Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1638; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)932; 2002(5)BomCR121; (2002)3BOMLR596; JT2002(3)SC452; 2002(3)SCALE231; (2002)4SCC219; [2002]2SCR860; 2002(1)LC681(SC)
Raju, J.1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay who lost before the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, is the appellant herein against the judgment dated 30.8.85 in Appeal No.167 of 1980 whereunder the Division Bench, while affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, restrained the appellant-corporation from taking any action against the respondent under Section 328 or 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 as amended (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in regard to their sign boards of petroleum pumps. In order to appreciate the legal issues raised pertaining to the scope and purport of the statutory provisions noticed supra, it becomes necessary not only to advert to the nature of the activities of the respondent which are the subject-matter in issue but also the conclusions arrived at in the judgment under challenge as well as the reasons therefore.2. The respondents are said to be successor-in-title of the company known as B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1649; 2002(4)ALLMR(SC)239; 2002(50)BLJR893; [2002(93)FLR715]; [2002(2)JCR128(SC)]; JT2002(3)SC587; (2002)IILLJ523SC; 2002(3)SCALE245; (2002)4SCC68; 2002(2)SCT774(S
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. The litigation giving rise to the present appeal relates to affairs of the South Eastern Railway Mens' Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union') with membership of 1,34,000 railway employees spread over six States covering the South Eastern Railway Zone. Though the appellant as well as respondent no. 1 have ceased to be office bearers of the Union, the litigation initiated at a point of time when they were members of the Union still continues.3. This appeal, filed by the defendant, is directed against the revisional order passed by the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 2264/99 in which the High Court declined to interfere with the order of temporary injunction passed on 17th August, 1999 by the Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 179/99 arising out of the Title Suit No. 105/98 on the file of the 6th Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore, South Calcutta.4. The aforementioned suit was filed by the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)9SCC201
ORDER 1. Pleadings are complete. Heard finally. 2. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for Assessment Years 1985-86 to 1993-94. According to the petitioner, copies of the assessment orders were not served on it and that is why its statutory remedy of filing appeal against the orders of assessment has been denied to it. According to the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, the orders of assessment were sent to the petitioner by post and though the postal AD receipt showing delivery of assessment orders to the petitioner was not received but on enquiry made from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tuticorin, it was informed that the assessment orders were delivered to the petitioner on 24-5-1999 at Patticula, H.P. However no document in support of such plea taken in the counter-affidavit has been filed in the court. At the end of para 5 of the counter, the respondents have submitted that in the event of the court is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1626; 2002(1)ARBLR691(SC); JT2002(3)SC442; (2002)2PLR225; 2002(3)SCALE248; (2002)4SCC447; [2002]2SCR847
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. These appeals arise out of the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.1999 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in a bunch of appeals preferred by the present appellant before us. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main question that falls for our consideration in these appeals is about the maintainability of appeal before the Division Bench against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, rejecting the application under order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree making the Award Rule of the Court. The other question is as to whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the proceedings for making the award Rule of the Court since the District Courts of Asansol had also been moved by the appellant to issue notice to the Arbitrator, under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940, for filing of the award in the Asansol Court.2. It appears that the appellant, namely the Union of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!