Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003IIIAD(Delhi)216; 104(2003)DLT682; 2003(71)DRJ482A
B.N. Chaturvedi, J. 1. This suit for possession and recovery of damages for use and occupation of the premises No. 15, Palam Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was filed by Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi, wife of late Dr. Nagendra Singh, claiming herself as owner-landlady of the aforesaid premises. The suit property was let out to the defendant under two separate lease agreements executed on 31st of December, 1985. One agreement pertaining to the entire suit property was executed between late Dr. Nagendra Singh as KARTA of HUF, Smt. Indira Kumari, Smt. Sarla Kumari, both daughters of late Yadvendra Singh, and Raj Singh S/o Shri Luxman Singhjee of Dungarpur on one hand and the defendant, the Embassy of Syrian Arab Republic on the other. The other lease agreement was entered into in respect of ground floor, a servant quarter, one motor garage, lawns and garden between Mrs. Indira Kumari and Mrs. Sarla Kumari, both daughters of late Yadvendra Singh and Shri Raj Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singhjee of Dunga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to call for records and set aside the order dated 17.03.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, in the Writ Petition No.19684/2007 and etc.,) 1. The appellants are all land owners who have lost their lands or in the process of losing and in fact they are fighting a losing battle to save their lands for livelihood or sustenance due to the compulsory take over of this land by the State Government by issue of notifications u/s 3 (1), (3) and 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short the Act). 2. Appellants/land owners effort to save their lands from the sweep of acquisition by the State Government by filing writ petitions before this Court having failed as the learned Single Judge of this Court opined that there is no merit in the contentions urged in support of the writ petitioners, challenge to the acquisition proceedings under the Act and more so, the number of writ petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1970Bom180; (1970)72BOMLR51; ILR1970Bom887
Madan, J.1. The Petitioner is a civilian in the defence services. He has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside an order passed by the President of India terminating his services as Lecturer in the National Defence Academy, Khadakvasla, and reverting him to the post of Section Master, Rashtriya Indian Military College, Dehra Dun, his parent department, on which post he held a lien, and a consequential order directing him to proceed to Dehra Dun on reversion to his parent department.2. In September 1947 the Petitioner was appointed as Section Master in the Prince of Wales Royal Indian Military College at Dehra Dun (now known as 'The Rashtriya Indian Military College') in the grade of Rs. 275-50-800- with duty allowance of Rs. 100/- per month and free accommodation. This appointment was for a period of one year pending recruitment of a candidate through the Federal Public Service Commission. In 1948 three posts of Section Master and six posts of Senior Mas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1971Bom244; 1971LabIC1080; 1971MhLJ413
Deshmukh, J.1. These are tea petitions filed by various types of persons connected with the beedi industry who could be described in the language of the impugned Act as principal employers, contractors and employees. For the various reasons detailed in the petitions, all of themseek a writ of mandamus prohibiting the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 from giving effect to the provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (No. 32 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and further seek a declaration that the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder are void, ineffective and beyond the legislative compe tense of the Legislature and interfering unreasonably with fundamental rights of the petitioners.2. Out of these petitioners, the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 391. 392, 393 of 1969, No. 409 of 1968, and Nos. 451 and 453 of 1969, as also those in Special Civil Applications Nos. 513 and 514 of 1069 are the beedi manufacturers who cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(5)BomCR71
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal forthwith. We have heard all the learned counsel at considerable length including the counsel on behalf of the Interveners and the Bombay Hoarding Owners Association.The Petition filed before this Court in the Public Interest. 2. On 16th April, 2002, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed in this Court in the public interest seeking, inter alia, the issuance of appropriate writs, orders or directions to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for the purpose of securing the removal of hoardings which continued to be erected and displayed unlawfully in Mumbai. The grievance of the Petitioner was that there was a complete failure on the part of the law enforcing agencies, statutorily vested with regulatory powers to discharge their duties in accordance with law. The Petitioner highlighted before the Court the serious environm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC305; [1966]36CompCas165(SC); [1965(11)FLR137]; (1965)IILLJ175SC; [1966]1SCR25
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the award of the NationalIndustrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes), Bombay, in a dispute between the ReserveBank of India and its workmen, delivered on 8 September, 1962, and published inthe Gazette of India (Extraordinary) of 29 September, 1962. The appellants arethe All India Reserve Bank Employees' Association, Bombay (shortly theassociation), representing Class II and Class III staff and the All IndiaReserve Bank D Class Employees' Union, Kanpur (shortly the union), representingclass IV staff, of the Reserve Bank. 2. By notification No. S.O. 704 dated the 21st March 1960, the CentralGovernment, in exercise of its powers under s. 7B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, constituted a National Industrial Tribunal with Mr. Justice K. T. Desai(later Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court) as the Presiding Officer. By anorder notified under No. S.O. 707 of the same date, Central Government, in theexercise of the powers conferred by su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008]143CompCas325(SC); (2008)5CompLJ369(SC); (2007)213CTR(SC)301; [2008]297ITR176(SC); 2007(13)SCALE204; [2007]80SCL283(SC); 2007AIRSCW7443
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is:Whether Accounting Standard 22 (AS 22) entitled 'accounting for taxes on income' insofar as it relates to deferred taxation is inconsistent with and ultra vires the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Companies Act), the Income-tax Act, 1961 (I.T. Act) and the Constitution of India?2. M/s. J.K. Industries Ltd. is a public limited company. It was incorporated in 1951. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of automotive tyres, tubes, sugar and agrigenetics. It has a registered office at Calcutta. It seeks to challenge AS 22 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for short, 'Institute') which has been made mandatory for all companies listed in Stock Exchanges in India in preparation of their accounts for the financial year 2001-02 onwards.3. On 7.12.06 the Central Government prescribed AS 22 under Section 211(3C) of the Companies Act by the Companies (AS...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (G.S. Kulkarni, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties and at their request taken up for final hearing. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has prayed that the reservation nos.8 and 9 made in the development plan of the year 1986 of the Kagal Municipal Council, District Kolhapur for the purpose of extension of Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) and for a primary school and a play ground in respect of the petitioner's land, being survey No.247/3/1 situated at Kagal District Kolhapur be quashed and set aside. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to undertake development of the land. The facts in brief are: 3. The Petitioner is the owner of the land bearing R.S.No.247/2/1 admeasuring 3 hectares situated at Kagal (for short the land).The Government in its Urban Development Department had sanctioned a revised ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1969)71BOMLR262; 1969MhLJ272
Abhyankar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of both these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner Vithalrao in Special Civil Application No. 504 of 19G7 claims to be cultivating Khasra Nos. 51, 58, 60, 48, 03, 46 and 64, situate at village Binakhi in Patwari 'Circle No. 10 in Tahsil and District Nagpur under a registered lease deed dated July 9, 1047, from one Mohomed Hassan Nurani Malak. The petitioner also claims that he is recorded as a tenant in the record of rights and the tenants' list prepared under Section 8 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958, applicable to this region.3. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 506 of 1967 claim to be owners of Khasra No. 62 held in Bhumidhari rights at the same village-Binakhi.4. By not ice dated May 3, 1062, respondent No. 2, that is, the Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur published under Section 39 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936, notified that a Housing Scheme known as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC169; 1993(3)SCALE371; (1994)1SCC92; [1993]Supp1SCR667
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. Special leave granted.2. These 41 appeals and writ petitions raise common question of law for decision. Therefore, they are disposed of together. As the facts in C.A. No. 965/81 are sufficient to consider the controversy raised, the need to reiterate the facts in each case became redundant.3. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow, the second respondent framed Bhumi Vikas Evam Grahastham Yojana No. 1 Scheme for Rampur city to relieve the acute housing problems of that city and published the impugned notification in the Gazette on September 8, 15 and 22 of 1973 under Section 28(1) of the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965(Act 1 of 1966) amended as on that date, for short 'the Act' proposing to acquire 14 acres of land situated in civil area at an estimated cost of Rs. 25.21 lacs. Local publications too were made. Notices under Section 29 inviting objections were served on the appellants and others on Sept. 20, 1973. On October 28,1973 objections were filed....
Tag this Judgment!