Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-26-1999
Reported in : (2000)IIILLJ796Mad
y. venkatachalam, j. 1. invoking article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner-association herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of declaration declaring clause 12(a) of the mfl service policy, dated march 8, 1985, as illegal and null and void and not binding on the members of the petitioner-association.2. in support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they nave narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow their writ petition as prayed for. per contra, on behalf of the respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them, one after the other, and ultimately requested this court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties. i have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. i have also taken into consideration the various points raised by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments.4. in the above circumstances, the only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not5. the brief facts of the case of the petitioner-association, as .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-20-1999
Reported in : (1999)2MLJ616
orderm. karpagavinayagam, j.1. shanmugha sadachara servai, the petitioner herein is the plaintiff in o.s. no. 31 of 1989 on the file of district munsif, kovilpatti. he filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. after trial, the said suit was dismissed. though he instructed his lawyer to file an appeal after getting the copies of the judgment and decree, the copy application was not filed in time. therefore, he engaged some other lawyer to whom he instructed to file an appeal. in the process of filing the appeal, there was a delay of 94 days. therefore, the petitioner filed an application in i.a. no. 530 of 1991 to condone the said delay under section 5 of the limitation act. the petitioner examined himself as p. w. 1 in the enquiry conducted on this application. the reasons for causing the delay of 94 days were given by p. w. 1 in the deposition. he was also cross-examined. after consideration of the materials and submissions of the counsel for both the parties, the court of subordinate judge, tuticorin dismissed the petition on the ground that the details of the dates have not been clearly given either in the petition or in the deposition. this order is being challenged in this revision.2. according to the petitioner, after the judgment dated 31.1.1991 was passed by the trial court dismissing the suit, he instructed his erstwhile counsel mr. umasankar to apply for the copies of the judgment and decree to file an appeal. but, he was advised to wait for .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-28-1999
Reported in : (1999)3MLJ269
a. subbulakshmy, j. 1. this appeal is directed as against the order passed by the learned single judge in o.p.no. 706 of 1993. the petitioner filed the o.p. under section 10 of the guardian and wards act read with order 21, rule 3 of original side rules contending as follows:petitioner is the father and the respondent is the mother of k. dinesh born on 22.9.1983. after the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent were living in madras in so many places. the terms between the petitioner and the respondent were not cordial and there were frequent quarrels on account of incompatibility and the respondent was not able to adjust herself to the conditions of the petitioner. the respondent along with the minor son k. dinesh without any just cause or reason, abruptly left for bombay in the beginning of october, 1993 and never chosen to come back. the efforts taken by the petitioner have not resulted in any fruitful result so far. the respondent out of ill will and malice is bent upon withdrawing herself from the marital home of the petitioner for unknown reasons. the petitioner is employed in a decent organisation and is also earning from his financial business which is being done by his mother rajkumari at bombay. the petitioner being the father, is able to maintain the minor son, provide him with all comforts, good education besides love and affection in his company. the minor son is with his mother at poona and he had to necessarily forego his studies. the petitioner is able to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-30-1999
Reported in : (1999)3MLJ347
orderp. sathasivam, j.1. the issues raised in all the writ petitions are common in nature. therefore, the same are being disposed of by the following common order. the writ petitions are secondary grade teachers aided schools, secondary grade teachers association, private aided primary middle school managers and teachers association. generally the petitioners have sought for directions by calling for the records relating to the following government orders issued by respondent/government of tamil nadu and consequential order of director of school education:(1) g.o.ms.no. 1524, education, dated 12.11.1990,(2) g.o.ms.no. 1669, education, dated 13.12.1990,(3) g.o.ms.no. 20, education, dated 8.1.1993,(4) g.o.ms.no. 494, education, dated 19.5.1993,(5) g.o.ms.no. 279, education, dated 9.4.1996,(6) g.o.ms.no. 5, education, dated 6.1.1997 and(7) g.o.ms.no. 365, school education, dated 20.8.1997.as stated earlier all the contentions in these writ petitions are identical and common in nature. for the convenience, i shall refer the case of the petitioners in w.p.no. 221 of 1991. the first petitioner in that writ petition, who is a secondary grade teacher, was appointed as secondary grade teacher on 20.4.1990 as approved by the district educational officer in his letter dated 26.5.1990 and is working in sivanthi vinayakar elementary school, mamspuram. likewise, petitioners 2 to 7, working in different aided private management schools, were appointed on 4.6.1990, 2.7.1990, 29.6.1990, 9.7. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-08-1999
Reported in : (2000)1CALLT465(HC),[2000(86)FLR591]
r. pal j.1. the petitioners are all sub-assistant engineers in the mechanical division of the public health engineering directorate. one of their grievances before the west bengal administrative tribunal was that they had been wrongly denied the right to participate in an interview held by the state public service commission in november 1994 for appointment to the post of assistant engineers (mechanical) in the directorate. their writ application which was filed in december 1994 was transferred to the tribunal under the administrative tribunals act. 1985. an interim order was passed on 30th september 1996 directing the respondents not fill any more posts of assistant engineers till the disposal of the application. the application was ultimately dismissed by the tribunal on 13th january 1998.2. as the facts of the case have been fully set out in the judgment of my learned brother s.n. bhattacharya, j. it is not necessary to set out the same in extenso again. only those facts which are relevant to the particular issue which 1 wish to address viz. the process of selection by the public service commission, are briefly noted.3. the arbitrariness in the process followed by the public service commission (psc) in the selection of assistant engineers (mechanical) is evident from the outset.4. applications for appointment to the post of assistant engineer in the west bengal public health engineering service were called for in an advertisement published on 12th june 1993. the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-03-1999
Reported in : (1999)2CALLT137(HC),I(2000)DMC116
the court 1. the plaintiff instituted the suit fn the form of an application under section 10 or section 23 of the indian divorce act, 1869 whichever will be applicable in the present case.2. the cause of making such alternative relief is that the husband/ petitioner made out case of adultery as well as physical and mental cruelty or desertion simultaneously as against the wife.3. the petitioner/husband served a notice of making this application and filed the affidavit-of-service along with other incidental papers to establish that service was effected upon the respondent. in addition thereto, he produced a certificate issued by the deputy registrar, original side of this court wherefrom it appears that the respondent did not appear either in person or by advocate. let the affidavit-of-service and other incidental papers along with the certificate issued by the concerned deputy registrar be kept with the record.4. since no denial was there, i was inclined to proceed on the basis of order 8 rule 5 of the code of civil procedure but mr. k.s.roy, learned senior counsel with the able assistance of mrs. swapna mukherjee learned counsel appearing with him, contended that in view of the circumstances particulars when the husband has brought certain charges of adultery as well as cruelty and desertion against wife, there should be witness action to bring the real picture before the court for the ends of justice. this court appreciated the stand taken by the learned counsel appearing .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-21-1999
Reported in : (1999)2CALLT183(HC)
b.m. mitra, j.1. the connected writ petition has been filed at theinstance of m/s. rainbow production private ltd., a company incorporated under the companies act and one miss soma mukherjee, one of thedirectors of the petitioner no. 1 company against prasar bharau (broadcasting corporation of india), a body corporate and its numerous office bearers who are figuring as respondents in the said writ petition. it appears from the perusal of the prayer portion of the connected writ petition that manifold prayers are made, inter alia, for a declaration that prasar bharati (broadcasting corporation of india) being an autonomous body cannot stall and/or amend any concluded contract entered between any citizen and the corporation and cannot at any stage withhold and/or withdraw its public commitments and for a further writ of mandamus to give effect to an earlier decision taken by the former chief executive officer, prasar bharatl which was communicated to the doordarshan kendra, calcutta and also to the petitioners vide letter dated 25.7.98 issued by the deputy director general of eastern region and for withdrawing and/or reversing the said decision in july, 1998 by former ceo of the prasar bharau broadcasting corporation and also for a further writ of mandamus to withdraw the case for finally approving of the proposal by way of scuttling the programme proposed to be telecast on dd-1 and dd-7 channel of calcutta doordarshan kendra on 5.10.98 and also for issuance of a writ of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-10-1999
Reported in : (1999)3CALLT140(HC)
s.b. sinha, j. 1. this appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 5th june, 1996 passed by a learned single judge of this court in matter no. 948 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the said learned judge dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant herein questioning an award dated 28th march 1984 and published in the gazette on 19th april 1994, of the central government industrial tribunal, the respondent number 1 herein. the fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.2. the concerned workmen who were seventy one in number had been working in sodepur sub area of the appellant company as casual wagon loaders. a notification was issued by the central government in exercise of its power under section 10(1) of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act 1970 whereby and whereunder employment of contract labour inter alia in the matter of loading and unloading of coal was abolished. the said notification came into force with effect from first may, 1974. according to the appellant upon abolition of employment of the contract labour in terms of the aforementioned notification, the concerned workmen had been working as casual workmen as and when their services were required. however, admittedly, 401 workmen used to be engaged on casual basis for the purpose of loading of coal on the wagons. the appellant alleges that for the purpose of appointing such casual workmen on a regualr basis a screening committee was constituted in consultation with a trade .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-27-1999
Reported in : AIR1999Cal133
1. the instant appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 14-2-97 reported in : air1997cal186 passed by a learned single judge in c.o. no. 5043 (w) of 1996 whereby and whereunder the notification no. g.s.r.-793 (e), issued under section 26a of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 (in short the act) and published in the gazette dated 13th december, 1995 was quashed and set aside.2. by the impugned notification dated 13th december, 1995 a prohibition on manufacture, sale and distribution of fixed dose combination of hydroxyquinoline group of drugs with any other drug, except for preparations meant for external use, was imposed.3. the impugned notification has been issued in exercise of the power vested in the central government under section 26a of the act which reads as under :--'power of central government to prohibit manufacture, etc. of drug and cosmetic in public interest.-- without prejudice to any other provision contained in this chapter, if the central government is satisfied, that the use of any drug or cosmetic is likely to involve any risk to human beings or animals or that any drug does not have the therapeutic value claimed or purported to be claimed for it or contains ingredients and in such quantity for which there is no therapeutic justification and that in the public interest it is necessary or expedient so to do, then, that government may, by notification in the official gazette, prohibit the manufacture, sale or distribution of such drug or cosmetic .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-16-1999
Reported in : AIR1999Cal242,(1999)3CALLT466(HC)
orderk.j. sengupta, j.1. in this petition the petitioner being the learned member of the bar association (the respondent no. 3) has challenged the vires of the west bengal land reforms and tenancy tribunal act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said act).2. in the petition it has been alleged amongst other that they being the regular practitioners of this court are seriously affected as they are having substantial practice in litigations of land laws in the event the said act comes in operation.3. in the petition the sum and substance of the challenge as against the act are given hereunder.(i) it is not a tribunal within the meaning of the provision of article 323-b(1) of clause (d) as it lacks all the attributes of this article.(ii) the jurisdiction, power and authority of the tribunal as mentioned in sections 6, 7 and 8 of the act are ultra vires constitution of india as it intends to take away the power of judicial review of the high court under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, as a court of first instance.(iii) the provision of transfer of all the pending matters, proceedings, cases and appeals in this hon' ble court under sectiion 9 of the said act also ultra vires constitution as it intends to take away jurisdiction and power of this court under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, consequently it hits basic structure of the constitution.4. mr. samaraditya pal, learned senior advocate, appearing for the writ petitioners has amplified .....Tag this Judgment!