Advanced Search Results

P.K. Sarin, S/O Shri S.N. SarIn Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Its

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

approval of the CGA, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India and taking into consideration provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000. As per the system, payment of salary would be credited into the bank accounts of the employees directly. … that the OA is an abuse of process of law and does not relate to infringement of any right vested in the employee. Applicant, it is pleaded, has failed to disclose any enforceable right, breach of which … 2007. The prayer of the applicant made in this Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is for a direction to … Central Vigilance Commission also vide their office order dated 06.04.2004 under Section 8(1)(h) of C.V.C. Act issued instructions for compliance by all Government departments regarding

Kennedy Vs. the Charity Commission

Court : UK Supreme Court

Subject : Right to Information

Matched in: Advocate Appellant: Philip Coppel QC Andrew Sharland (Instructed by Bates Wells and Braithwaite LLP) Intervener: James Eadie QC Karen Steyn Rachel Kamm (Instructed by Treasury Solicitors) Richard Clayton QC Christopher Knight (Instructed by Media Legal Defence Initiative and Campaign for Freedom of Information) Respondent: James Eadie QC Karen Steyn Rachel Kamm (Instructed by Charity Commission Legal Services) Intervener: Ben Hooper (Instructed by The Information Commissioner)

Secretary General, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to information

Acts : Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005 - Sections 2, 3, 4, 4(1), 6, 6(2), 6(3), 7, 8, 8(1), 10. 22 and 24; Government Act, 1978; Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act, 2007; Human Rights Act, 1993; Representation of People Act, 1951; Official Secrets Act, 1923; Freedom of Information Act 2000; Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968; Indian Trusts Act - Sections 88; Environmental Information Regulations, 2004; Constitution of India - Articles 3, 10, 14, 19, 19(1), 21, 32, 121, 122, 123, 124, (7), 124(2), 124(5), 217, 217(1), 233 and 235

Reported in : 166(2010)DLT305; 2010(1)KarLJ472

petition filed by the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, 'the CPIO') nominated under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, 'the Act') questioning correctness and legality of the order dated 6th January, 2009 of the Central … Rights' (2nd Edition, Thomson, Sweet & Maxwell 2007) explains the holding requirement in the context of Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (UK), thus:'When information is 'held' by a public authorityFor the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, … Section 2(j) of the Act. Equally important are the questions requiring interpretation of the expressions 'fiduciary', as in Section 8(1)(e) and 'privacy' as in Section 8(1)(j), both used but not defined specifically by the statute.3. When the learned

Sat Pal Kansal Vs. Estate Officer

Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh

Subject : MRTP

passed in 1991-92 alongwith the plan of House No.403, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh, vide application dated 31.08.2009, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. When no information and documents were supplied, Sh.Inder Chand Aggarwal was compelled to file an appeal, before … of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant. 9. … Chandigarh, but none bothered to supply the same, till date. It was further stated that, as per Sub Section 1 of Section 6 of the Public Record Act, 1993, read with Rules 1995, the Record Officer was

Sudesh Kumar Shukla Vs. Guru Harkrishan Public School and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

Acts : Delhi School Education Act, 1973 - Section 8(3); Delhi Right to Information Act (RTI), 2004; Constitution of India - Article 226

guilty of misconduct. The Petitioner stated that he received the report after applying for it under the Delhi Right to Information Act, 2004 („DRIA'). The Petitioner also enclosed with his rejoinder a copy of the report of the inquiry instituted … Graduate Teacher („PGT') (Music) with effect from 1st January 1997. 3. In January 2000, the Petitioner and another teacher Mrs. Sunita Kainth were deputed by the … Nos. 1, 2 and 4 that the Petitioner should have first approached the Delhi School Tribunal („Tribunal') under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 („DSEA') to challenge the termination order.10. In his rejoinder, the Petitioner

israil @ Israr Pahelvan Nazirahmed Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 19(1), 21, 22, 22(3), 22(4), 22(5), 22(6), 226, 227 and 228; Gujarat High Court Rules, 1973 - Rules 1, 2, 2(10), 2(11), 17, 22(5), 22(6), 28 and 174; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 106; Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - Sections 2, 3, 3(2), 6, 8, 8(1), 9(1) and 9(2); Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 - Sections 65, 66(1), 81 and 116-B; Gujarat High Court (Amendment) Rules, 1993 - Rules 378 to 386; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 82 to 86 and 161; Bombay police Act - Sections 135(1); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 141, 148, 149, 186, 323, 325, 333 and 504; Prohibition Act; Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Sections 6; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1908 - Sections

Reported in : 2001CriLJ2209; (2001)1GLR306

in Para 7 on Page 1981 as follows :-Para 7 ; 'It goes without saying that the constitutional right to make representation guaranteed by Article 22(5) must be taken to include by necessary implication the constitutional right to … the accused including the detenu, on 27-3-2000. (vii) Detaining authority received an information from the Office of the Chief Minister, Gujarat State, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar on … the limitations placed upon it by clause (6) of that Art.; held that since sub-sec.(1) and (2) of Section 8 of the National Security Act substantially reproduce the provisions of clause (5) and (6) of Article 22 of

J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Customs

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Sections 3, 8C, 9 and 9A to 9C; Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act, 1982; Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 12, 15, 46, 58, 68, 72 and 129; Indian Tariff Act, 1934; Finance Act, 2003 - Sections 8B, 8C, 8(8) and 15(1); Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002; Finance Act, 2000 - Sections 9AA; Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 34; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 148; Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 - Rules 2, 3, 4, 5 to 17, 18, 19 and 20; Constitution of India - Articles 12, 14, 136, 226, 227, 229 and 265

Reported in : 2005(103)ECC152; 2005(186)ELT3(Raj)

be determined and for the assessment and collection of such anti-dumping duty. Sub-section (8) was inserted vide Finance Act, 2000 extending the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the regulations made thereunder relating to non-levy, short levy … of Delhi High Court. The Court said :-'Passing of a legislation by itself does not confer any such right to file a writ petition, unless a cause of action arises therefor.'52. In such cases, the Court said that … information shall be transmitted to others subject to claim of confidentiality. These Rules also envisage oral submissions relating to information. Such opportunity to oral submission is conditional that oral submission shall be taken into consideration only if it

Small Industries Development Bank of India & Anr. Vs.randolph Rowe

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to Information

CPIO as it was held that the same was exempt under Section 8(1)(e), (g) and (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).4. Aggrieved by this decision of the CPIO, the respondent preferred an appeal which was also … directing the appellants to provide the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs), relating to the respondent, for the period 2000 to 2013, to him.2. The relevant facts as noted by the learned Single Judge deserve to be considered

Mathews J. Nedumpara Vs. The Hon'ble Chief Justice Bombay High Court a ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Right to Information

such crucial and relevant issue. 19. Further alternatively Mr.Khambata submitted that the information as sought is protected by section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He has taken us through the Act and to … that the administration of justice in Court as also otherwise should be transparent, fair and reasonable. Once the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been brought into effect then the Act would mandate even this Court on its administrative side

Peoples Union For Civil Liberties Vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

(earlier Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000)  Sections 8(1)(g) & (h) and 8(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 16 The Amicus Curiae has prepared the following suggestions on the basis of which appropriate guidelines can