Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(2)BomCR628
G.D. Kamat, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and appellate decree dated 9th March, 1990, made in First Civil Appeal No.100/88, by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The First Civil Appeal No.100/88 had arisen out of a judgment and decree dated 4th August, 1988, made in Regular Civil Suit No.111/68-c by the Civil Court at Margao.2. To appreciate the controversy between the parties and in the appeal reference is needed to the background of the litigation. Antonio Joaquim Mota was the owner of a property bearing matriz No.512 consisting of a house. Upon his death, inventory proceedings were launched and in the final order that emerged in those proceedings, his widow Ema Elvira Issura Rangel was allotted 5/8ths share and his sons Filomeno and Victor and daughter Maria Elsa do perpetuo Socorro Mota were allotted 1/8th share each. The third son Jose Mario Bailon Mota, for short `Jose Mari, was left out insofar as this house property is concerned. During her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1994KAR218; 1994(1)KarLJ469
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question raised by the petitioners pertains to the Excise Year 1985 to 1986 (1.7.1985 to 30.6.1986). The petitioners question the demand issued consequent upon the Amendment of Karnataka Excise (Excise Duties) Rules, 1968 (in short 'the Rules'), under which, the duty was increased to Rs. 6/- from Rs. 4/- per bulk liter.2. The petitioners are Excise Contractors, According to them, they offered their bids on the assumption that the duty would be Rs. 4/- per bulk liter. However, after the commencement of the Excise Year which was on 1st of June, 1985, Rules were amended increasing the duty to Rs. 6/- per bulk liter with effect from 1.8.1985. The demands were issued on various dates somewhere in the year 1987 claiming difference in the duties paid by the petitioners. Mr. A.G. Holla, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:(i) The amended Rules, under which the duty was increased from Rs. 4/- to Rs. 6/- substituted the earlier Rule an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1994Kant227; ILR1994KAR159; 1994(1)KarLJ385
ORDERRaveendran, J.1. A Division Benchof this Court consisting of, the Acting Chief Justice and N. D. V. Bhat, J. while considering W. A. 89/1991 arising out of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') entertained a doubt whether the two Division Bench Decisions of this Court in Hanumaiah v. State of Karnataka : ILR1987KAR550 and Chikkanarasaiah v. Tirupathaiah : ILR1989KAR1520 lay down the law correctly in view of the decision of the Supreme Court inState of Karnataka v. G.Seenappa : AIR1992SC1531 and G. M. Harkuni v. Tahsildar : [1992]3SCR786 . The Division Bench also felt that it was necessary to determine whether there was any conflict between the decisions in the cases of Hanumaiah and Chikkanarasaiah on the one hand and the two decisions of another Division Bench of this Court in Adivappa Shivappa Mattur v. Tahsildar : ILR1990KAR879 and G. M. Harkuni v. Tahsildar : ILR1990KAR3020 . As the said four decisions of this Court were being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(2)BomCR183
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. Both these appeals preferred by the contesting parties, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim, in Special Civil Suit No. 8 of 1980 which is partly against them, can be disposed of by this common judgment. Since both the contesting parties have preferred the instant appeals, they are conveniently referred to in this judgment as either the plaintiff or the defendants as the case may be.2. The facts are that the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 formed a joint Hindu family. Their genealogical tree is as follows :Lalsingh|Balramsingh Deft. No. 1 (since died) Hirabai (wife) Deft. No. 2| |Devising Deft. No. 3 Vijaysingh Deft. No. 5 Rajendrasingh Died on 13-10-1979| |Surjitsingh (Deft. No. 4) Shailabai (wife) (plff.)|Jagjitsingh died on 11-8-1979The above genealogical tree shows that common ancestor Lalsingh had one son Balramsingh who was the original defendant No. 1 and had died during the pendency of the suit. Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(2)ALT172
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The appellants in L.P.A. No. 61 of 1986 are respondents 3 and 4 in C.R.P. No. 665 of 1994 and the petitioners in the said C.R.P. are respondents 1,2 and 4 in the L.P.A.2. The subject matter of dispute in these two cases is the same. The controversy is about an extent of 9 acres of land in Survey No. 91 of Bowenpally village of Secunderabad. The said land was an inam land, which was abolished under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act (Act No. VIII of 1955), for short, 'the Inams abolition Act'. One Atchi Reddy was declared as a protected tenant of the said land under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act No. XXI of 1950), for short, 'the Tenancy Act'. Claiming to be transferees of the interest of the said protected tenant, Atchi Reddy, under a document said to have been executed by him on February 8,1963 (Ex.A.I) in favour of the appellants, they asserted to be in possession of the land. Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore. - 515 U.S. 687 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus BABBITT, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR, ET AL. v. SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES FOR A GREAT OREGON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 94-859. Argued April 17, 1995-Decided June 29,1995 As relevant here, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA or Act) makes it unlawful for any person to "take" endangered or threatened species, 9(a)(1)(B), and defines "take" to mean to "harass, harm, pursue," "wound," or "kill," 3(19). In 50 CFR 17.3, petitioner Secretary of the Interior further defines "harm" to include "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife." Respondents, persons and entities dependent on the forest products industries and others, challenged this regulation on its face, claiming that Congress did not intend the word "take" to include habitat modification. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Morse v. Republican Party of Va. - 517 U.S. 186 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1995 Syllabus MORSE ET AL. v. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA No. 94-203. Argued October 2, 1995-Decided March 27,1996 Appellee Republican Party of Virginia (Party) invited all registered Virginia voters willing to declare their support for the Party's nominees at the 1994 general election to become delegates to a convention to nominate the Party's candidate for United States Senator upon payment of a registration fee. Appellants Bartholomew and Enderson desired, and were qualified, to become delegates, but were rejected because they refused to pay the fee; appellant Morse paid the fee with funds advanced by supporters of the eventual nominee. Alleging, inter alia, that the imposition of the fee violated 5 and 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, appellants filed a complaint seeking an injunction preventing the Party from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)576; AIR1996SC966; 1996(1)ALT33(SC); JT1996(1)SC234; 1996(4)KarLJ103; 1996(1)SCALE298; (1996)3SCC75; [1996]1SCR439
ORDER1. The petitioners are challenging the constitutionality of Explanation II to Section 2(22) and Section 76 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1987 (30 of 1987) (for short, 'the Act') in this writ petition, apart from other provisions of the Act challenge to which is decided in other connected matters. In this case we confine our consideration to the validity of the above provisions. It is contended in the writ petition and argued by Shri R. Venugopal Reddy, their learned senior counsel, that ryotwari pattas having been granted under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion in Ryotwari) Act (37 of 1956) (for short, 'the Inams Abolition Act') and the same having attained finality, the legislature is devoid of power under the Act to set at naught the effect of the grant of ryotwari patta to the archakas, service holders or employees covered under the Act by a legislative side-wind. It is their case that by gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(4)ALT105
B.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The judgment of the learned District Judge, Krishna district, Machilipatnam in A.S.No. 101 of 1986 and the cross objections dated 27-2-1987 are in challenge in this appeal. Appellants are the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 90 of 1975 and the Respondents No. 1 to 7 were the Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 8 in the suit and Respondent No. 1 is the son of Plaintiff No.l Ibrahim Beigh. Respondents N0.8 and 9 are the legal representatives of Plaintiff No. 8, who died pending suit. The convenience warrants the reference to the parties as Plaintiffs and Defendants as they occupied in the trial Court.2. Originally, Plaintiff No. 1 viz., Ibrahim Beigh filed the suit and on his death the other Plaintiffs were brought on record as his legal representatives. The Defendants No. 2 and 3 Jaibunnisa and Sabrunnessa are the sisters of Plaintiff No.l. Khadar Baigh and Khatija Bibi are their parents. Defendant No. 1 is the husband of Defendant No. 2. Plaintiffs No. 2 and 8 are the sons an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(4)ALT409
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J. 1. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Prohibition restraining the first respondent-Director of Settlements from proceeding further with the suo motu enquiry pursuant to the notice dated 8-4-1995.2. The facts in brief are as follows: The Raja of Venkatagiri Zamin Estate granted land in Paimaish No. 679 of Madanuru village BitNo. 2 (now surveyed in Ethamukkala village) in favour of eight families of Alla, Ulchi, Samanthula, Maturi, Kunkala, Lingareddy, Bapireddy and Kalahasthi Reddy more than 100 years ago for the purpose of cultivation and pasturage on payment of usual rent due thereon. Raja Saheb granted land in Paimaish Nos. 17, 18, 23 and 24 situate in Somavarappadu village in favour of Kolagatla Peda Narasimham and others 100 years ago for the purpose of cultivation and pasturage. The petitioners acquired these lands either by purchase from the original grantees or by inheritance from the original grantees. The land was cultivated partly with dry crops l...
Tag this Judgment!