Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR484; 2005(5)BomCR626; (2005)107BOMLR287; 2005(4)MhLj445
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (Amendment) Act 1992 -Maharashtra Act 16 of 1992 - has been challenged in these proceedings. By this amendment, the State legislature inserted Chapter VI-A into the provisions of the parent Act in order to provide for the levy, assessment and recovery of a Development Charge. Sub-section (1) of Section 124A enacts the levy of a Development Charge in the following terms :'124A. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Planning Authority or the Development Authority (hereinafter in this Chapter collectively referred to as 'the Authority'), shall levy within the area of its jurisdiction development charge on the institution of use or change of use of any land or building, or development of any land or building, for which permission is required under this Act, at the rates specified by or under the provisions of this Chapter:Provided that, where land appurtenant to a building is used for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.1. All the writ petitions covered by this common judgment have been heard together on the admitted premise that they seek to challenge the constitutionality, legality and vires of Sub-section (4) of Section 23 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which has been inserted by Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1993 (Bihar Act 21/1993), as well as of provisions in the Bihar Rent Refixation Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules).2. During the hearing of these writ petitions on several dates no dispute or controversy of facts was raised before this Court. All the writ petitions have been argued on the basis of undisputed understanding that on account of fresh assessment of rent under the impugned provisions, treating the land to be under non-permissible industrial or commercial use and, therefore, amenable to revised rent on the basis of its market value, the liability of the petitioners towards rent payable to the State under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR608; 2004(7)KarLJ677
ORDERN. Kumar, J 1. In all the above Writ Petitioners have challenged the acquisition of their lands by the Bangalore Development Authority for the formation of Visweshwaraiah Layout. As common questions of law and facts do arise for consideration in all these Writ Petitions, they are clubbed and heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in all these petitions could be broadly classified as under:-(a) The owners of lands who are either cultivating the land personally or who have put up constructions on the said lands and using them either for residential purposes, non-residential purposes or industrial purposes.(b) The owners of sites; (i) Who have purchased sites in agricultural lands.(ii) Who have purchased sites in layouts which are not approved and formed in agricultural lands.(iii) Who have purchased sites in layouts which are formed after conversion and after obtaining the necessary permission/sanction from the local authorities.(iv) Who have purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(Del)239
T. V. R. Tatachari, C.J. - These are four Civil Writ Petitions and three Sales Tax References. As a common contention has been raised in all the seven matters, they have been heard together. The contention is that the turnover of the sales effected by the petitioners in the canteens run by them is not liable to be included in the taxable turnover for the purposes of levy of sales tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi with effect from 28th May, 1951, and as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Sales Tax Act.).2. We shall first state the facts which led to the filling of Civil Writ Petition No. 214 of 1968 and the making of Sales Tax Reference No. 1 of 1972. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition 214 of 1968 and Sales Tax Reference No. 1 of 1972 is the Delhi Cloth & General Mills Company Limited which is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1882, and has its Registered Offices at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2006(5)KarLJ361
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.Heard the learned Counsels appearing on both sides and perused the material on record. The matters arising out of 'Further Extension of Bhonashankari 6th Stage' layout are also heard along with these matters by consent of parties, as the questions involved in these matters are almost similar.1. These writ petitions are filed by the land/site owners and interested persons challenging the notification issued Under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'BDA Act' for short) dated 08.04.2003 bearing No. BDA/Commissioner/SLAO/79/2003-2004 (published in the official gazette on 09.04,2003) (henceforth called as preliminary notification) and the notification issued Under Section 19(1) of the 'BDA Act' dated 09.09.2003 bearing No. Na Aa Ee/749/Bem Bhu Swa/2003, published in the official gazette on 10.09.2003 (hereafter called as final notification). By issuing said notifications, the Bangalore Development Authority ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992AP19; 1991(3)ALT173
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.1. As all the writ petitions are interconnected, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. By these writ petitions the constitutionality of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act 10 of 1971 and Rule 22(C) issued in G.O.Ms. No. 220, Food and Agriculture, dated 20th March, 1991 and Rule 22(A)(3)(a) issued in G.O.Ms. No. 224, Food and Agriculture, dated 20th March, 1991, are challenged.3. In the year 1987 elections were held to the Managing Committees of the Co-operative Societies in the State. The term of office of the managing committees at that time was five years. By an Ordinance issued on 30th June, 1990, the term of the managing committees was reduced to three years, as a consequence of which, almost all the managing committees ceased to exist. In order to fill the void, the Government issued various orders appointing Officers as persons-in-charge. Challenging the same, a batch of writ petitions, W.Ps. Nos. 8783 of 1990 and batch, was filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1586; 1966CriLJ1210; [1966]3SCR933
Hidayatullah, J.1.This is an appeal by certificate under Art 134(1)(c) of the Constitution against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated September 4, 1963 by which the conviction of the respondent Motilal Kanoria under s. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- (in default simple imprisonment for one month) imposed by the Presidency Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta, were set aside and an acquittal was entered. The facts of the case are not in controversy and may therefore be stated briefly. Motilal Kanoria was a director of Lachminarayan Jute ., Calcutta. The Company was managed by a firm of the name of Mukhram Lachminarayan and Motilal Kanoria was one of the partners of the firm. The Company and the Managing Agents has a common address in Calcutta. Motilal Kanoria used to sign on behalf of the Managing Agents and also generally to deal with the affairs of the Company. All transactions in this case were by Motilal Kanoria and he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1986; (1976)3SCC428; [1976]Supp1SCR486; 1976(8)LC569(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 28 March 1969 of the High Court of Madras. The question in this appeal is whether the appellant in a writ petition can challenge the telephone rates and charges and obtain any relief in that behalf.2. The appellant is a retired District Manager (Telephones), Madras. He filed a writ petition in the High Court for a writ of prohibition, directing the General Manager (Telephones), Madras to forbear from enforcing the revised Telephone Tariff as per the Indian Telegraph Amendment Rules, 1966. Under the rules, the rental and call charges were increased by 50 per cent and Trunk call charges by about 30 to 35 per cent. The petitioner alleged that the telephone system is a public utility service and not a Revenue earning establishment and the charges can be only in the nature of a fee which must be commensurate with the cost of rendering the service. The petitioner further alleged that the loss incurred by the Government in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC215; (1977)4SCC471; [1978]1SCR641
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This batch of 374 appeals by certificate is from the decision of the High Court of Karnataka given in 374 Writ Petition filed by different persons having various kinds of interest in the Contract Carriages which were taken over by the State of Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 7 of 1976) (for brevity, hereinafter, the Ordinance) followed by the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 Karnataka Act No. 21 of 1976) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The judgment of the High Court is reported in K. Jayaraj Ballal and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.. The Indian Law Reports (Karnataka) 1976 (Vol. 26), 1478. For the sake . of convenience hereinafter in this judgment, reference to the High Court judgment wherever necessary will be made from the said report.FACTS2. The broad and the common facts of the various cases are in a narrow compass and not in dispute. At the outset, we shall state them mostl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1970Kant171; AIR1970Mys171
Chandrashekhar, J. 1. These three petitions are similar and they raise common questions of law. They relate to the disputes arising out of termination of services of individual workmen by their respective employers who are the petitioners herein.2. In these petitions, the petitioners have asked for striking down Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They have also impugned the conciliation proceedings pending before the Labour & Conciliation Officer, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the Conciliation Officer) in respect of such disputes.3. Respondent 4 in each of these petitions whose services were terminated, preferred an appeal under Section 39 of the Mysore Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Shops & Establishments Act), before the Commissioner of Labour in Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), who is the Appellant Authority under the said Act After Section 2-A was insert...
Tag this Judgment!