Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1883; 1988(36)BLJR633; 1989CriLJ1; JT1988(3)SC191; 1988(2)SCALE117; (1988)3SCC609; [1988]Supp2SCR24
ORDER OF THE COURTSd/-(USHA MEHRA)REGISTRAR16. On the same day, the High Court passed another order under Section 194 of the Code designating Shri Mahesh Chandra, Additional Sessions Judge as the Judge to try the said case. Shri Mahesh Chandra was a Senior District and Sessions Judge at the Courts in New Delhi within the jurisdiction of which the offence was committed. The case of the appellants is that the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue the first notification directing the trial at Tihar Jail. It is argued that Section 9(6) confers power on the High Court to specify by notification a place or places at which criminal trials can be held by the Court of Session in the Union Territory of Delhi. The requirement of a notification of the High Court of the place or places where the Court of Session will function is intended to facilitate the process of public participation. Such a notification, it is submitted, has already been issued by the High Court of Delhi. The whole of the Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1829; 1981LabIC1313; (1981)IILLJ314SC; 1981(3)SCALE1275; (1981)4SCC335; [1982]1SCR438; 1981(2)SLJ349(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. Transferred Case No. 3 of 1981 and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners raise common constitutional and legal questions and we propose to decide all these cases by one common judgment. So far as Transferred Case No. 3/81 is concerned, it arises out of writ petition No. 1186/1980 filed by Nergesh Meerza and Ors. Respondent No. 1 (Air India) moved this Court for transfer of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, Nergesh Meerza & Ors in the Bombay High Court to this Court because the constitutional validity of Regulation 46(1)(c) of Air India Employees Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'A.I. Regulations') and other questions of law were involved. Another ground taken by the applicant-Air India in the transfer petition was that other writ petitions filed by the Air Hostesses employed by the Indian Airlines Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'I.A.C.') which were pending hearing in this Court involved almost identical reliefs. After h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
JUDGMENT: 1 The Appellant , a young doctor who became a victim of paraplegia as a result of injuries sustained in a motor accident has taken an exception to the judgment and award made by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which his claim 2 FA.717.99.doc for compensation has been partly allowed. The Appellant met with than accident on 15 December, 1993. He met with an accident when he was about 25 and half years old and by that time, he had acquired qualification of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine (B.A.M.S.). As a result of fracture to 12 thoracic vertibra , He suffered from complete paraplegia both motor and sensory below thoracic 12 with complete bladder and bowel involvement. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is Rs.8,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum against the claim of Rs.50,00,000/- made by him in the claim petition. 2 The accident occurred on 08:30 am on 5 December, 1993. At the time of accident, the Appellant was proceeding towar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. In a federal set up like ours, conflicts between Parliamentary and State enactments are not really uncommon. How to resolve such conflicts is also, by and large, well settled ; but every time, such a conflict is brought before the Courts for resolution, the Courts undertake a massive exercise. This happens not because of any kind of inherent disinclination, on the part of the Courts, to readily resolve such a conflict, but to ensure that in order to resolve such a conflict, the Courts, while interpreting with an open, liberal and modern mindset, the provisions of the Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder, remain steadfast to the basic structures of the Constitution and while interpreting the Constitution, howsoever liberally, maintain not only the letter but also spirit of the basic and fundamental concepts of the Constitution. The present Writ petition invites this Court to undertake such an arduous exercise. In order to ensure that the States are not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(4)ALLMR305; 2000(4)BomCR136; (2000)1BOMLR140; 1999(3)MhLj433
ORDERJ.N. Patel, J.1. By these Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the selection and appointment of respondents 4, 5 and 6 as Professors in Industry Institute Interaction, Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Engineering, by seeking writ in the nature of certiorari/ mandamus and appropriate direction or order so as to quash the selection and appointments made by the Selections Committee as Professors in V.R.C.E. and further that the respondents 1 to 3 should constitute a proper Selection Committee as per the Government Resolution dated 25th October, 1977 and be directed that the selection be made strictly on merits from fully qualified candidates as per the qualifications laid down by AICTE and for any other appropriate writ, direction or order with costs of the petition.2. Visvesvaraya Regional College of Engineering (in short VRCE) advertised the posts of Professors, one in Industrial Engineering (Mech.), one in Urban Plan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR601; 2005(4)BomCR32; 2005(3)MhLj684
Deshpande D.G., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appeal is filed by the builder challenging the order of the Additional Chief Judge of Small Causes Court dated 31-3-2000 in Appeal No. 19 of 2000 under Section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and in which the order of assessment passed by the respondents Officer on 10-8-1999 was in question. That order of the respondents was refusal to entertain the complaint of the appellants and confirming rateable value.3. Following are the facts giving rise to the disputed question :A huge slum was existing on plot bearing C.T.S. Nos. 426 (part) 428 to 430, 432 to 437, Saiwadi Village, Andheri (East), Mumbai, K/East Ward. It was proposed to implement a scheme for slum rehabilitation by the Government of Maharashtra under Development Control Rules, 33(5) to 33(1). The letter of intent therefore was given by the SRA-Slum Rehabilitation Authority to the appellants. The entire land on which the slum was situated was ow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR657; 2006(1)BomCR70; (2005)107BOMLR854
Acts/Rules/Orders: Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 - Order 21, Rules 10, 12, 32, 32(1) to (4), 32(5), 35, 97(1), 97(2), 98, 98(2), 99, 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105; - Order 39, Rule 1; Advocates' Act, 1961 ;Bombay High Court (O.S) Rules;Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 55(1) and 52;Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 12 and 14Cases Referred: Mukund Bapu Jadhav v. Tanu Sakhu Pawar, A.I.R. 1933 Bombay 457; Subhan B. Shaikh Noor v. Abdul Samad Haji Abdul Raheman, 1978 Mh.L.J. 519; Babulal v. Hazarilal Kishori Lal and Ors., (1982) 3 S.C.R. 94; Silverline Forum Pvt.Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and Anr., (1998) 3 S.C.C. 723; Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain and Anr., A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 358; Krishna Tukaram v. Mahadeo Krishnaji, A.I.R. 1953 Bombay 227; Krishna Kumar Khemka v. Grindlays Bank, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 899; Sujit Singh and Ors. v. Harbans Singh and Ors., 1995 (6) SCC 50; Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1673; Satya Brata Biswal v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(2)BomCR183
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. The original plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 were the heirs of one Prakash Nagindas Parekh, who expired on 20th February, 1984 in KEM Hospital, Mumbai. Plaintiff No. 1 expired pending the Suit. Plaintiffs 1 (a) to 1(b) are the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff No. 1 along with plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs claim damages from the defendant upon the tort of negligence.2. The defendant is a qualified practising Surgeon. The aforesaid Prakash Nagindas Parekh (the deceased) suffered from a condition called hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating). He was under the treatment of the defendant who had performed a surgery medically called upper Dorsal or Cervical Sympathectomy which is a surgery to be performed on the hands (upper limbs) to alleviate the said medical condition. Sympathectomy is a surgical excision of a part of the nervous system which causes hyperhidrosis. It is the plaintiffs' case that the defendant was negligent during course of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(6)ALD602; 1998(1)ALT129
ORDER1. Writ Petitions No.10037 of 1993, 4464 of 1994 and 10822 of 1994 relate to filling up the vacancy of Deputy Registrar earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidate pursuant to the notification given by the respondent-University on 9-9-1991. While Writ Petition No. 10037 of 1993 was filed by Mr. Rangappa, seeking a direction to the respondent University to appoint him as Deputy Registrar, WP No.4464 of 1994 was filed by Mr. Krishnam Raju, 2nd respondent in the above writ petition, questioning the very process of selection while Smt. Rajya Lakshmi filed Writ Petition No. 10822 of 1994 seeking a direction to appoint her as Deputy Registrar.2. At the outset, I would like to refer the oft quoted maxim 'if you want to kill a dog, call it mad and shoot at it'. The case on hand is of that nature. This is neither a solitary instance nor it has happened in this University for the first time. It is a universal feature and no institution is an exception to this phenomena. As long as Merit of an i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3563; 2005(3)ESC2209
1. The petitioner who was elected to the office of Adhyaksha (Chair person), Zila Panchayat, Allahabad in the elections held in November, 2000, has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 30th July, 2005 (Annex. 15) passed by the respondent State Government removing the petitioner from her office on the basis of alleged charges which the State Government contends to have been proved against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter called the '1961 Act') read with The Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter called the 1997 Rules'). Haunted and hotly pursued by her rival political opponents, the petitioner contends that the impugned order is a result of political motivation and is a complete mala fide exercise of power in violation of the provision...
Tag this Judgment!