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
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 : 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 : 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 : AIR1998SC1895; 1998(2)BLJR1497; (1998)2GLR1711; JT1998(3)SC184; 1998(2)SCALE745; (1998)4SCC409; [1998]2SCR795; (1998)2UPLBEC1320; 1995IBR118
Anand, J.1. In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, : 1995CriLJ3994 , this Court found the Contemner, an advocate, guilty of committing criminal contempt of Court for having interfered with and 'obstructing the course of justice by trying to threaten, overawe and overbear the court by using insulting, disrespectful and threatening language', While awarding punishment, keeping in view the gravity of the contumacious conduct of the contemner, the Court said:'The facts and circumstances of the present case justify our invoking the power under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution to award to the contemner a suspended sentence of imprisonment together with suspension of his practice as an advocate in the manner directed herein. We accordingly sentence the contemner for his conviction for the offence of the criminal contempt as under:(a) The contemner Vinay Chandra Mishra is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks. However, in the circumstances of the ...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1461; (1973)4SCC225; [1973]SuppSCR1
1. I propose to divide my judgment into eight parts. Part I will deal with Introduction; Part II with interpretation of Golakhnath case; Part III with the interpretation of the original Article 368, as it existed prior to its amendment; Part IV with the validity of the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act; Part V with the validity of Section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VI with the validity of Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VII with Constitution (Twenty- ninth Amendment) Act; and Part VIII with conclusions.PART I-Introduction2. All the six writ petitions involve common questions as to the validity of the Twenty- fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth Amendments of the Constitution. I may give a few facts in Writ petition No. 135 of 1970 to show how the question arises in this petition. Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 was filed by the petitioner on March 21, 1970 under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]1SCR778; [1963]Supp2SCR778
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. 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. 2. 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 notif...
Tag this Judgment!