Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1207; 1976CriLJ945; (1976)2SCC521; [1976]SuppSCR172; 1976(8)LC610(SC)
ORDERNew Delhi the 3rd November, 1962G.S.R 1464--In exercise pf the power conferred by Clause(1) of Article 359 of the Constitution the President hereby declares that the right of any person to move any court for the enforcement of the right by Article 21 and article 22 of the Constitution shall remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamation of emergency issued under Clause (1) of Article 352 thereof on the 26th October in 1962 is in force, if such person has been deprived of any such rights under the Defence of, India Ordinance, 1962 (4 of 1962) or any rule or order made thereunder.On November 6, 1962, the rules framed under the Ordinance by the Central Government were published. On November 11, 1962 the Presidential order reproduced above was amended and for the words and figure 'Article 21', the words and figures 'Articles 14 and 21' were substituted. The Defence of India Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the Defence of India Act and the rules framed under the Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3820; 2005CriLJ3950; 122(2005)DLT194(SC); (2005)11SCC600
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The genesis of this case lies in a macabre incident that took place close to the noon time on 13th December, 2001 in which five heavily armed persons practically stormed the Parliament House complex and inflicted heavy casualties on the security men on duty. This unprecedented event bewildered the entire nation and sent shock waves across the globe. In the gun battle that lasted for 30 minutes or so, these five terrorists who tried to gain entry into the Parliament when it was in session, were killed. Nine persons including eight security personnel and one gardener succumbed to the bullets of the terrorists and 16 persons including 13 security men received injuries. The five terrorists were ultimately killed and their abortive attempt to lay a seize of the Parliament House thus came to an end, triggering off extensive and effective investigations spread over a short span of 17 days which revealed the possible involvement of the four accused persons who are ei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(10)SC440; (2004)ILLJ821SC; 2003(10)SCALE77; (2004)9SCC488; 2004(2)SLJ238(SC); 2004(1)LC707(SC)
B.N. AGRAWAL,J. These appeals by special leave have been filed by appellant-Company against judgment rendered by Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in writ applications whereby Award made by Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in the individual complaints filed by respondents-workmen has been modified. The short facts are that the respondents-workmen, 1197 in number, who were in employment of the appellant-Company in its factory at Bajaj Nagar, Waluj, within the District of Aurangabad, filed individual complaints before the Industrial Court at Aurangabad, under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1971 Act') complaining thereunder that unfair labour practices enumerated in Item Nos. 5,6,9 and 10 of Schedule IV appended to the 1971 Act were employed by the appellant-Company in the establishment in question. According to the workmen, they were appointed as welder, fitter, turner, mechan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(9)SC573; 2009(10)SCALE25; (2009)8SCC46
S.B. Sinha, J.Issue1. Effect of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus issued by a High Court directing implementation of an enactment vis-a-vis a subsequent legislation altering or modifying the right of the beneficiaries under the former Act, inter alia, is the question involved in these appeals.2. They arise out of a judgment and order dated 24th August, 2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.Background Facts3. The State of Kerala enacted the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 (Act No. 31 of 1975) (for short 'the 1975 Act') with the object of providing restriction on transfer of land by Members of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Kerala and for restoration of possession of lands alienated by such members and for matters connected therewith.4. The said Act received the assent of the President of India. It was included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India, being item No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(4)ARBLR333(Delhi); 154(2008)DLT568
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The Petitioner has applied under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator, the parties having failed to arrive at a consensus thereon.2. The Petitioner claims an Agreement dated 1st February, 1991 with the Respondent. Under the said Agreement, the Respondent, stated to be desirous of developing his business of sale and purchase of artificial jewellery and silver ornaments under the name and style of M/s Shivam Jewellers, appointed the Petitioner as his agent. Under the Agreement, the Respondent was to provide supply and make available all the said goods for sale of the same to be conducted by the Petitioner and for which the Petitioner was to be entitled to commission at the rate of 5% or at any other rate mutually settled between the parties from time to time. The Agreement further provides that the Petitioner shall conduct the business in shop bearing private No. 6 (Back side), forming part of premises N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The appellant, who is original accused 2, was tried along with one Rajesh Balkrishna Pille in the Court of Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge at Pune in Sessions Case No. 158 of 2001, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 506(H) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), under Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. By judgment and order dated 21/5/2002, the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Dharmadhikari, J. 1 RULE. 2 The Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, heard forthwith. 3 By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner is seeking quashing of CR No.3212/2011 registered with the Cyber Crime Cell, Crime Branch, Pune alleging offences punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 4 The complaint alleges that one Prataprao Govindrao Pawar is Chairman of M/s Sakal Papers Private Limited. This Company is incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of printing and publishing news papers in the States of Maharashtra and Goa. The Company has also Website, therefore, publications have wide circulation throughout India and abroad. One Abhijeet Prataprao Pawar is Director on the Board of Directors of the said Company. One Leelatai Parulekar is also a Director a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR521; 2003(5)BomCR695
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The appellants herein have preferred this Appeal against the order dated 19.12.2001, whereby a learned Judge of the City Civil Court dismissed Notice of Motion No. 2932 of 2001 in S.C. Suit No. 3752 of 2001, taken out by the appellants herein. The learned Judge found in favour of the appellants that the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA) was applicable. The learned Judge also found in favour of the appellants that the new structure is an extension to the old building Puspha Castle. However, on the ground of balance of convenience considering the delay in the plaintiffs approaching the Court, dismissed their Motion. It is that order which is the subject matter of the present Appeal.2. In this appeal, Motion for Interim relief was taken out on 25.9.2002 and an order was passed that pending hearing and final disposal of appeal there would be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (a) of Civil Application No. 1063/2002. The order also sets ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(5)BomCR519; 1999BomCR(Cri)519; (1999)3BOMLR394; 1999CriLJ4449; 1999(2)MhLj650
ORDERS. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel; Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, the learned A.P.P. for the V.B. Ganatra, the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This is a Criminal Revision Application filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and order dated 21st March, 1991, passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Bombay in Criminal Case No. 82/S/90 discharging the accused/respondents with regard to the offences punishable under section 18(a)(i) read with sections 16 and 34 and punishable under section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.3. The brief facts of the prosecution are that a Drug Inspector Mr. V.D. Patil, from the office of the Joint Commissioner, Gr. Bombay, Food and Drug Administration M.S. had visited the Centenary Municipal Hospital, Kandivali, Bombay on 29th September, 1987 and that he had drawn a sample of the drug namely Vanmycetin Opticops of Batch No. G.V.A 7011 manufactured by respondent No. 6 M/s F.D.C. Pvt. Ltd. be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(4)ALLMR740; 2008(3)MhLj906
R.M. Borde, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage with the consent of the parties.3. This petition is filed by the petitioners herein raising exception to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik on 28-11 2005. The petitioners are the elected members of Village Panchayat, Biloli. The general elections to the Gram Panchayat were held on 28-8-2005 and the petitioners are the elected candidates from ward Nos. 1 and 3 respectively. It transpires that respondent No. 1 raised objection with the Collector by moving an application on 15-9-2005 to the effect that the petitioners herein are disqualified to contest the elections as well as to continue on the post of member of Village Panchayat as they have incurred disqualification as laid down under Section 14(1)(a)(ii) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958.4. The objection raised by the respondent No. 1 is to the effect that the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!