Court : Guwahati
Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Pathak, learned Advocate General representing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. AK Phookan, learned senior counsel has appeared and argued on behalf of the respondent No. 3.2. The present writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-1-2007 passed in WP (C) No. 6165/2006. The challenge in the writ petition was to the notification dated 28-11-2006 whereby the Chief Executive Member of Mara Autonomous District Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the MADC') was directed to secure a vote of confidence in a special session on 8-1 -2007. By the said order it was further directed that only the elected Members of the District Council shall be permitted to vote in the vote of confidence. The writ petitioner who is a nominated Member of the District Council has challenged the said direction dated 28-11-2006 whereby the nominated Members have been kept ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)215CTR(Bom)181; [2008]300ITR276(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioners have challenged the notice dt. 30th March, 1989 issued by the respondent No. 1 under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the asst. yr. 1984-85, for which the relevant previous year is year ended 30th June, 1983. Search operations were carried out on 27th Sept., 1988 at the business and residential premises amongst others of the petitioners. Assessment for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1984-85 was sought to be reopened. Petitioners challenged the assessment for some of the years by separate petition being Writ Petn. No. 1374 of 1989. Petitions had been admitted and interim relief had been granted. Subsequently those petitions have been allowed in favour of the petitioner by order dt. 22nd Aug., 2005 [reported as Sanghvi Swiss Refills (P) Ltd. v. Smt. Arti Handa, Asstt. CIT and Anr. (2005) 199 CTR (Bom) 4852. The petitioner is in the business of manufacturing of ball pens and refills as also ink. Insofar as manufac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008MP168; 2008(1)MPHT54
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. This batch of appeals was listed for rectification of default, the same being, the affidavit that has been filed in support of the applicant for condonation of delay preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in each case has been sworn to by the Oath Commissioner instead of Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952. Though the aforesaid matters were listed for rectification of the aforesaid singular default which has been pointed out by the Registry, Mr. A.M. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P.C. Paliwal, Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, Mr. Ashok Lalwani, Mr. Greeshm Jain, Mr. K.N. Fakaruddin, Mr. Ashish Shroti, Mr. Ashish Trivedi, Mr. N.S. Parmar, Mr. D.K. Sharma and Mr. Vipin Sharma, Advocates addressed this Court that the default pointed out by the Registry is absolutely erroneous as such a default does not emerge if the provisions engrafted in various enactments and rules framed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh from time to time are scrutinized in proper pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2008(3)CHN857
Dipankar Datta, J.1. Rizwanur Rahman (hereafter Riz), since deceased, son and brother of the petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, was laid to rest in September last. The suspicious circumstances in which he died, the role of the State Police agencies in investigating the cause of his death, the conduct of certain police officers of Kolkata Police both before and after his death, alleged involvement of his father-in-law Ashok Todi (respondent No. 12) and his uncles-in-iaw Anil Saraogi (respondent No. 13) and Pradeep Todi (not a party to the petition) in connection with his unnatural death, investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter the CBI) being directed by this Court - all these and much more, have exercised thoughtful consideration of this Court on the face of eloquent arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the State, the accused police officers and the respondent No. 12 and learned Counsel for the CBI and the respondent No. 13, b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. In a writ petition the respondent-petitioner complained before this Court that the seat of Makhiya of a particular Panchayat was reserved for extremely backward class community, and the same is being occupied by a person, who does not belong to the said community, and the Election Commission failed to even address itself to a complaint made by the petitioner to the effect. By the judgment and Order under appeal the writ petition was allowed with a direction upon the Commission to decide the merits of the said 66mplaint. While the appeal was preferred; by' the Commission against the judgment and order under appeal, the Commission applied its mind to the complaint lodged by the petitioner-respondent and concluded, ultimately, that the person elected does not belong to the Community for which the post in question was reserved. On such conclusion, Commission declared the election invalid. Subsequent thereto, the person, whose election was, thus, declared invalid, preferred a separate a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : AIR2010Gau11
J. Chelameswar, C.J.1. A batch of writ petitions and writ appeals are pending for quite some time in this Court. The earliest of the batch, as can be traced out so far, is WP (C) No. 2275/2004. The said batch and connected appeals, as a matter of fact, are heard in part. Broadly speaking, the complaint in those cases is that a truck carrying cargo in the State of Meghalaya is being compelled to pay substantial amounts at innumerable points in the State of Meghalaya to various persons. Broadly such persons fall under four categories - (1) persons operating weighbridges on various terms and conditions stipulated by the State of Meghalaya; (2) the local tribal chiefs known as Syiems and Sardars; (3 the authorities purportedly implementing the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and (4) the police officers of the State of Meghalaya.2. It can be mentioned here that Sylems and Sardars, the local tribal chiefs, who are parties respondents to the various writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 166(2010)DLT305; 2010(1)KarLJ472
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2nd September, 2009 of the learned single Judge (S. Ravindra Bhat, J) in the writ petition filed by the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, 'the CPIO') nominated under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, 'the Act') questioning correctness and legality of the order dated 6th January, 2009 of the Central Information Commission (hereinafter, 'the CIC') whereby the request of the respondent No. 1 (a public person) for supply of information concerning declaration of personal assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court was upheld.PREFACE2. The subject matter at hand involves questions of great importance concerning balance of rights of individuals and equities against the backdrop of paradigm changes brought about by the legislature through the Act ushering in an era of transparency, probity and accountability as also the increasing expectation of the civil society tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Dilip Gupta, J.1. Five candidates, who had appeared at the U.P. Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.P.G.M.E.E.-2010) for admission to the State Quota Seats of Post Graduate MD/MS/MDS/PG Diploma Course in various State Medical Colleges and Medical/Dental Faculty of C.S.M. Medical University, Lucknow, have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 6th April, 2010 issued by the Principal Secretary, U.P. Government and for a direction upon the respondents not to permit the candidates belonging to reserved categories, who have secured less than 40% marks at the Entrance Examination, to participate in the counselling scheduled to commence from 11th April, 2010. A further direction has been sought that the respondents should also not admit any student under the reserved categories who has obtained less than 40% marks at the Entrance Examination.2. The State Government, by the order dated 30th October, 2009 authorised the CSM Medical Unive...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 7.72009 passed by the 2nd respondent Tahsilder, Virajpet, produced at Annexure A and etc.,) (Prayer: Misc.W. No. 10592/10 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of Writ Petition. (Prayer: Misc.W. No. 843/11 is filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for direction.) 1. Writ jurisdiction has become a fertile area for frivolous, petty, undeserving matters to be brought and parked in the High Court which is nothing short of a gross misuse and abuse of the process of this Court. 2. The present writ petition does not project any different scenario. A dispute and tussle going on between the petitioner and the first respondent who are cousins and are war...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.21876-87/2010 dated 07.01.2011.) 1. In all these appeals, the question raised relates to the competence of the State to levy Sales Tax/VAT on telecommunication service, interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and upholding the rule of law. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed off by this common order. 2. For the purpose of clarity, the facts pleaded by appellants/petitioners in each of these cases are set out in brief. FACTUAL MATRIX W.A.Nos.654/2011, 817-828/2011, 789/2011, 790/2011, 805-816/2011, 792-803/2011, 791/2011 and 829-840/2011. 3. The appellant in all these appeals – M/s. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short herein after referred to as the ‘BSNL’) is wholly owned Government of India undertaking providing all types of telecom services in the country except the met...
Tag this Judgment!