Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU W.P.No.9070 of 2008 03-02-2014 V.Ravichandra..... PETITIONER Indian Bank, rep. by its General Manager/Appellate Authority for Award Staff,HRM Department, H.O.66, Rajaji Salai,Chennai - 600 001 and others.....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.Ravichandra, Party in person Counsel for respondents: Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana : ?.Cases referred:1. (1986) 3 SCC4542. AIR1993SC11973. (1991) 3 SCC2194. (1995) 6 SCC7495. (2006) 5 SCC886. (2006) 4 SCC7137. AIR1993SC11978. (2011) 7 SCC3259. (2010) 5 SCC77510. AIR2009SC16111. (2005) 10 SCC8412. (2000) 1 SCC41613. AIR2007SC19914. (2006) 2 SCC255HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.9070 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner, an employee of the respondent Bank, having been removed from service on an allegation of misconduct, laid challenge against the said dismissal in the present writ petition. The facts in brief are as follows: The petitioner, when working as a Clerk/Shroff in one...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:31. 10.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.6216 of 2011 W.P(MD)Nos.6216 and 6217 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.2 and 2 of 2011 W.P(MD)No.6216 of 2011: Virudhunagar District Bus Owners Association, represented by its Secretary, No.1/291, Pravin Sarvin Complex, Collectorate Post, Virudhunagar ?. 626 002. : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its, Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MCII) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai ?. 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Madurai Corporation, Arignar Anna Maligai, Madurai ?. 625 002. : Respondents (R.1 amended as per the order of this Court dated 09.06.2014 made in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 in W.P(MD)No.6216 of 2014.) PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent made under G.O.Ms.No.29, Municipal Administrati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.13 OF2015Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association and another Petitioner(s) versus Union of India Respondent(s) With |WRIT PETITION (C) No.14 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.18 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.23 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.24 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.70 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.83 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.108 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.124 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.209 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.309 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.310 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.323 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.341 OF2015| |TRANSFER PETITION(C) No.391 OF2015 |TRANSFER PETITION (C) No.971 OF2015 | | JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.Index |Sl.No.|Contents |Paragraphs|Pages | |1. |The Recusal Order | 1 - 18| 1 - | | | | |15 | | | | | | |2. |The Reference Order | 1 - 101| 16 - 169| |I |The Challenge | 1 - | 16 - | | | |9 |19 | |II. |The Background to the Challenge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer in W.P.No.4827 of 2012 :-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, to Forbear the Respondents from applying G.O.(MS) No.181 School Education (C2) Department dated 15.11.2011 and insisting on a pass in Teacher Eligibility Test as a minimum qualification for appointment to the posts of Graduate Assistants in classes VI to X in the Schools coming under the Directorate of School Education and Elementary Education to the Petitioners who have completed the certificate verification process for the said posts based on employment exchange seniority and consequently direct the Respondents to select the petitioners who have completed the selection process conducted by the 3rd Respondent to the posts of Graduate Assistants in Classes VI to X only based on employment exchange seniority communal rotation and certificate verification.) Common Order T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. The petitioners filed the Writ Petitions to forbear the respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Order On Board 1. Claiming issuance of writ of quo warranto directing 5th respondent Dr. Ramesh Chandra Arya to show cause under what authority he continues to hold the office of Associate Professor (Pathology) in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, petitioner herein Kamlesh Shukla has filed this writ petition. 2. Brief facts shorn of unnecessary details requisite to resolve the controversy are as follows: - 3. The Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS), which was earlier under the control of Guru Ghasidas (State) University, advertised the post of Associate Professor (Pathology) on 20-9-2006. Respondent No.5 applied for the said post. Recruitment to the said post was governed by the Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 (for short 'the MCI Regulations') issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI) in which eligibility qualification prescribed for the post of Associate Professor / Reader is five years' experience in recognized ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted to answer the following question:- Whether a remedy of election dispute under Section 16 of the said Act or Section 21 of the said Act of 1965 is available to a voter who is entitled to vote in General Ward Elections for challenging the election/nomination of a nominated Councillor? 2. Some facts necessary for the purpose of a decision on the question and the backdrop of the reference be noted now. 3. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11278 of 2012 had been an elected Councillor of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and completed his tenure of five years from 2007 to 2012. He claims that he is eligible as well as qualified for being nominated as a Councillor, in terms of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2012. Apart from impleading the State of Maharashtra, the Corporation, Mayor/Presiding Officer, the Petitioner therein has impleaded Respondent Nos. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
G. Rohini, C.J. 1. Though based on different set of facts, the controversy in all the petitions centers on common issues relating to the exercise of legislative power and executive control in the administration of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD). 2. The parties to the writ petitions and the orders impugned have been set out in the following Table so as to get a glimpse of the controversy involved in each writ petition. Sl.No.Writ PetitionPartiesImpugned order/action1.W.P.(C) No.5888/2015GNCTD vs. UOINotifications dated 21.05.2015 and 23.07.2014 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs empowering the Lt. Governor to exercise the powers in respect of matters connected with 'Services' and directing the ACB Police Station not to take cognizance of offences against officials of Central Government.2.W.P.(C) No.7887/2015Rajender Prashad vs. GNCTD and Ors.Notification dated 11.08.2015 issued by the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus quashing the proceedings of the first respondent in Rc.A2.9052/02 and 11286 to 11288/04 (1992-93), (1993-94) (1994-95) and (1996-97) respectively dated 6.7.2004, while directing the first respondent not to impose purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as directed by the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Acts Cell.I/Dis.105980/88 dated 9.11.1989 and in D.Dis.Acts.Cell.II/52900/2000 dated 27.12.2000 until withdrawn in Acts Cell.II/6914/2002 dated 28.1.2002.) Common Order 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. In these writ petitions, the petitioner is a Public limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and they are registered as a dealer on the file of the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the Tamil Nadu Establishment of Private Law Colleges (Prohibition) Act, 2014 (Act 13 of 2014) as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India. Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the Tamil Nadu Establishment of Private Law Colleges (Prohibition) Act, 2014 (Act 13 of 2014) as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India. Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order made in Lr.No.4331/Regr/ACAD/A3/2014, dated 28.1.2015 issued by the second respondent, to quash the same and forbear the first respondent from interfering with the petitioner's right to process its affiliation through the second respondent to commence the law course in Saraswathi ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. J. Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a retired employee of the ICICI Bank and is presently aged 68 years. He is constrained to approach this Court in terms of the proceedings dated 4.8.2016 issued by the third respondent. 3. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner, upon retirement, filed his return of income for the relevant year and the assessment was finalized. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of S. Palaniappan v. I.T.O. [Civil Appeal No. 4411 of 2010 dated 28.9.2015] held that a person, who has opted for voluntary retirement under the Early Retirement Option Scheme shall be entitled to exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Following the said decision, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a circular dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!