Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1963Mad112; (1963)ILLJ23Mad
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to forbear from enforcing his order No. D/MD/598 Regl. dated 28th April, 1957.2. The petitioner is a firm of partnership running a factory at Tiruchirapalli. The factory was started as early as 1942. The factory was devoted for the purpose of manufacturing (i) tapes for insulation; (ii) lamp wicks; (iii) braided cords; (iv) sewing thread rolls which are reeled from bundles purchased from mills. More than 50 persons have all along been employed in this establishment. The Employees Provident Funds Act (Act XIX of 1952) applies to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I of the Act and in which 50 or more persons are employed. After the Act came into force the Regional Provident Fund Inspector inspected the petitioner's factory. He scrutinised the samples ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Baker v. Carr - 369 U.S. 186 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) Baker v. Carr No. 6 Argued April 19-20, 1961 Set for reargument May 1, 1961 Reargued October 9, 1961 Decided March 26, 1962 369 U.S. 186 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus Appellants are persons allegedly qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly of Tennessee representing the counties in which they reside. They brought suit in a Federal District Court in Tennessee under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, to redress the alleged deprivation of their federal constitutional rights by legislation classifying voters with respect to representation in the General Assembly. They alleged that, by means of a 1901 statute of Tennessee arbitrarily and capriciously apportioning the seats in the General Assembly among the State's 95 counties, and a failure to reapportion them subsequent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1406; [1963]1SCR491
S.K. Das, J.1. These are three consolidated appeals which arise from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court dated August, 9, 1957. They have been preferred to this Court on the strength of a certificate granted by the said High Court under Art. 132 of the Constitution certifying that the cases involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Art. 301 and other connected articles relating to trade, commerce and intercourse within the territory of India, contained in Part XIII of the Constitution. These appeals were originally heard by a Bench of five Judges and on April 4, 1961, that Bench recorded an order to the effect that having regard to the importance of the constitutional issues involved and the views expressed in the decision of this Court in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. The State of Assam : [1961]1SCR809 , the appeals should be heard by a larger Bench. The appeals were then placed before the learned Chief Justice for necessary orders, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1589; (1963)65BOMLR349; [1963]2SCR625
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Bombay under Art. 133(1)(b) & (c) of the Constitution, and the question raised for consideration is whether the 'Kesari & Mahratta Trust' of which the appellants are Trustees was or was not a 'public Trust' within the meaning of the Bombay Public Trust Act (Act XXIX of 1950) which it will be convenient to refer to as the Act. 2. The act which by its long title was enacted 'to regulate and to make better provision for the administration of public, religions and charitable Trusts in the State of Bombay' came into force on August 14, 1950. Section 18 of the Act enacted : '18. (1) It shall be the duty of the trustee of a public trust to which this Act has been applied to make an application for the registration of the public trust. ...............' 3. Section 66 of the Act provides penalties according to a table appended to it for contravention of the several sections set out in it and amo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok - 370 U.S. 530 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962) Glidden Co. v. Zdanok No. 242 Argued February 21, 26, 1962 Decided June 25, 1962 * 370 U.S. 530 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus The Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals are courts created under Article III of the Constitution, and their judges, including retired judges, may validly serve, by designation and assignment by the Chief Justice of the United States under 28 U.S.C. 293(a) and 294(d), on United States District Courts and Courts of Appeals. Pp. 370 U. S. 531 -589. 288 F.2d 99; 111 U.S.App.D.C. 238, 296 F.2d 360, affirmed. Page 370 U. S. 531 MR. JUSTICE HARLAN announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion joined by MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART. In Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U. S. 438 , and Williams v. United States, 289 U. S. 553 , this Court held that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker155
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In all these writ petitions, though the petitioners are different, the various provisions in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, Act 13 of 1961, are attacked on the ground that they violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.2. The exact grounds of attach raised by the petitioners wilt be adverted to later; but the background for the passing of the Act, which is under severe attack in these proceedings may be briefly indicated.3. Prior to the formation of the Kerala State on 1-11-1955, the Travancore-Cochin legislature had passed the Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Act, 1955, Act XV of 1955, purporting to provide for the levy of a low and uniform rate of basic tax on all lands in the State of Travancore-Cochin. That Act came into force on 1st day or April 1956, in accordance with the Notification issued by the Travancore-Cochin Government, under Section 1(3) of the said Act. Broadly, the Act purported to provide tor lev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H319
Mehar Singh, J.1. This judgment will dispose of three civil writ petitions Nos. 68, 935 and 938 of 1962, the first under Articles 226 and 227 and the remaining two under Article 226 of the Constitution, in which, although other matters have been raised, but the main question for consideration is the constitutional validity and 'vires' of Section 19-E of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Act 10 of 1953), which section has been added to this principal Act by Section 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1962 (Punjab Act 14 ol 1962), and Section 32-KK of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 19S5 (Pepsu Act 13 of 1955), which section has been Inserted in this principal Act by Section 7 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1962 Punjab Act 16 of 1962), the provisions of both the sections in either Act being verbatim the same.2. In Civil Writ No. 68 of 1962 the petitioner is Bhagat Gobind Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
NAYUDU J.- These civil rules have been heard together as they involve a common question of constitutional law, namely, whether section 37(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act è(Act XI of 1922), infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India in articles 14 and 19(r)(f) and (g) thereof.Before this question is taken up for consideration, it would be useful and necessary that the facts alleged in the petitions are briefly set out.In Civil Rule 195 of 1962, the petitioner is one Senairam Doongarmall Agency (Private) Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Tinsukia, in the Lakhimpur district, of the State of Assam. Shri K.E.Johnson, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, Tripura and Manipur, is impleaded as the first respondent, apparently in his personal capacity. The second respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, Tripura and Manipur, having his office at Shillong, the headquarters of the State of Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC590; [1964]2SCR737
Shah, J.1. By an agreement called 'Cowl' dated October 2, 1830 the PrincipalCollector of Konkan conferred on behalf of the East India Company 'farmrights' upon one Cursetjee Cowasjee Banajee - hereinafter called'Banajee' - in seven villages (1) Mogra, (2) Wasivre, (3) Bandivli(4) Majas, (5) Part Pahadi, (6) Goregaon and (7) Poisar on terms and conditionsset out therein. By two letters dated October 17, 1835 and July 17, 1841 theoriginal cowl was modified and Banajee was required to pay an amount to theEast India Company of Rs. 2,708/7/- per annum in consideration of the benefitsconferred upon him by the said cowl. Banajee constructed extensive salt worksin the villages and expended Rs. 2/- lakhs in improving and developing thevillages. On September 22, 1847 the East India Company granted to Banajee theseven villages on certain terms, freed from the covenants of the cowl, and alsofrom liability to pay assessment on land revenue in consideration of the amountspent by him for improving th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Arizona v. California - 373 U.S. 546 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) Arizona v. California No. 8, Original Argued January 8-11, 1962 Restored to calendar for reargument June 4, 1962 Reargued November 13-14, 1962 Decided June 3, 1963 373 U.S. 546 ON EXCEPTIONS TO SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECREE Syllabus This original suit was brought in this Court by the State of Arizona against the State of California and seven of its public agencies. Later, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and the United States became parties. The basic controversy is over how much water each State has a legal right to use out of the waters of the Colorado River and its tributaries. A Special Master appointed by the Court conducted a lengthy trial and filed a report containing his findings, conclusions and recommended decree, to which various parties took exceptions. Held: 1. In passing the Boulder Canyon Project Act, Congress intended to, and did, create its...
Tag this Judgment!