Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker350
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. In this revision petition two questions were raised:first, whether Shri T. R. Velunni, District Magistrate at Trichur at the relevant time, who was also the Commissioner of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, referred to hereafter as the Act, was competent to prefer the complaint and secondly, whether under the proviso (aa) to section 200, Crl. P. C. his examination by the Magistrate on taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint, could have been dispensed with. I see no difficulty whatever in answering the first question against the revision petitioner, for the complaint in this case fulfils the definition of the term 'complaint' in Section 4(1)(h), Crl. P. C. and the Magistrate is competent under Section 190(1)(a), Crl. P. C., to take cognizance of the offence. This was also conceded by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.2. On the second question, the answer would depend on whether, the complainant in preferring the complaint, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(2)AWC995
Sudhir Narain, J.1. Both these writ petitions have been referred by the learned Single Judge to a larger Bench. The learned single Judge has not framed any question of law but noted certain different opinions in the case decided by certain Benches of this Court on the question of right of a party to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit filed in the proceedings under the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. According to the learned single Judge, one view was that ordinarily the party should be permitted to cross-examine unless there are specific reasons to refuse such permission. Another view is that the party is not entitled to cross-examine a deponent of the affidavit unless there are exceptional circumstances shown by him before the authority concerned. In this connection, reference was made to the decision Rang Lal v. Prescribed Authority and another, 1982 (1) ARC 449, wherein an obse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1820; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)908; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1226(SC); 2001(2)ARBLR160(SC); (2001)2CompLJ207(SC); 2001CriLJ2044; 2001(2)Crimes202(SC); JT2001(4)SC573; RLW2001(2)SC220; (2001)5SCC407
Banerjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. Since the decision in Thawardas's case [Thawardas Pherumal & Anr. v. Union of India : : [1955]2SCR48 ] the issue of identifying the Arbitrator, as a court, did come up for consideration before this Court on more occasions than one. Thwaradas (supra) negatived it with a positive finding that the Arbitrator is not a 'Court' within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since then there has however, been sea change of events: the repeal of the earlier statute of Arbitration (Arbitration Act, 1940) and introduction of the new Arbitration Act, 1996 (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) in the statute book has brought about a major change in the sphere of Arbitration. Based on ancestral model of law on International Commercial Arbitration and Conciliation Rules, the Act is stated to be best suited and to sub-serve the Indian conditions having regard to the economic conditions and the effect of globalization of trade. Incidentally, the Statements of Obj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 146(2008)DLT641; 2007(99)DRJ440
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that this Court should issue directions to the respondent not to prevent petitioner from going abroad and also for directing the respondent No. 2 to release the passport of the petitioner and not to obstruct/restrain the petitioner from exercising his fundamental rights to move freely and to go abroad. 2. The petitioner is involved in several cases under FERA and is on bail in these cases. While granting bail to the petitioner under FERA, conditions were put and one of the condition was that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and if he even desires to go out of Delhi he shall give prior intimation to the Enforcement Department about his programme and intimate the addresses and places where he could be contacted. In one of the cases where the bail was granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1968Raj77
ORDER1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the State of Rajasthan seeks to question the validity of an order of the Commission of Inquiry, respondent No. 1, dated the 3rd May, 1967, whereby permission was accorded to respondents Nos. 2 to 8 to inspect certain documents called by the Commission from the petitioner in the presence of the Secretary or any officer deputed for the purpose during office hours. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length and have gone through the relevant portions of the papers filed by it. We are not satisfied that by the impugned order any of the legal rights of the petitioners have been infringed nor are we satisfied that the impugned order was one passed without jurisdiction or there was otherwise any apparent error on the face of the record so as to justify the exercise of our extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. It appears that the documents in question were requisitioned by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Heard the parties. Although this writ petition was linked with two other writ petitions but we find that the facts of this case are quite different and, therefore, it has become necessary to pass a separate judgment in this case.2. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, and Patna in OA No.150 of 2003 passed on 6.4.2005 (Annexure-6). By that order, the Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the respondent employee, quashed the orders contained in Annexures A/1, A/2, A/3 and A/4 and further declared that subsequent Annexures had become irrelevant. A liberty was granted to the petitioners to proceed against the applicant/ respondent afresh after serving him with proper charge- sheet and then hold a fresh inquiry in accordance with law.3. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in interfering with the matter on the ground that appellate order which confirmed the order of the di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2001)ACC540; 2001ACJ1719; AIR2001SC3660; 2001(4)ALLMR(SC)496; 2001(49)BLJR2294; JT2001(7)SC159; 2001(5)SCALE610; (2001)8SCC151
Banerjee, J.1. A very sad tale concerning fourteen young kids resulting in untimely and unfortunate death of all of them stands out to be the subject matter of the Appeal under consideration. Said tale by reason of the fact that a sheer fun of young ones turned out to be fatal as a consequence of utter and callous neglect of teachers on duty.2. Adverting to the factual aspects, it appears that on 28.5.1995, 59 boys and 18 girls (totalling 77) students, all in 4th, 5th and 6th classes of Dalhousie Public School, Badhani, Pathankot were brought for a picnic at Tandapatanindora on the bank of river Beas. The Head Master of the School deputed one Shri Surinder Pal Singh and another Shri K. Shanmugham being teachers in the School for escorting and taking due and proper care of the students. Incidentally, the site chosen for the picnic was the same on which the earlier picnic of the School was held on 7th May, 1995.3. On the contextual facts, it appears that the School concerned has in its a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 142(2007)DLT49
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These two writ petitions are being taken up together as the impugned orders both dated 01.03.2007 are identical. The circumstances are also the same. The petitioners are seeking the supply of copies of the documents which are in the possession of the respondents because, according to them, those documents help their case. The respondents submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the documents and would not be relied upon by them in the adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The petitioners, however, contended that they are not only entitled to copies of documents on which the respondents rely upon, but also those documents which are in the possession of the respondents and which advance the case of the petitioners. This is the entire scope of the controversy in these writ petitions. 2. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2004(5)SC72; 2004(6)SCALE75; (2004)12SCC673
Ruma Pal, J.1. Consequent of the creation of the State of Haryana from the erstwhile State of Punjab, the question of apportionment of the river waters made available to the erstwhile State of Punjab between Haryana and Punjab arose. A notification was issued by the Union of India on 24th March, 1976 under Section 78 of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, inter alia dividing the river waters between the two States. The Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Project covering about 214 KMs. was to be constructed through the States of Punjab and Haryana. Out of the 214 KMs, 122 KMs were to run through the territory of Punjab and 92 KMs through Haryana. The cost of completion of the canal was to be met by the Central Government. Haryana's portion of the canal was completed by June 1980. The State of Punjab had not completed its share of the canal although it had been paid the amount necessary for the purpose as also for the recurring expenditure towards maintenance of the canal.2. A suit was filed by the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Sheema Ali Khan, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Begusarai Town P.S. case No. 274 of 2000 dated 16.9.2000 registered under Sections 406/490/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Before giving the facts of the case it may be mentioned that petitioner filed Cr. Misc. No. 32733 of 2001 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.5.2002. The petitioner has filed a fresh application for quashing on 14.10.2003 vide Cr. Misc. No. 28734 of 2003. This application was also dismissed for non-prosecution by order of this Court dated 6.5.2003. The petitioner filed a restoration application vide Cr. Misc. No. 18504 of 2004 which was restored on 12.7.2004. Accordingly, this matter is now being finally disposed of.3. The petitioner is an advocate of the High Court and he is seeking for quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceeding on the ground that after investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation for the said offence fi...
Tag this Judgment!