1
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-16-2010
1. These petitions have been filed by the owners of the land acquired by the State Government in favour of the opposite party Anil Agarwal Foundation (hereinafter in short called as Foundation') for establishment of a University in exercise of its eminent domain power under the provisions of Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the L.A. Act' in short). The public interest litigation petitions have been filed both on behalf of the land owners who have no access to justice and also on behalf of the public of the locality of the lands whose public interest is affected by violating Rule of Law in acquiring vast tract of both Government, Temple and private lands in favour of the Foundation. They were listed and heard together by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment. With a view to avoid repetition of pleadings and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we would briefly state the necessary fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-27-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Vaithiyalingam, learned Counsel for Mr. M. Gnanalingam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned Government Advocate for first respondent, Mr. Gopi Krishnan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, Amicus curiae counsel for the court.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs for the wrongs committed by the respondents. Pending the writ petition, she has also sought for restraining the third respondent and his men from forcibly evicting her from quarters No. 1124, Special E Block, Type 1, GC, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai. The writ petition was admitted on 26.5.2004. In the application regarding quarters, an interim injunction was granted. Subsequently, by an order, dated 11.3.2005, the injunction application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has no locus stan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-25-2010
Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE204; (2010)4SCC653
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 553 of 2006 dated 14.08.2007.3. The appellant is aggrieved by the notification No. 184A dated 20th May, 2006 whereby the Patna High Court in exercise of administrative powers conferred under Sub-section (6) of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been pleased to decide that the premises of the District Jail, Siwan will be the place of sitting of the Court of Sessions for the Sessions Division of Siwan for the expeditious trial of Sessions cases pending against Md. Shahabuddin.4. The appellant is also aggrieved by the two notifications bearing No. A/Act-01/2006 Part-1452/J corresponding to S.O. No. 80 dated 7.6.2006 and No. A/Act-01/2006 Part-1453/J corresponding to S.O. No. 82 dt. 7.6.2006 issued by the State of Bihar at the behest of the High Court of Patna. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-16-2010
1. These petitions have been filed by the owners of the land acquired by the State Government in favor of the opposite party Anil Agarwal Foundation (hereinafter in short called as Foundation') for establishment of a University in exercise of its eminent domain power under the provisions of Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the L.A. Act' in short). The public interest litigation petitions have been filed both on behalf of the land owners who have no access to justice and also on behalf of the public of the locality of the lands whose public interest is affected by violating Rule of Law in acquiring vast tract of both Government, Temple and private lands in favour of the Foundation. They were listed and heard together by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment. With a view to avoid repetition of pleadings and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we would briefly state the necessary fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-16-2010
1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder urging various facts and legal grounds.2. Brief facts in nutshell are stated as under: The petitioner in each of the writ petitions is accused of offence punishable under section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Originally each one of the petitioners case was pending either in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance at Bhubaneswar or Cuttack or other places in the State. After establishment of the Special Courts pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government establishing Special Courts, the case of the petitioners were transferred to the respective Special Judge of the Special Courts established under the Orissa Special Courts Act.3. The Orissa Special Courts Act has been passed by the Orissa Legislative Assembly and the same has been assented to by the President of India on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-21-2010
Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n - 08-205 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS UNITED v . FEDERAL ELECTIONCOMMISSION appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia No. 08205.Argued March 24, 2009Reargued September 9, 2009Decided January 21, 2010 As amended by 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an electioneering communication or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S.C. 441b. An electioneering communication is any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office and is made within 30 days of a primary election, 434(f)(3)(A), and that is publicly distributed, 11 CFR 100.29(a)(2), which in the case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-06-2010
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be Yes allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Yes the Digest?ORDER.1. We preface our decision by noting the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, being that so reprehensible is the conduct of the respondents, who have been caught literally with their pants down of accepting bribe that this Court ought to extend no benefit to the respondents. It was urged that law has to be interpreted, in the instant case, keeping in view the grave misdemeanour of the respondents. In other words, the counsel for the petitioners urged that the respondents are not entitled to any hearing. The argument is emotional and is rejected at the outset for the reason a system governed by the rule of law requires dispute resolution as per law. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners can be best repelled by noting a dialogue between Sir Thomas More on the one side an...
Tag this Judgment!