Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC1080; [1960]3SCR887
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 443 of 1955 and 40-41 of 1956. Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P.L. Vohra, for the petitioners (In all the petitions). R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the State of Madras. K. V. Suryanarayana Iyer, Advocate-General for the State of Kerala and T. M. Sen, for the State of Kerala. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. R. Krishna Pillai, for respondents Nos. 2 to 9. Purshottam Trikamdas and M. B. Krishna Pillai, for respondent No. 12 (In Petn. Nos. 40-41 of 56). A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. R. Krishnaswami, for respondents Nos. 13 and 15-17 (In Petn. No. 443 of 55). K. B. Krishnaswami for respondents Nos. 11 and 14 (In all the petitions). Purshottam Trikamdas and K. R. Krishnaswami, for respondent No. 12 (In Petn. No. 443 of 55). A.V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. R. Krishna Pillai, for Intervener No. 1. Sar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR802; (2008)110BOMLR2831
K.K. Tated, J.1. By this Writ Petition under Article 14, 19, 121, 226 and 200A of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking orders, directions against the Respondents in view of the failure of duties and inaction on their part in fixing the revised lease rent and paying the revised lease rent to the Petitioners for the premises which are under the use, occupation, possession and enjoyment of the Respondents. It is the case of the Petitioners that they entered into a lease agreement which was valid for a period of 5 years from 1st May, 1991 to 30th April, 1996 with the Respondents. The said lease agreement provided for renewal of the lease period for a further period on the terms and conditions containing therein namely to submit the revision of the rent and request being made by the Respondents three months prior to the expiry of lease period. Accordingly on the request having been made by the Respondents for an extension of the lease for 5 years from 1st May, 1996 to 30th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners interalia challenge the action of Respondent No. 6, Municipal Corporation of the City of Navi Mumbai (for short NMMC) to levy and collect the property taxes, rates and cess; seek declaration that the Thane Trans Creek (for short TTC) area admeasuring 24.690 Sq.Kilometers within the jurisdiction of Respondent No.5Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (for short MIDC) does not fall within the municipal limits of NMMC as per the Notification bearing No.NBC 1091/140/CR14/91/UD20 dated December 17, 1991 and consequently, the NMMC has no power to levy and collect any taxes including the property taxes and cess from the petitioners. The petitioners have also sought appropriate writ directing 1st RespondentState of Maharashtra to constitute the TTC and Thane Belapur Industrial Area (for short TBIA) into Industrial Township by issuing Notification as per Section 341F of the Maharashtra Municipal Council...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1300; [1974(29)FLR97]; 1974LabIC841; (1974)4SCC656; [1974]3SCR760
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The facts are similar in all these cases. We propose to deal with Civil Appeal No. 2271 of 1968. The decision there will dispose of the other appeals.2. The first respondent, a company registered under the Companies Act, filed a Writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat, In that petition it impugned the provisions of Sections 3, 6A and 7 of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as (the Act) and Section 13 of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the First Amendment Act) and Rules 3 and 4 of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as unConstitutional and prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction against the respondents in the writ petition to desist from enforcing the direction in the notice dated August 2, 1962 of respondent No. 3 to the writ petition requiring the petitioner-1st r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC128; (1951)53BOMLR458; 1951CriLJ680; (1951)IMLJ370(SC); [1951]2SCR228
Das, J.1. At all material times the petitioner, who is the appellant before us, was the Secretary of People's Publishing House, Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with its registered office at 190-B, Khedwadi Main Road in Bombay. In September, 1949, a pamphlet entitled 'Railway Mazdooron ke khilaf Nai Zazish' is alleged to have been published in Bombay by the petitioner as the secretary of that company. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the pamphlet was published as a 'book' within the meaning of section 1 of the Press and Registration of Books Act (XXV of 1867) and that the provisions of that Act had been duly complied with. The Bombay Government authorities, however, took the view that the pamphlet was a 'news sheet' within the meaning of section 2(6) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, and that as it had been published without the authority required by section 15(1) of that Act, the petitioner had committed an offence punishable un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1236; JT1995(2)SC110; 1995(1)SCALE539; (1995)2SCC161; [1995]1SCR1036
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. Leave granted.It will be convenient to answer the questions of law that arise in the present case, before we advert to the factual controversy between the parties. The questions of law are :(1) Has an organiser or producer of any event a right to get the event telecast through an agency of his choice whether national or foreign?(2) Has such organiser a choice of the agency of telecasting, particularly when the exercise of his right, does not make demand on any of the frequencies owned, commanded or controlled by the Government or the Government agencies like the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) or Doordarshan (DD)?(3) Can such an organiser be prevented from creating the terrestrial signal and denied the facility of merely uplinking the terrestrial signal to the satellite owned by another agency whether foreign or national?(4) What, if any, are the conditions which can be imposed by the Government department which in the present case is the Ministry of Informat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2767; [2006(110)FLR820]; [2006(4)JCR171(SC)]; JT2006(6)SC530; (2006)IIILLJ468SC; 2006(7)SCALE346; (2006)6SCC581
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted in the special leave petitions.2. Civil Appeal No. 1726 of 2005 and 119 special leave petitions (now civil appeals) have been filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short the 'Corporation') against the common final judgment and order dated 16.03.2004 passed by the Division Bench of High Court at Calcutta in APO No. 124 of 2001. Civil Appeal No. 1726 of 2005 arises out of the writ petition filed by Jardine Henderson Staff Association and Others wherein they challenged the Notification dated 23.12.1996. The Notification was issued by the Union of India by which the Central Government amended Rules 50, 51 and 54 of the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950, pursuant to which the wage limit for coverage of an employee under Section 2(9)(b) of the Employees State Insurance Act (in short 'the Act') was enhanced from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 6,500/- instead of the existing wage ceiling of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. Various Employees Associations ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1966P& H99
D. Falshaw, C.J.1. These are two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution regarding municipal elections. The main basis of both the petitions is the contention that the provisions of Section 240 (b) and (c) of the Punjab Municipal Act of 1911 are invalid on the ground of excessive delegation of authority.2. The first petition in point of time, C. W. No. 1094 of 1965, was filed by a single petitioner, Ram Kumar Sharma, on the 8th of April, 1965 and it was admitted on the 26th of April, 1965 by my learned brother Harbans Singh, J. and myself in ignorance of the fact that writ petitions based on similar grounds had been dismissed by Jindra Lal, J. on the 18th of May, 1964, (C. W. No. 628 of 1964), and by a Division Bench of Dulat and Grover, JJ. on the 14th of January, 1965, (C. W. No. 1257 of 1964). The other petition, C. W. No. 1225 of 1965, was filed by 49 petitioners and when admitted by the same Bench on the 26th of May, 1965 it was ordered to be heard along with Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965AP40
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.(1) This Writ Petition and many others which raise a similar question, challenges the validity of G. O. Ms. No. 532 dated 15-5-1964 issued by the Panchayat Raj Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner also imputes mala fides in so far as the reconstitution of the Gudur Panchayat Samithi in such a manner as to take away some Panchayats which were supporting him and attaching the same to some other Samithi is concerned. The petitioner/ who belongs to the Swantantra Party is the President of Momidi Panchayat in Gudur Taluk and was also the President of the Gudur Panchayat Samithi constituted on 1-11-1959. In the present elections also, he has been elected as the President of the Momidi Panchayat. According to him, the ruling party wanted to set up one Siddareddy Venkata Krishna Reddy for the Presidentship of the Panchayat Samithi during the 1960 elections, and for that purpose he was sought to be brought in as a co-opted member, but that attempt h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1974)IILLJ227Bom
Sawant, J.1. By this petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-Indian Sailors' Home Society, challenges the order dated 26-5-1970 passed by the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 70 of 1968. The facts leading to the petition are as follows :2. Sometime in the year 1967, the employees of the petitioner-society raised a dispute in respect of salaries, dearness allowance and other benefits. The said dispute was taken in to conciliation and as the conciliation ended in failure, the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of its powers under S. 10(1)(d) read with S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) referred the said industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal by its reference order dated 17-2-1968. The union representing the employees filed its statement of claim on 12-4-1968 and the petitioner-society filed its written statement on 22-4-1968. In the written statemen...
Tag this Judgment!