Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3613 OF2016Rajendra Diwan ... Appellant versus Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr. .Respondents WITH AND CA. No.10214 OF2016C.A. No.3051 OF2017JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.This appeal, purportedly under Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act, is against an order dated 1.12.2015 of the Rent Control Tribunal at Raipur, confirming an order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Rent Control Authority, whereby an application filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the appellant tenant under Section 12 of the Rent Control Act has been allowed. 2 2. Appeal against an order of the Rent Control Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act provides:- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, a landlord and/or tenant aggrieved by any order of the Rent Controller shall have the right to appeal in the prescribed manner within the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12237-12238_OF2016[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.30884-30885 OF2015 STATE BANK OF INDIA APPELLANT VERSUS SANTOSH GUPTA AND ANR. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12240-12246_OF2016[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.30810-30815 & 30817 OF2015 [SLP (CIVIL) NOS.30810-30817 OF2015 STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS ZAFFAR ULLAH NEHRU AND ANR. ETC. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.Leave granted.1. The Constitution of India is a mosaic drawn from the experience of nations worldwide. The federal structure of this Constitution is largely reflected in Part XI which is largely drawn from the Government of India Act, 1935. The State of Jammu & Kashmir is a part of this federal structure. Due to historical reasons, it is a State which is accorded special treatment within the framework of the Constitution of India. This case is all about the State of Jammu & Kashmir vis`-a-vis` the Union ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC2351; 2004(3)BLJR1908; (2004)4CompLJ171(SC); JT2004(Suppl1)SC160; 2004(4)SCALE724; (2004)5SCC1; (2004)3UPLBEC2331
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna is seized of a hearing in public interest exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution. The High Court is feeling concerned over the drainage system, the sewerage system, the drinking water supply system, the kerb on the road being in shambles and reallocating of footpaths. The High Court seems to have chosen one road as model habitat area so as to set an example for other roads conforming with the discipline governing urbanization and urban planning according to law and ensuring that future generations get a safer city to live in, a civic city, with civic amenities, for the benefit of civic citizens. The High Court has been issuing orders in the nature of continuing mandamus and has also been monitoring the compliance. On 1.10.2001, the High Court passed an interim order containing the following directions; (a) The street alignment is in a straight or a gentle curve natural to the road a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1140
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an application purporting to be under Article 226 of the Constitution for the following reliefs:(i) A writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to enforce against the petitioner the Central Provinces & Berar Prohibition Act VII (7) of 1938 or all such sections of the same as may be found inconsistent with the Constitution:(ii) a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw & cancel all such notifications rules & orders made by the respondents in exercise of the powers conferred on them by the provisions of the said Act as may be found inconsistent with the Constitution:(iii) all the costs of the petition, &(iv) Any other relief that this Honourable Court may deem proper to grant.2. The petitioner states that he is a permanent resident of Nagpur and is earning Rs. 100 per month & has been accustomed for a number of years to take alcoholic drinks, generally country liquor, at an average of 4 ounces per day.3. Since the enforcement of the Central ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All505
Desai, J.1. This is an application, purporting to be under Order 45, Rule 13, C. P. C., for the issue of an order staying operation of the order passed by this Court on October 8, 1956, in Writ Petition No. 252 of 1956 and maintaining the status quo as regards possession over the land covered by the orders of the consolidation authorities. The facts leading to this application are as follows:2. Under Section 26 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (No. 5 of 1954) possession of some land belonging to opposite parties Nos. 1 to 11 was transferred to other tenants of the village, who are opposite parties 12 to 16. After exhausting the remedy as provided in the Act against the transfer they filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, Mukhtar Singh v. State of U. P. : AIR1957All297 . A Bench of this Court quashed the orders of the consolidation authorities regarding transfer of possession of the Opposite parties' land on 8th October, 1956 on the ground that Section 14 (ee) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.154 of 2020 Vinod Dua vs. Union of India & Ors. 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.154 OF2020VINOD DUA PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India prays for following principal reliefs:- a. Quash FIR No.0053 dated 06.05.2020 registered at Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. b. Direct that henceforth FIRs against persons belonging to the media with at least 10 years standing be not registered unless cleared by a committee to be constituted by every State Government, the composition of which should comprise of the Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge designated by him, the leader of the Opposition and the Home Minister of the State. Writ Petition (Criminal) No.154 of 2020 Vinod Dua vs. Union of India & Ors. 22. FIR No.0053 dated 06.05.2020 was registered pursuant to Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These writ petitions filed in different High Courts and transferred to this Court under Article 139 of the Constitution raise issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary and they have been argued at great length before us. The arguments have occupied as many as thirty five days and they have ranged over a large number of issues comprising every imaginable aspect of the judicial institution, Voluminous written submissions have been filed before us which reflect the enormous industry and vast erudition of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and a large number of authorities, Indian as well as foreign, have been brought to our attention. We must acknowledge with gratitude our indebtedness to the learned Counsel for the great assistance they have rendered to us in the delicate and difficult task of adjudicating upon highly sensitive issues arising in these writ petitions. We find, and this is not unusual in cases of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1621; 1963(1)SCR778
VENKATARAM AIYAR, J.The petitioner is a partner in a firm called Messrs. Mohan Lal Hargovind Das, which carries on business in the manufacture and sale of biris in number of States, and is dealer registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act 15 of 1948 with its head office at Allahabad. In the present petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner impugns the validity of a levy of sales tax made by the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad, by his order dated December 20, 1958.On December 14, 1957, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under section 4(1)(b) of the Act exempting from tax, sales of certain goods including biris, provided that the additional Central Excise duties leviable thereon had been paid. In partial modification of this notification, the Government issued another notification on November 25, 1958, exempting from tax unconditionally sales of biris, both machinemade and handmade, with effect from July 1, 1958. The effect of the two notifications ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC478; (1979)1SCC380; [1979]2SCR476
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. On August 1, 1978 the President of India made a reference to this Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution for consideration of the question whether the 'Special Courts Bill, 1978' or any of its provisions, if enacted, would be constitutionally invalid. The full text of the reference is as follows:WHEREAS certain Commissions of Inquiry appointed by the Central Government under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952) have submitted reports which indicate that there is reason to believe that various offences have been committed by persons holding high political and public offices during the period of operation of the Proclamation of Emergency dated the 25th June, 1975, and the period immediately preceding that Proclamation; AND WHEREAS investigations into such offences are being made in accordance with law and are likely to be completed soon; AND WHEREAS suggestions have been made that the persons in respect of whom the investigations ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:- 23-04-2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.Nos.33607 to 33613 of 2012, W.P.Nos. 3835, 3980, 4030, 6095, 6282 and 6882 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 (8 Nos.) 2 (9 Nos.) and 3 (2 Nos.) W.P.No.33607 of 2012: -------------------- Rosary Matriculation Higher Secondary School Represented by its Correspondent Rev. Sr.Lily D'Souza 11, Papanasam Sivan Road Santhome, Chennai 4. .. Petitioner vs.1. The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary Department of School Education Fort St. George Chennai 9.2. The Private Schools Fee Determining Committee Rep. By its Special Officer PTA Building DPI Campus College Road Chennai 6. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition No. 33607 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Committee, pertaining to the order of fixation dated 26.9.2...
Tag this Judgment!