Court : US Supreme Court
Clark v. California - 464 U.S. 1304 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Clark v. California, 464 U.S. 1304 (1983) Clark v. California No. A-470 Decided December 20, 1983 * 464 U.S. 1304 ON APPLICATION FOR STAY Syllabus Applications to stay the District Court's preliminary injunction prohibiting the Secretary of the Interior from conducting a sale of certain tracts on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf for oil and gas leasing are granted pending this Court's resolution in another case of a controlling question involving the proper construction of § 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice. Applicants, who include the Secretary of the Interior and the Western Oil and Gas Association, request that I stay a preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the request for a stay without opinion. The preliminary inju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC753; (1984)1CompLJ150(SC); 1983(2)SCALE1101; (1984)2SCC16; [1984]2SCR267; [1984]55STC327(SC); 1984(16)LC818(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the order dated 31st December, 1981 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa. The appellant who was the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 went up in appeal against the confirming orders of Assistant Commissioner in respect of the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. The Sales Tax Officer, Koraput 1 Circle, Jeypore had made the orders under Rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 making demands of Rs. 1,21,38,586.00 for the year 1974-75, Rs. 1,29,64,637.00 for the year 1975-76 and Rs. 1,37,72,652.00 for the year 1976-77. The appellant is a dealer registered under Section 7(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 under Koraput I Circle in the State of Orissa.2. M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'H.A.L.') of which appellant is a division was established on 1st October, 1964. The objective of formation of the H.A.L. was to carry on in India and elsewhere, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC802; 1984LabIC560; 1983(2)SCALE1151; (1984)3SCC161; [1984]2SCR67; 1984(16)LC29(SC)
Bhagwati, J.1. The petitioner is an organisation dedicated to the cause of release of bonded labourers in the country. The system of bonded labour has been prevalent in various parts of the country since long prior to the attainment of political freedom and it constitutes an ugly and shameful feature of our national life. This system based on exploitation by a few socially and economically powerful persons trading on the misery and suffering of large numbers of men and holding them in bondage is a relic of a feudal hierarchical society which hypocritically proclaims the divinity of men but treats large masses of people belonging to the lower rungs of the social ladder or economically impoverished segments of society as dirt and chattel. This system under which one person can be bonded to provide labour to another for years and years until an alleged debt is supposed to be wiped out which never seems to happen during the life time of the bonded labourer, is totally incompatible with the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC600; 1983(2)SCALE1211; (1984)2SCC91; [1984]2SCR176; 1984(16)LC262(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. By our Order dated October. 20, 1983, we had dismissed the appeal. We now proceed to give our reasons for the same.2. The victory of our long drawn struggle for freedom from the British yoke came to us after one and a half century of perpetual and constant efforts soaked in cold blood and dipped in supreme sacrifice. The historical midnight of August 15, 1947, which ushered in a new era, was merely a completion of a phase and not the end of an epoch but only the beginning of the end.3. Soon thereafter the wise wizards and the founding fathers of our Constitution set out to devote their wholehearted attention to devise ways and means to give to our sub-continent a solid and comprehensive Constitution which may solve multifarious and manifold difficulties, fulfil the burning needs of the nation and sort out complex and complicated problems which arose after our hardwon freedom which must have baffled our leaders. There was the question of achieving a secular de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC444; 1984CriLJ177; 1984(1)Crimes224(SC); 1983(2)SCALE942; (1984)1SCC596; [1984]2SCR50
V.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment dated November 29, 1983 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Writ Petition No. 516 of 1983. That Writ Petition was filed by the respondent, Shri Jagdev Singh Talwandi, to challenge an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, on October 3, 1983 whereby the respondent was detained under Section 3(3) read with Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.2. The respondent was arrested in pursuance of the order of detention on the night between October 3 and 4, 1983. He was first lodged in the Central Jail, Patiala and from there he was taken to Ambala, Baroda and Fathegarh (U.P.). He filed a Writ Petition (No. 453 of 1983) in the High Court to challenge his transfer and detention in a place far away from Ambala. He withdrew that petition on an assurance by the Government that he will be sent back to Ambala, which the Government did on October ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC541; 1984LabIC301; (1984)ILLJ314SC; 1983(2)SCALE1060; (1984)2SCC141; [1984]2SCR200; 1984(1)SLJ474(SC); 1984(16)LC44(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. In this, group of writ petition, civil appeal, special leave petition and review petitions, a common question of law is raised whether Indian Council of Agricultural Research ('ICAR for short) and its affiliate Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI for short) are either itself the State or such other authority as would be comprehended in the expression 'other authority in Article 12 of the Constitution Re: W.P. No. 587/75 :2. Petitioner No. I was Professor of Animal Pathology, petitioner No. 2 was Professor of Animal Genetics and petitioner No. 3 was Professor of Veterinary Parasitology, all attached to IVRI. Six posts of Professors one each in Animal Pathology, Animal Genetics, Veterinary Parasitology, Animal Nutrition, Bacteriology and Physiology were created on the introduction of the post-graduate wing in IVRI in 1958. At the relevant time the post of Professor carried the scale of Rs. 700-1250. Of the six-posts, first mentioned, three posts of Professors were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC744; (1984)1CompLJ157(SC); 1983(2)SCALE1090; (1984)1SCC706; [1984]2SCR248; [1984]55STC314(SC); 1984(16)LC789(SC); AIR1984SCC744
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. These appeals by special leave are from the judgment and decision of the High Court of Karnataka dated 1st December, 1976 involving the questions of assessability of the appellant Sales Tax, Central as well as State. While granting leave, this Court excluded the question whether the sales effected in the canteen by the appellant were assessable to Sales Tax. By the impugned judgment, the High Court of Karnataka had dismissed several Writ Petitions against several orders being S.T.R.Ps. Nos. 28, 27 and 29 of 1985 under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, for the year 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 respectively and also three others namely; S.T.R. Ps. Nos. 25, 26 and 24 of 1975, under the Central Sale Tax Act for the corresponding years respectively, at the instance of the present appellant. These involved common questions of law and facts and were disposed of by a common judgment. We also propose to do the same. As stated, one of the questions was about the taxability o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1019; 1983(2)SCALE1228; 1984Supp(1)SCC609
ORDER1. Having heard Shri P.P. Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, learned, counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that the Rent Controller was not right in directing the eviction of the appellant from the premises in question before holding an enquiry into the case which he intended to do in this case. This is clear from the following passage appearing in the Judgment of the Rent Controller which runs thus :Hence 1 hereby pass an order directing that the warrants of possession be issued. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Administrative Sub-Judge, Delhi On 19.4.82. For report and also for evidence of the respondent an objection on 16.7.82 vide PF, DM, within 15, days.The circumstances of this case did not warrant the issue of the process for delivery of possession of the demised premises before the case of the appellant was considered in the light of the provisions of Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as explained by this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC564; (1984)39CTR(SC)47; [1984]145ITR485(SC); 1983(2)SCALE953; (1984)1SCC571; [1984]2SCR35
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th October, 1977 of the Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court upheld the reference made by the Wealth Tax Officer (Respondent No. 1) to the Valuation Officers (Respondents Nos. 2 and 3) for valuing certain buildings belonging to the appellant No. 1 firm as well as the notices issued by the Valuation Officers to appellant No. 2 in furtherance of the Reference. The appellants had by means of a writ petition challenged the reference as well as the notices on certain grounds and had prayed for a mandamus restraining respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from valuing the buildings. The writ petition having been dismissed, the appellants have come up in appeal to this Court.2. Most of the material facts giving rise to this appeal are not in dispute and may briefly be stated as follows : Appellant No. 1 (M/s. Juggi Lal Kamlapat, Bankers) is a partnership firm. Appellant No. 2 (Padampat Singhania) was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1399; 1983(2)SCALE1051; (1984)1SCC411; [1984]2SCR30; 1984(16)LC849(SC)
1. The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment D/- 19th of January, 1978 of the Allahabad High Court. The short question for consideration in this appeal is whether a sub-tenant is entitled to the protection of the fourth proviso to Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.2. The material facts to bring out the point for consideration lie in a narrow compass. One Murari Lal was the owner of the disputed shop. During his lifetime a partition took place between him and the other members of his family in 1937. The shop in dispute fell to the share of Murari Lal and Narendra Mohan, his eldest son. After the depth of Murari Lal in 1960 his interest devolved upon his sons Rajendra Kumar and Brijendra Kumar along with their brother Narendra Mohan,3. It appears that the shop in suit had been let out to one Krishan Kumar. He in his turn inducted Shyam Babu, the present appellant, as his sub-tenant in 1962. Raje...
Tag this Judgment!