Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : I(1997)ACC211; 1997ACJ111; (1996)114PLR667
M.S. Liberhan, J. 1. It is expedient to collate the facts and circumstances under which this case has come before us. The main narration of events and circumstances are taken from FAO 725 of 1995 which was referred to the Full Bench and was argued as such.2. Kinara Tubes Private Ltd. was the registered owner of truck No. HYW-6262 which was insured with the appellant. Rajbir Singh was employed as a driver with Kinara Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Krishan deceased was killed on 24.5.1993 while crossing the road in an accident with the above referred truck' being driven rashly and negligently by Rajbir Singh driver.3. Smt. Santro Devi widow of Krishan Kumar deceased and his three minor children claimed compensation of Rs.5 lacs for the death caused by rash and negligent driving from the insurance company, the owner and the driver on account of their statutory as well as tortious liability. A compensation of Rs.2,59,200/- with 12% P.A. interest was awarded to the claimants against the owner, driver and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC988; JT1993(3)SC15; 1993(2)SCALE506; (1993)3SCC499
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. By our order dated 14th January, 1993 while disposing of these special leave petitions we gave our conclusions and we proposed to deliver the detailed judgment at a later stage giving all the reasons in support of those conclusions. We hereby deliver the detailed judgment.2. In our earlier order we stated the relevant facts and the issues involved in a concussedform. However, we think it appropriate and necessary to refer to some of them for a better appreciation of the reasons in their proper perspective.3. Every year the Railway Board enters into contracts with the manufacturers for the supply of cast steel bogies which are used in turn for building the wagons. Cast steel bogies come under a specialised item procured by the Railways from the established sources of proven ability. There are 12 suppliers in the field who have been regularly supplying these items. Two new firms Simplex and Beekay also entered the field. Among them admittedly M/s. H.D.C., ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3290; 2000(4)ALLMR(SC)862; [2000(87)FLR610]; 2000(6)SCALE586; (2000)8SCC167; [2000]Supp3SCR513
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C)No. 12499 of 1997.2. The controversy raised in all these appeals relates to validity of the revision of license fee under the Andhra Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') which was introduced by the State Government by G.O.Ms. No. 154, E & F Deptt. Dated 26.07,1994. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the cases, they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The appellants who are owners of factories located in the State of Andhra Pradesh challenged the levy of revised license fee by filing writ petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The challenge was on several grounds some of which are not relevant for the purpose of the present proceedings. Suffice it to state that the main grounds on which the revised license fee was challenged were(i) that the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') does not impose license fee as the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR1005
ORDERBopanna, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is challenged by the petitioners on various grounds. Principally their challenge is premised on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, Additionally they have submitted that the Act offends the basic structure of the Constitution and therefore should be declared as void. Briefly stated, their arguments are that in the absence of any party system in the Constitution, the Act is violative of the constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India; that the defection of an individual is sought to be penalised whereas the defection of a group of individuals is legalised and thereby there has been discrimination which violates their rights, protected under Article 14 of the Constitution; that Sections 3 and 4 of the Act should be read as a wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.562 OF2012Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.274 OF2009Assam Public Works ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.876 OF2014All Assam Ahom Association & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. A Prophet is without honour in his own country. Substitute 'citizen' for 'prophet' and you will get the gist of the various writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India assailing Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.2. It all began when the Burmese ceded Assam to the British on 24th February, 1826 as per the treaty of Yandabo, thus bringing to an end Ahom rule in Assam which had begun sometime in the 13th century. The British annexed Assam and placed it as an administrative unit of the Bengal Province...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC268; JT1993(5)SC497; (1993)4SCC441; [1993]Supp2SCR659
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.(for himself and on behalf of Yogeshwar Dayal, G.N. Ray, Dr. A.S. Anand & S.P. Bharucha, JJ.) :1. By and Order dated October 26,1990 passed in Subhash Sharma and Ors. and Anr. Union of India (1990) 2 S.C.R. 433 and the matters connected therewith, the papers of Writ petition No. 1303 of 1987 - Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Anr. v. Union Of India were directed to be placed before the learned Chief Justice of India for constituting a Bench of nine Judges to examine the two question referred therein, namely, the position of the Chief Justice of India with reference to primacy, and justiciability of fixation of Judge strength. That Order was made since the referring Bench was of the opinion, that the correctness of the majority view in S.P. Gupta and Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. etc. etc. : [1982]2SCR365 , required reconsideration by a larger Bench. This is how these questions arise for decision by this Bench.2. The context in which the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners in these writ petitions, the learned Additional Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for other respondents, jointly submit that, since the points/issues raised in all these petitions are similar, all these petitions can be heard together and disposed of by common judgment and order. Learned counsel for the petitioners in respective petitions submit that, writ petition No. 7106 of 2013 and writ petition No. 7660 of 2013 should be considered as lead petitions and the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioners in those writ petitions would be adopted by other respective counsel appearing in respective petitions. In the light of above, this Court has proceeded to hear all these petitions together, and same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. As already observed herein before, all petitions raises...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN842
S.S. Nijjar, C.J.1. On 15th of March, 2007 this Court passed the following order:1(a). In addition to the order passed in this suo motu petition, there shall be a further order in this writ petition in terms of prayer clause '1':1) An interim order restraining the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 preventing the petitioner organizations other NGOs and voluntary aid organization from reaching Nandigram to provide assistance to injured and deceased villagers.1(b). We further direct the District Administration to ensure that the unclaimed dead bodies are handed over to the appropriate authorities and the identified dead bodies are handed over to the lawful claimants after due legal formalities have been concluded, such as post-mortem and inquest report, so that the relatives are able to perform the last rites of the deceased.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Contempt)In the matter of: The Court on its own Motion1(c). All the newspapers throughout the Nation have today carried as a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.20982 OF2017INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...APPELLANT (S) SHAILENDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.& ORS. VERSUS WITH ...RESPONDENT (S) SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10742 OF2008YOGESH KUMAR & ORS. ...PETITIONER (S) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ...RESPONDENT (S) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.20920 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)Nos.26574-26575 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.28993 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30198 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30192 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30142 OF20151 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30128 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30203 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL No.4835 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.25289 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)CC No.9842 OF2016SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.22356 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.31678 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL NO.4836 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.22527 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.4705 OF2016SPECI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Morrison v. Olson - 487 U.S. 654 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) Morrison v. Olson No. 87-1279 Argued April 26, 1988 Decided June 29, 1988 487 U.S. 654 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus This case presents the question of the constitutionality of the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (Act). It arose when the House Judiciary Committee began an investigation into the Justice Department's role in a controversy between the House and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with regard to the Agency's limited production of certain documents that had been subpoenaed during an earlier House Investigation. The Judiciary Committee's Report suggested that an official of the Attorney General's Office (appellee Olson) had given false testimony during the earlier EPA investigation, and that two other officials of that Office (appellees Schmults and Dinkins) ha...
Tag this Judgment!