Court : Guwahati
T. NK Singh, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to (i) the detention order being No. Cril/NSA/No.100 of 2011, Imphal the 24th August, 2011 issued by the District Magistrate Imphal West Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section-3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA for short) read with Home Departments order No.17(1)/49/80-H (Pt-I) dated 09.8.2011 directing the petitioner-detenu, Shri Thiyam Imocha Singh, who is now in police custody, be detained under Section 3(2) of the NSA, 1980 until further orders; (ii) the order of the Governor of Manipur being No.17(1)158/2011 H: Imphal the 1st Sept., 2011 for approving the detention order dated 24.8.2011 and also (iii) the order of the Governor being No.17(1)158/2011-H: Imphal the 7th Oct., 2011 for confirming the detention order dated 24.8.2011 and fixed the period of detention for 12 (twelve) months from the date of detention only on the ground that rights of the petitioner-detenu guaranteed under A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 98(2004)CLT234
P.K. Mohanty, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, common question of law and identical facts being involved, on the prayer of the writ petitioners and on agreement of the learned counsel for the opposite parties, all the matters are heard analogous and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Dr. Bhupesh Kumar Nayak, in W. P. (C) No. 1387 of 2004 and Dr. Sanat Kumar Pasupalak and another in W. P. (C) No. 1484 of 2004, have called in question the decision of the opposite parties in fixing 31st December, 2003 as the cut off date as eligibility for entrance test for Post Graduate Medical Course, 2004, they having completed internship after passing M. B. B. S. degree sometime in January, 2004, certificate for which is expected to be issued by 31st of March, 2004, as illegal, arbitrary and without any nexus and deprives the petitioners the right to undertake the P. G. Course, 2004.3. Dr. Sarmishta Padhy in W. P. (C) No. 1688 of 2004 and Dr. Shakti Prasad Satapathy in W. P. (C) No. 24...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. These three appeals are directed against conviction of the appellants by the learned Special Judge, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 255, 256, 258, 259, 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- each or in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year imposed upon them on the conclusion of trial of Sessions Case No.37 of 2005/156 of 1999 before him. The learned Judge also convicted Ramratan Shrinivas Soni appellant in Criminal Appeal No.486 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 256 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- or in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The appellant Abdul Karim Ladsaheb Telgi in Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2006 was also convicted for the offences punishable under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. 2. The Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are claiming a writ, order or direction declaring clause (zzzzv) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 2010 as ultravires the Constitution of India, null, void and of no legal affect. It is prayed that the said provision be struck down as violative of the mandate of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 245, 246, 265, 300A and 366(29A)(f) of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the relief restraining the Respondents from giving effect to the said provision directly or indirectly, so also, levying or attempting to levy any service tax under the impugned provision is also claimed. 4. Few facts which are necessary for appreciating the rival contentions are that the Petitioner No.1 before us is an Association registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and claims that it has 2000 Hotels in G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the communication of the 1st respondent dated 01.01.2010 in SIET Ref.No.6473/10/2010, and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to constitute a Committee as per Vishaka's judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to enquire into the allegations made against the respondents 3rd and 4th under the circumstances stated above.) 1. A practising Advocate and Joint Secretary of SIET, Chennai, has challenged the communication of the 1st Respondent dated 01.01.2010 in SIET Ref. No. 6473/10/2010 and sought for a direction to the first respondent to constitute a Committee as per Vishaka's Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to enquire into the allegations made against the Respondents 3 and 4. 2. On the basis of the pleadings and the material on record, in the form of Typed Set of papers filed by the contesting parties, Learned Senio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 04/07/2012 All these appeals and applications taken out therein are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the appellants shall be referred to as accused by their original numbers. 2. Appellants who are the original accused are challenging the Judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict Accused No. 1 - Rajubhai Dhamirbhai Baria, Accused No.4 - Pankaj Virendragir Gosai, Accused No.11 - Sanjay @ Bhopo Ratilal Thakkar, Accused No.12 - Bahadursinh @ Jitu Chandrasinh Chauhan, Accused No.14 - Jagdish Chunilal Rajput, Accused No.15 - Dinesh Phulchand Rajbhar, Accused No.16 - Shanabhai Chimanbhai Baria, Accused No. 18 -Shailesh Anupbhai Tadvi and Accused No.20 - Suresh @ Lalo Devjibhai Vasava for an offence punishable under section 143 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
(For convenience, the various sections in the official copy of this judgment begin on new pages, and portions of some section-ending pages may therefore be blank. This is deliberate and is to be ignored.) CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................................................4 CHRONOLOGY.......................................................................................8 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS....................................................... 18 CTR™S PATENT....................................................................................24 THE DTL TENDER SPECIFICATIONS ............................................32 CTR™S CASE IN INFRINGEMENT.................................................... 33 THE CONTESTING EXPERT OPINIONS......................................... 36 SCHEMATICS.......................................................................................40 COMBINATION PATENTS and MOSAICING.................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the fair and decreetral order of the Learned II Additional Principal Judge, Chennai dated 05.07.2012 passed in O.P.No.2890 of 2007.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Appellant/Respondent has focused the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the order dated 05.07.2012 in O.P.No.2890 of 2007 passed by the Learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. 2. The Learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, while passing the impugned order on 05.07.2012 in O.P.No.2890 of 2007 [filed by the Respondent/Petitioner (Husband) under Section 13 (1)(ia) and (ib) and Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955] at paragraphs 19 and 20 had observed the following: 19. In order to strengthen the case of the petitioner, the parents his mother and father were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. They too deposed the cruel and the inhuman acts of the respondent not only towards the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2012(2)LW(Crl)597; 2013(1)MWN(Cr)1; 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)449
(Prayer in H.C.P.No.380/2012 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in Detention Order C.M.P.No.18/SLUM GRABBER/SALEM CITY/2012 dated 28.01.2012 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner now confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. Prayer in H.C.P.No.617/2012 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in Detention Order C.M.P.No.21/SLUM GRABBER/SALEM CITY/2012 dated 28.02.2012 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner's husband Thiru.Gowsiga Boopathy, M/A 59 years, now confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. Prayer in H.C.P.No.1406/2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. before three centuries, chief justice edward coke proclaimed: fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. ? 6. ...it is a fundamental principle well-established that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and ..... of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. before three centuries, chief justice edward coke proclaimed: fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. ? 22. it is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court .....
Tag this Judgment!