Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC2153; 1986(1)SCALE644; (1986)3SCC507; [1986]2SCR1; 1986(2)LC353(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. The Appellant was the holder of large plots of land. By his order dated March 21, 1964, the Collector, Kaira District, directed that plots of land admeasuring 6 acres and 28 gunthas were to be considered as Service Inam land class vi(a) assigned for remuneration in respect of Patel's service of village Malarpura, Taluka Matar, and the remaining plots of lands were to be resumed and entered in the name of the Government of Gujarat under Rule 4 of the Resumption Rules, 1908, and steps for their disposal should be taken separately by the competent authority. He further ordered that the lands which were held to be Service Inam lands should be dealt with under the Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961 (Gujarat Act No. XLVIII of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Abolition Act'), with effect from April 1, 1963. Against the said order of the Collector, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Revenue, Ahmedabad Division, but as the office of the Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(2)BomCR22; (1992)94BOMLR965
M.L. Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs against judgment dated April 30, 1981 delivered by learned Single Judge in Suit No. 260 of 1974 dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with the incidental reliefs in respect of six pieces of lands situated at Bhandup in Greater Bombay. The appellants are the Trustees of the Tulsiram Devidayal Charitable Trust, a Trust registered on July 9, 1953 under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Respondent No. 11 is the brother of appellant No. 1 and is a co-trustee and was joined as defendant No. 11 to the suit in pursuance of an order dated January 6, 1981 passed by the learned Judge granting amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiffs claimed that by registered Deed of Conveyance dated August 14, 1957 a piece of land admeasuring 14,017 sq. yards situated at Bhandup was purchased from Dwarkadas Hiraji Keni for a consideration of Rs. 42,501/-. The sanction for purchase of the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up on board for hearing. The respective counsels for respondents waive service of Rule.2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following substantive relief in terms of prayer clause (a) in paragraph-18: "a. By an appropriate writ/order/direction of this Hon'ble court the Respondent No.2 be directed to 'Reconsider' the applications dated 11/8/2010 and 13/7/2010 filed by the Petitioners for N.A. in respect of the properties mentioned therein by following the procedure as laid down under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966."3. The case of the petitioners can be summarized as follows: The Petitioners are owners of various lands situated at village Bhayander (West), Taluka and District Thane within the limits of Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation. Respondent No. 3 company was claiming to be a superior holder in respect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up on board for hearing. The respective counsels for respondents waive service of Rule.2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following substantive relief in terms of prayer clause (a) in paragraph-18: "a. By an appropriate writ/order/direction of this Hon'ble court the Respondent No. 2 & 3 be directed for making appropriate changes in the 7/12 Extract in favour of Mira Bhayander Corpration in respect of suit property i.e. land bearing Old Survey No. 334, New Survey No. 26, Hissa No. 7A, admeasuring 868.51 sq. meters situate, lying and being at Village Bhayander (West), Taluka and District Thane, in the Registration District and Sub-District Thane and now within the limits of Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation by following the procedure as laid down under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966."3. The case of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
License Cases - 46 U.S. 504 (1847) U.S. Supreme Court License Cases, 46 U.S. 5 How. 504 504 (1847) License Cases 46 U.S. (5 How.) 504 ERROR TO VARIOUS COURTS Syllabus Laws of Massachusetts, providing that no person shall presume to be a retailer or seller of wine, brandy, rum, or other spirituous liquors in a less quantity than twenty-eight gallons, and that delivered and carried away all at one time, unless he is first licensed as a retailer of wine and spirits, and that nothing in the law should be so construed as to require the county commissioners to grant any licenses when in their opinion the public good does not require them to be granted -- Of Rhode Island, forbidding the sale of rum, gin, brandy &c.;, in a less quantity than ten gallons, although in this case the brandy which was sold was duly imported from France into the United States, and purchased by the party indicted in the original importer -- Of New Hampshire, imposing similar restrictions to the foregoing up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Passenger Cases - 48 U.S. 283 (1849) U.S. Supreme Court Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. 7 How. 283 283 (1849) Passenger Cases 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283 ERROR TO THE COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENTS AND CORRECTION OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus Statutes of the states of New York and Massachusetts, imposing taxes upon alien passengers arriving in the ports of those states declared to be contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and therefore null and void. Inasmuch as there was no opinion of the Court as a Court, the reporter refers the reader to the opinions of the judges for an explanation of the statutes and the points in which they conflicted with the Constitution and laws of the United States. These were kindred cases, and were argued together. They were both brought up to this Court by writs of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, the case of Smith v. Turner being brought...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Scott v. Sandford - 60 U.S. 393 (1856) U.S. Supreme Court Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 393 (1856) Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 Syllabus I 1. Upon a writ of error to a Circuit Court of the United States, the transcript of the record of all the proceedings in the case is brought before the court, and is open to inspection and revision. 2. When a plea to the jurisdiction, in abatement, is overruled by the court upon demurrer, and the defendant pleads in bar, and upon these pleas the final judgment of the court is in his favor -- if the plaintiff brings a writ of error, the judgment of the court upon the plea in abatement is before this court, although it was in favor of the plaintiff -- and if the court erred in overruling it, the judgment must be reversed, and a mandate issued to the Circuit Court to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. 3. In the Circuit Courts of the United States, the record must show that the case is one in which, by the Constituti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Legal Tender Cases - 79 U.S. 457 (1870) U.S. Supreme Court Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. 12 Wall. 457 457 (1870) Legal Tender Cases 79 U.S. 457 WRIT OF ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AND APPEAL FROM DECREE IN EQUITY IN THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus 1. A purchase of the property of a loyal citizen of the United States under a confiscation and sale made pursuant to statutes of the late rebel confederacy, passed in aid of their rebellion, is void. Texas v. While, 7 Wall. 700, affirmed on this point. 2. The acts of Congress known as the Legal Tender are constitutional, when applied to contracts made before their passage. Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 Wall. 603, on this point overruled. 3. They are also valid as applicable to contracts made since. The case in the FIRST one, Knox v. Lee, was thus: Before the rebellion, Mrs. Lee, a loyal citizen of the United States, resident in Pennsylvania, owned a flock of sheep in Texas, which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Slaughterhouse Cases - 83 U.S. 36 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 36 36 (1872) Slaughterhouse Cases * 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA 1. The legislature of Louisiana, on the 8th of March, 1869, passed an act granting to a corporation, created by it, the exclusive right, for twenty-five years, to have and maintain slaughterhouses, landings for cattle, and yards for inclosing cattle intended for sale or slaughter within the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard, in that State (a territory which, it was said -- see infra, p. 83 U. S. 85 -- contained 1154 square miles, including the city of New Orleans, and a population of between two and three hundred thousand people), and prohibiting all other persons from building, keeping, or having slaughterhouses, landings for cattle, and yards for cattle intended for sale or slaughter, within those limits, and requiring that all cattle and other animals intended for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 3 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) Civil Rights Cases Submitted October Term, 1882 Decided October 16th, 1888 109 U.S. 3 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus 1. The 1st and 2d sections of the Civil Rights Act passed March 1st, 1876, are unconstitutional enactments as applied to the several States, not being authorized either by the XIIIth or XIVth Amendments of the Constitution. 2. The XIVth Amendment is prohibitory upon the States only, and the legislation authorized to be adopted by Congress for enforcing it is not direct legislation on the matters respecting which the States are prohibited from making or enforcing certain laws, or doing certain acts, but is corrective legislation such as may be necessary or proper for counteracting and redressing the effect of such laws or acts. Page 109 U. S. 4 The XIIIth Amendment relates only to slavery ...
Tag this Judgment!