Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(2)KLJ170; 2008(2)KLT857
V.K. Mohanan, J.1. Hopefully pointing out the grievance of the petitioner regarding the alleged illegal detention of her husband namely Sri.Bruce.S.Pothanikkatt, Keerambara, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the above writ petition invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The main prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is to issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of the aforesaid person- the husband of the petitioner before this Court and to set him at liberty forthwith. It is also prayed to declare that the detention of her husband under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (Act 34 of 2007) (hereinafter referred to for short as 'the Act' only) is violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India as the procedural safeguards have been violated.2. The allegations in the writ petition as its original form are as follows:According ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1980; 2001(49)BLJR1573; JT2001(4)SC11; 2001(2)SCALE670; (2001)4SCC534; [2001]2SCR654
Banerjee, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Urgency of the situation has prompted this Court to dispose of the present Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution even at the stage of admission: Urgency being initiation of election process of Kolhapur District Central Co-operative Bank in the State of Maharashtra. Incidentally, Bombay High Court has negatived the petitioners contention of restrictive list of voters in terms of the proviso to Section 27(3) as added by the amendment to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - the primary reason being - the entire election programme, including the list of voters stands finalised on June 30, 2000 and the amendment by way of addition to the proviso was effected on 23rd August, 2000: The introduction of the amended proviso being effected subsequent to the finalisation of the voters list, the High Court concluded that basically, the inclusion of the Societies which were eligible on 30th June, 2000 could not be faulted on the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1690; (1964)66BOMLR698; [1964(9)FLR324]; (1964)IILLJ639SC; 1965MhLJ73(SC); [1964]7SCR639
Das Gupta, J.1. A short point arises for consideration in this appeal. But to understand how the point arises it is necessary to embark on a somewhat lengthy statement of facts. 2. Three Road Transport Corporations established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 were operating in the States of Bombay, Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad in 1956 when the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 was enacted. These three corporations were known as the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation, the Provincial Transport Service and the State Transport Marathewada respectively. As a result of the reorganisation of the States under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 the former State of Bombay lost certain of its territories to the newly formed State of Mysore and some areas to the State of Rajasthan. On the other hand, the State of Bombay gained the Marathewada from the State of Hyderabad and the Vidharbha area from the State of Madhya Pradesh and certain other areas from the then existing State of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1910; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)700; 2001ALLMR(Cri)713(SC); 2001(49)BLJR1330; 2001CriLJ1832; 2001(2)Crimes150(SC); (2001)2GLR1148; JT2001(4)SC262; 2001(3)SCALE29; (2001)5SCC4
PATTANAIK, J.1. Leave granted.2. In this Appeal by grant of Special Leave the question that arises for consideration is when can an accused be said to have availed of his indefeasible right for being released on bail under the Proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a challan is not filed within the period stipulated thereunder. In the case in hand, the accused after surrendering himself in the Court was remanded to judicial custody by order of the Magistrate on 17.6.2000. A case has been instituted against him under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 (for short 'MPID Act'). The period of 60 days for filing of charge sheet was completed on 16.8.2000. On the next day i.e. 17.8.2000, an application for being released on bail was filed before the Magistrate alleging that non-filing of challan within 60 days entitles the accused to be released on bail under prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2319; (1994)96BOMLR574; JT1994(3)SC474; 1994(2)SCALE705; (1994)4SCC192; [1994]3SCR746; 1994(2)LC244(SC)
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J.1. Writ Petition (C) No. 404 of 1986. President Association of Allottees of Requisitioned Premises, Bombay v. State of Maharashtra, originated upon a letter written to the then Chief Justice of India. It was treated as a writ petition and numbered accordingly. On 21st July,. 1986 rule was issued upon the writ petition and it was referred to a five Judge bench for hearing. Accordingly, it comes to be heard by us. The writ petition, in effect, seeks reconsideration of the decision in H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra : [1984]2SCR693 which was decided by a bench of two learned Judges of this Court.2. While the aforementioned writ petition concerns premises requisitioned for the purposes of residential use under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the said Act'). Writ Petition No. 53 of 1953 , Grahak Sanstha Manch and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, concerns premises requisitioned under the said Act for commercial use. Therein the petitioners are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1991)93BOMLR122; JT1991(1)SC128; 1991(1)SCALE26; (1991)1SCC570; [1991]1SCR51; 1991(1)LC356(SC)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the High Court of Maharashtra at Bombay whereby it confirmed the eviction order passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No. 662 of 1988 in reversal of the order of dismissal of the suit passed by the Learned Additional Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Pune, in Civil Suit No. 348/85 on 30th April, 1988. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:On 5th February, 1976 the appellant executed a lease agreement in respect of a part of the ground floor of property bearing City Survey No. 1205/2/9 situate at Shivaji Nagar, Pune city, more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the said agreement. The said premises were taken on rent for the purposes of restaurant business on monthly rental basis. By Clause 3 of the agreement the appellant undertook to pay a total rent of Rs. 1,000 per month for the demised premises (Rs. 900 for the hotel portion and Rs. 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. The following questions have been referred to the Full Bench in W.P. No. 17828/2007, by Order of Reference dated 15.07.2009:(i) In view of proviso to Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957, whether the applications filed prior to notification made under Rule 59(1) of the M.C. Rules, 1960 require preference over the applications filed pursuant to the notification? and(ii) Whether the Judgment of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2009 made in Writ Appeal No. 807/2007 and connected writ appeals, requires reconsideration in view of the proviso to Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act as per which, the applications which had been received prior to the publication of such notification in respect of the lands notifying the areas for grant of mining lease shall be deemed to have been received on the same day for the purpose of assigning priority?2.1. The essential facts of the case, leading to the Order of Reference of the above questions before this Bench are as follows:2.2. W.P. No. 17828/2007 is filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(4)BomCR556; (2008)110BOMLR1950; 2008(5)MhLj455
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith.2. The appellant is original petitioner 2husband and the respondent is original petitioner 1wife in M.J. Petition No.F619 of 2007. For convenience, we shall refer to the appellant as 'the husband' and the respondent as 'the wife'. They filed the aforesaid petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the said Act') in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. 3. The case of the husband and the wife, as stated in the petition, is that they are Hindus and are governed by the provisions of the said Act. They got married on 5/3/1993 at Mumbai as per Hindu Vedic rites. The said marriage was registered with the Registrar of Marriages. The couple has two sons viz. Veer and Shikhar born on 1/2/1995 and 3/4/1997 respectively. After marriage, they resided together in Flat No. 601, 2nd floor, Dinath Court, Sir Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2176; 1991CriLJ3086; 1991(3)Crimes232(SC); (1991)2GLR1138; JT1991(3)SC617; 1991(2)SCALE501; (1991)4SCC431; [1991]3SCR936
ORDERK.N. Singh, J.1. On 25th September, 1989, a horrendus incident took place in the town of Nadiad, District Kheda in the State of Gujarat, which exhibited the berserk behaviour of Police undermining the dignity and independence of judiciary. S.R. Sharma, Inspector of Police, with 25 years of service posted at the Police Station, Nadiad, arrested, assaulted and handcuffed N.L. Patel, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad and tied him with a thick rope like an animal and made a public exhibition of it by sending him in the same condition to the Hospital for medical examination on an alleged charge of having consumed liquor in breach of the prohibition law enforced in the State of Gujarat. The Inspector S.R. Sharma got the Chief Judicial Magistrate photographed in handcuffs with rope tied around his body alongwith the constables which were published in the news papers all over the country. This led to tremors in the Bench and the Bar throughout the whole country.2. The incident undermined ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(3)Crimes644(SC); JT1994(6)SC544; 1994(4)SCALE452; (1994)6SCC731; [1994]Supp4SCR386
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act 61 of 1985), hereinafter alluded to as 'the Act', was enacted inter alia to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and for matters connected therewith. The enactment received the President's assent on 16th September, 1985. The dictionary of the Act is to be found in Section 2 thereof. Section 2(XXIX) says that words and expressions used in the Act and not defined but defined in the CrPC, 1973, hereinafter called 'the Code', shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Code. The Act is divided into six chapters comprising 83 sections. Since in the instant case we are concerned with only a few provisions we need not examine the scheme of the Act. We had an occasion to examine the scheme of the Act in some detail in Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India and Ors. : 1991CriLJ97 , Chapter IV defines the offences and prescribes...
Tag this Judgment!