Court : Chennai
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in G.O.No.S.R.I/815-6/2011 dated 06.02.2012 passed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the body of the person of the detenu namely Mohamed Kassime aged about 33 years son of Abdoul Lattif before this Court, now detained under section 3[1] of the COFEPOSA Act in the Central Prison, Cuddalore and set him at liberty.O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA,J. & P.DEVADASS, J.)1. The petitioner who is the brother-in-law of the detenu, viz., Mohamed Kassime, S/o.Abdoul Lattif, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the first respondent dated 06.02.2012 slapped on the detenu under the provision of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.2. Mr.Palanikumar, learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31804 of 2011 In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. -------M/s. Selvel Advertising Private Ltd., represented through its Attorney Mr. Tarak Majumdar, aged about 42 years, S/o. Late Gouranga Majumdar, E/M-34, Basanti Colony, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh and others Petitioners State of Orissa and others Opp. Parties For Petitioners Mr.Jayant Das, Senior Advocate M/s. Goutam Mukherji, P.Mukherji, A.C.Panda, S.Mishra, S.Das & S.D.Ray -Versus- : For Opp. Parties : M/s Rama Kanta Mohapatra, P.K. Nayak, H.B. Dash, G.Mohapatra (For O.P. Nos. 2 &3) ---------- P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI V.GOPALA GOWDA AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B.N.MAHAPATRA Date of Judgment:12. 12.2012 B.N. Mahapatra, J.This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the Rourkela Municipality Regulations of tax on advertisement, 2010 made on 4th January, 2011 (Annexure-1) by the Rourkela Municipality...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2.Petitioners in all these petitions are prospective applicants who are desirous of participating in the process initiated by Respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., for making appointment to the post of Electrical Assistant (Vidyut Sahayyak). Petitioners are seeking direction to the Respondent-Company to provide maximum age relaxation up to 45 years to the petitioners belonging to Project/Earthquake Affected Persons category in the advertisement no.1/2012 published on 08.06.2012. It is also prayed to declare that petitioners belonging to age group of 18 to 45 years are qualified and entitled to apply for the post of Electrical Assistant and to direct the Respondent-Company to consider candidature of petitioners for the said post. Petitioners are also seeking to quash advertisement no.1/2012 being in contravention of Government Resol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of termination dated 03.11.2009, passed by Respondent no.2 Additional General Manager/Engineering LMD National Aviation Company of India Limited. Though in the petition, order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, invalidating caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe, has also been questioned, the petitioner has only claimed protection in employment and expressly restricted his challenge only to the order of termination and has given up the status as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. Right to challenge order invalidating caste certificate is given up with knowledge that Respondent Employer as also Caste Scrutiny Committee are opposing the prayer for protection. This protection in service is being claimed on the basis of various judgments, particul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :05. 04.2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Writ Appeal Nos.849 to 854 of 2010 and 2066 of 2010 and Writ Petition Nos.25736 to 25741 of 2010 and W.P.Nos.17731, 20728 of 2012 and W.P.(MD)No.8911 of 2012 W.A.No.849 of 2010: ------------------ 1. R.Thirunavukkarasu 2. M.Sundarajan 3. C.P.Chitrarasu .. Appellants Vs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2. The Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004.3. K.Palanisamy, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime, Madurai City.4. R.Balan, Superintendent of Police, Video Piracy Cell, CID, Chennai.5. A.V.Rajaraman, Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force, Erode.6. I.Balashanmugam, Superintendent of Police, V & AC, Southern Range, Madurai.7. T.Elango, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime & Traffic, Salem City.8. M.Pandiyan, Superintendent of Police, Thiruvanna...
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!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 27777 OF 201.and batch 20-08-2013 Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society (Regn No.662/1996) Plot No.102,High Court Colony, Vanasthalipuram,Hyderabad Rep. by its Secretary Rev. KVK Rao and others......... Petitioners The State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, Hyderabad...... Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P. Sri Raghuram Counsel for respondent No.1: G.P. for Higher Education Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri C. Sudesh Anand (SC for APSCHE) : ?Cases Referred:1. (2005) 6 SCC 53.2. 2008 (3) ALD 10.(DB) 3. AIR 195.SC 11.4. (2001) 2 SCC 38.5. (2013) 3 SCC 38.6. (2002) 8 SCC 48.7. (2009) 7 SCC 75.8. (1992) 1 SCC 55.9. (2012) 4 SCC 65.WRIT PETITION No. 27777, 27898, 27918, 28014, 28023, 28055, 28060, 28073, 28098, 28108, 28116, 28125, 28130, 28134, 28139, 28206, 28249, 28260, 28321, 28356, 28399, 28404, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 These Writ Petitions raise the issue of constitutional validity of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Act 34 of 2008) (for short NIA Act). 2 Hence, RULE. The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3 Since both Writ Petitions involve common questions, they are being decided by this common judgment. For properly appreciating the arguments of parties, the facts in Writ Petition No.4049/2012 are referred to. 4 It is stated that the Petitioner has been arraigned as an accused No.1 in C.R. No.I130/ 2008 lodged at Azad Nagar Police Station, Malegaon on 30.09.2008 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 326, 427, 153A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act, 1908 r/w Sections 3, 5, 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 r/w Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 along with ten other accused in the wake of a bomb blast that took...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: January 06, 2014 WP(C) No.3673/2010 ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA & ORS. .... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Lakshmeesh Kamath and Mr.Umang Gupta, Advocates versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate with Ms.Vanessa Singh and Ms.Neha Singh, Advocates for DOT Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for CAG Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari and Ms.Ravjyot Singh, Advocates for UOI Ms.Sangeeta Singh, Advocate with Mr.Kumar Rajan Mishra, Advocate for TRAI WP(C) No.3679/2010 CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Abhishek Manu Singhavi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gopal Jain, Advocate versus DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate with Ms.Vanessa Singh and M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: January 06, 2014 WP(C) No.3673/2010 ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA & ORS. .... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Lakshmeesh Kamath and Mr.Umang Gupta, Advocates versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate with Ms.Vanessa Singh and Ms.Neha Singh, Advocates for DOT Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for CAG Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari and Ms.Ravjyot Singh, Advocates for UOI Ms.Sangeeta Singh, Advocate with Mr.Kumar Rajan Mishra, Advocate for TRAI WP(C) No.3679/2010 CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Abhishek Manu Singhavi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gopal Jain, Advocate versus DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate with Ms.Vanessa Singh and M...
Tag this Judgment!