Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)4MLJ1153
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same. In the first writ petition, Novartis - a foreign company represented by it's Indian Power of Attorney holder, is the writ petitioner. In the second writ petition, Novartis India represented by it's power agent is the writ petitioner. The respondents in both the writ petitions are one and the same. The prayer in both the writ petitions is one and the same namely, for a declaration that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, amended by Patents (Amendment) Act 15/2005, is unconstitutional. However, in the first writ petition there was an additional prayer in addition to the relief asked for. The additional prayer was to direct the second respondent in that writ petition namely, the Controller General of Patents and Designs, to allow the patent application bearing No. 1602/NAS/98 filed by the petitioner seeking patent. However at a later stage, during the pendency of the writ petitions, M.P. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1771; JT1990(3)SC329; 1990(2)SCALE144; (1990)4SCC102; [1990]3SCR497; 1990(2)LC451(SC)
ORDER1. The civil appeals No. 13 14 to 13 18 of 1979 by certificate are directed against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner of Goa, Daman and Diu, declaring the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (5th Amendment) Act, 1976, as unconstitutional. The respondents are landlords in Goa. The lands were in possession of the tenants who were cultivating the same and paying rent to the respondents. The respondents were divested of their title in the lands by the provisions of the impugned Act which came in force in 1976 vesting the same in the tenants. The respondents filed five writ applications in the court of the Judicial Commissioner challenging the validity of the Amendment Act. The writ petitions were allowed by the impugned judgment. It has been held that the Act violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and the protection of Article 31A is not available as the scheme of the Act does not constitute agrarian reform.2. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent-writ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR293
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two petitions are in the nature of public interest litigation, the first at the instance of a journalist from Pune and the second at the instance of a Corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution broadly challenge the action of the first respondent, the State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'P.M.C') in grantingbuilding permission to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for construction of a building on Final Plot No. 110, Erandwana, Pune. The petitions also allege that the action of the Commissioner of P.M.C. was at the behest of respondent No. 5 who was the Chief Minister of the Government of Maharashtra at the material time and contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.P. Act'). It is contended that the said buildings permission is not only illegal, but also vitiated as it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)104BOMLR434
V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule in terms of order dated 7.5.1999. Since all the parties are ready for final hearing, with consent of the counsel for the parties the petitions are taken up for disposal.The above petitions, giving rise to the Public Interest Litigation assail the decision of the State of Maharashtra to construct fly overs in the island city of Mumbai in general and Andheri Fly over in particular for north and south traffic along Western Express Highway covering three Junctions, namely, Bahar Junction, Gold spot Junction and Andheri Kurla Road Junction at Mumbai.FACTUAL BACKGROUND MATRIX2. Broadly indicated, the facts taken from Writ Petition No. 657/1999 are as under:Petitioner No. 1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act ('Society' for short). The aims and objects of the society are inter alia, to look after the environment in all its aspects. The petitioner No. 2 is the Honorary Secretary of the society and has been working in the environmental movement for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(5)ALT200
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri S. Venkat Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, the learned Government Pleader for Forests, the learned Assistant Solicitor General and also Sri S.R. Ashok, the learned senior Counsel, representing the respective respondents.2. The writ petitioner M/s.Exotic Granite Exports, filed the present Writ Petition praying for quashing the proceedings of 1st respondent in Memo No. 1220/M.II(1)/07, dated 16-3-2007 (P1) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the name of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the same is arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust, violative of the principles of natural justice and financial rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and the Rules made under Section 4(1) of the Act and issue a conseque...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)99BOMLR434
B.U. Wahane, J.1. This writ petition is an apt example as to how the statutory object secure preservation of Environment and Development of the residential colonies shown in the Master Plan, sought to be achieved by the State of Maharashtra under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936. The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, is defeated by the Authorities who lack dynamism, aestheticism and enthusiasm for development and alienate the land/ open space meant for Public utility.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners 1 and 3 being Societies and petitioner No. 2 a Corporator, thus, the public spirited citizens, have questioned the legality, propriety and justifiability of the impugned Resolution dated 13th June, 1980, (Annex. Vat page No. 58) and the impugned order of allotment dated 21st May, 1985 (Annex, XXIII, at page 116).3. The Petitioner specified in para 2 of the Petition that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC3180; 2007(4)AWC3851(SC); 2008(1)BomCR454; 2007(10)SCALE391; (2007)7SCC555; 2007AIRSCW5782
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11446 of 2005.2. Civil Appeal No. 3703 of 2003 is before us on the basis of an order of reference dated 14.10.2004 reported as Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : (2004)8SCC505 . Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11446 of 2005 is before us by virtue of an order dated 11.7.2005 tagging the same along with the Civil No. No. 3703 of 2003. The question in Civil Appeal No. 3703 of 2003 and one of the questions in the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11446 of 2005 as posed by the order of reference is whether all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Central Act 68 of 1984, can be read into the provisions under Chapter VII of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, the MRTP Act) for an acquisition under that Act. According to the order of reference, the decision in State of Maharashtra and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR2159
1. These appeals are filed by the appellants-petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing WP. No. 23987/2005 along with connected writ petitions.2. The appellant-petitioners claim to be the owners of land bearing Sy. No. 76/1 of Nagawara Village. They are challenging the notifications bearing Nos. CI.88 SPQ 2005 dated 30.4.2005 issued under Section 3(1) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter called as KIAD Act) bearing No. CI/88 SPQ 2005 dated 30.4.2005 issued under Section 28(1) No. CI.88 SPQ 2005 dated 30.4.2005 issued under Section 28(4) No. CI 309 SPQ 2005 dated 24.9.2005 issued under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act' to declare the area comprised in Sy. No. 76/1 of Nagawara Village as an Industrial Area and also for acquiring the land in question for the purpose of Industrial Estate is illegal, as the same is in contravention of KIAD Act, Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, Karnataka Town and Country...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1643; 1967(0)BLJR818; [1967]2SCR762
Subbarao, C.J.1. These three writ petitions raise the important question of the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. 2. Writ Petition No. 153 of 1966, is filed by the petitioners therein against the State of Punjab and the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The petitioners are the son, daughter and grand-daughters of one Henry Golak Nath, who died on July 30, 1953. The Financial Commissioner, in revision against the order made by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, held by an order dated January 22, 1962 that an area of 418 standard acres and 9 1/4 units was surplus in the hands of the petitioners under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act X of 1953, read with s. 10-B thereof. The petitioners, alleging that the relevant provisions of the said Act whereunder the said area was declared surplus were void on the ground that they infringed their rights under cls. (f) and (g) of Art. 19 and Art. 14 of the Constitution, filed a writ in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR(SC)450; 2008(5)BomCR763; JT2008(9)SC605; 2008(12)SCALE194; 2008AIRSCW6146
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the Bombay High Court which while holding that Regulation 33 (7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (in short the `Regulations') for the city of Mumbai as amended in the year 1999 does not suffer from any illegality, further observed that the same applies only to dilapidated buildings of `A' category which satisfy the requirement and those declared prior to the monsoon of 1997 under 3rd proviso are covered under Regulation 33(7) and are entitled to extra 'Floor Space Index' (in short `FSI'). It also directed that certain site space has also to be provided.3. The conclusions essentially are as follows:For the reasons stated above, we hold that the petition is very much maintainable and we read the provisions of the first part of D.C. Regulation 33 (7) to cover only the privately owned dilapidated buildings which require reconstruction and where the cost of structural repairs exceeds the mone...
Tag this Judgment!