to the petition, the said pond has an area of about 1 acre 53 satak and all through the year, the pond retains the water. The petitioners point out that originally some other persons were the owners of the said tank along with other contiguous land. However, the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 became the owners by virtue of a sale deed few years ago. The petitioners complain that from 28th of May, 2003 the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 started construction activity by making pillars in the tank. There are some photographs filed along with the writ petition which show substantial construction activity on the bank of the said tank. It is the contention of the petitioners that though they pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 27-8-2003, passed in Sessions Case No. 287(K) 01, the learned Sessions Judge No. 2 (ad-hoc), Kamrup, Guwahati, has convicted the two accused-appellants, namely, Moni Neog and Kanaya Hazarika, under Section 364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows:(i) AVARD-NE, a non-Governmental organization, opened their office at Kamalabari of Majuli Sub-Division, in the district of Jorhat, in the year 1996, with Sanjoy Ghose as its General Secretary. The said non-Governmental organization (hereinafter referred to as the NGO') started working for the welfare of the people of Majuli, an Island, which was under threat of being eroded by the mighty river Brahamaputra. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2006(1)CHN241
D.K. Seth, J. Prelude:1. These two appeals involve identical question of law and fact. Therefore both these matters were taken up and heard simultaneously. The appeals arise out of the interim orders granted by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions filed by the respondent Sanjeevani Projects (P) Ltd. and Green Valley Towers (P) Ltd. respectively.1.1. In course of hearing of the application for interim order the respective Counsel for the parties addressed the Court on the merit of the appeal. Therefore, at the suggestions of the parties the appeal was taken up for hearing. At the initial hearing of the appeal the parties had addressed the Court on the merit of the writ petitions as well. Since the Court was invited to decide the matter even on the question involved in the writ petition, therefore, it was deemed fit that the two writ petitions should also be disposed of, and the learned Counsel for the respective parties jointly suggested that the records of the writ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2006)132CompCas55
1. M/S Pasupati Fabrics Limited (the company) is a listed company incorporated in 1991 with an authorized capital of Rs. 90 crores. The company has set up a 100% EOU composite textile mill in Kosikalan, UP.Due to various reasons, the net worth of the company stood eroded as on 31^st March, 2002 and as such it made a reference to BIFR under Section 15(1) of SICA. In November, 2002, the BIFR declared the company as sick and appointed IDBI as the operating agency. The BIFR sanctioned a scheme on 2.4.2004. In terms of this scheme, the company was to reduce its equity shares by 35% and in its place to issue 0.0001% redeemable preference shares redeemable at par in two years in 8 equal quarterly installments commencing from April, 2015. The scheme also provided for issue of equity shares worth Rs. 23 crores to IDBI as a part of overall settlement of its dues from the company. The promoters were given the option to buyback these shares in three installments commencing from the 5^th year stip...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2006(4)CHN559
Amit Talukdar, J.1. Piece by piece, like a crossword puzzle, the entire sequence of events have to be restructured so as to get a clearer image of the whole-hog of the issue which ails the proceedings before the learned First Special Court, Alipore.2. An initial order No. 37 passed on 08.3.94 by the learned First Special Court discharging the opposite party set in motion a flurry of reactions and cause of action before the learned First Special Court, Alipore, before this Court as well as the Highest Court of the land. It would be profitable to chart out the entire sequence so as to get a grip on the entire issue and it would be more easier to tackle the question at hand.3. Pursuant to the said order, passed by the learned First Special Court, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the CBI) moved a revisional application, being Criminal Revision No. 1749 of 1994, before a learned Single Judge before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court by an order d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Our constitutional scheme for governance is based on the rule of law. Absence of arbitrary power, as the Apex Court observed in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors. : [1967]65ITR34(SC) , is the first essential of the rule of law. In a system governed by the rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. 'Law has reached its finest moments,' observed Douglas, J, in United States v. Wunderlich, (1951) 342 US 98, 'when it as free man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler ... where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered.' If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. [See S.G. Jaisinghani (supra).2. Article 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)193CTR(All)444; [2005]272ITR181(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The judgment of the court was delivered by Prakash Krishna J.-At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under Sections 80J and 80HH for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm manufacturing rice and dealing in food grains. Its claim for relief under Sections 80J and 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of its rice manufacturing business was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the assessee did not employ ten or more workers in the manufacturing process and, therefore, it did not satisfy the conditions of Section 80J(4)(iv) and Section 80HH(2)(iv) of the Act. But the claim of the assessee was accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the as...
Tag this Judgment!