Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Bashir Oil Mills And Ors. And Maheshwari ... on 3 March, 1989
cites
The Census Act, 1948
The Andhra Pradesh Rice Bran Solvent ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 April, 1988
2. After the above decision, the Union of India and Ors. i.e. the respondents in these writ petitions have filed Misc. Civil Application No. 118/1987 and Misc. Civil Application No. 119/1987 in these writ petitions claiming re-hearing/further hearing of these writ petitions. It is clear that after the judgment was rendered in these writ petitions, there is no question of re-hearing/further hearing in these writ petitions and hence the above applications are really speaking applications for review of the above judgment.
Liberty Oil Mills & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 1 May, 1984
1. A common question of law arising in the Writ Petition No. 2049 of 1985 (M/s. Bashir Oil Mills & 6 Others v. Union of India and five others) and in the Writ Petition No. 133 of 1986 (Maheshwari Solvent Extractions v. Union of India and Anr.) was decided by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 27.2.1987 to which one of us (Dhabe, J.) was a party. It was held in the said judgment that the definition of the expression 'vegetable oil' given in Section 3(h) of the National Oil Seeds and Vegetable Oils Development Board Act, 1983 (for short the Board Act) which is applicable for levy of cess under Section 3 of the Vegetable Oils Cess Act, 1983 (for short the Cess Act) covers natural oils produced directly from the plant such as its limbs, flowers, seeds, barks, etc., the development of which and not of the highly processed oil is the object of the Board Act. It was thus held in the said judgment that the vegetable oil extracted from oil cakes which are not directly derived from the plant as such but are by-products of the oil seeds after the oil is extracted from them by the process of solvent extraction is not "vegetable oil" within the meaning of Section 3(h) of the Board Act.
Keshava S. Jamkhandi vs Ramachandra S. Jamkhandi on 2 April, 1980
In support of the above submission, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Keshava S. Jamkhandi v. Ramchandra S. Jamkhandi in which, after referring to the objects and reasons for inserting Article 134-A in the Constitution of India and after drawing aid for construction from the speech of Shri Shanti Bhushan, the mover of the Amendment, it is held that Article 134-A is introduced in the Constitution in order to curtail unnecessary delay in moving the Supreme Court in appeal. It is, therefore, held in the above case that the question of grant of certificate under Article 133 (1) as provided in Article 134-A either on its own motion by the High Court or on oral application made by the party aggrieved has to be considered immediately after the judgment is delivered by the High Court. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the petitioners in these writ petitions that against the judgment rendered in these writ petitions the applications for grant of certificate under Article 133 (1) of the Constitution are moved after an inordinate delay by the Union of India and Ors. and, therefore, the said applications cannot be considered in view of the provisions of Article 134-A of the Constitution of India.
THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1978
Andhra Pradesh Rice Bran Solvent ... vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 24 December, 1982
While these review applications were pending, the learned Counsel for the Union of India noticed that the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Rice Bran Solvent Extractors Association v. Union of India A.P. had taken a view that oil produced from the rice bran by the method of solvent extraction is vegetable oil within the meaning of Section 3(h) of the Board Act, whereas in the case of U.P. Solvent Extractor's Association, Kanpur v. Union of India and Ors. 1988 All L.J. 471 : 1988 (18) ECR 44, the Allahabad High Court has taken a contrary view viz. that oil extracted from rice bran by the process of solvent extraction is not vegetable oil within the meaning of the said expression under the Board Act. He, therefore, filed civil application Nos. 3827/1988 and 3828/1988 claiming alternatively that leave to appeal to the Supreme Court should be granted to the Union of India and Ors. i.e. the respondents against the judgment in these writ petitions under Article 133(1) read with Article 134-A of the Constitution of India. It may be seen that Article 134-A is introduced in the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, which came into force with effect from 1.8.1979.
1