Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2178; JT1993(1)SC474; 1992(2)SCALE703; (1993)1SCC645; [1993]1SCR594
ORDER1. We have had the benefit of going through the two judgments of our learned Brothers B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S. Mohan, JJ. We are in agreement with the judgment of Brother B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. except to the extent indicated below.2. The question which arose in the case of Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka: : [1992]3SCR658 , as also in the present cases before us, is whether a citizen has a Fundamental Right to education for a medical, engineering or other professional degree. The question whether the right to primary education, as mentioned in Article 45 of the Constitution of India, is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 did not arise in Mohini Jain's case and no finding or observation on that question was called for. It was contended before us that since a positive finding on that question was recorded in Mohini Join's case it becomes necessary to consider its correctness on merits. We do not think so.3. Learned arguments were addressed in support of and against the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC75; [1983]53CompCas184(SC); (1983)1CompLJ1(SC); (1983)ILLJ45SC; (1983)IIMLJ1(SC); 1982(2)SCALE1144; (1983)1SCC228; [1983]1SCR922
..... observe that mr. ramamurthi, learned counsel appearing for one of the trade unions, has placed very strong reliance on the following observations of this court in the case of hind overseas private limited v. raghunath prasad jhunjhunwala and ors. : [1976]2scr226 :although the indian companies act is modelled on the english companies act, the indian law is ..... have been set out in the judgment of my learned brother bhagwati j. and also in the judgment of my learned brother venkataramiah, j. the arguments advanced(amarendra nath sen, j.) from the bar have been considered by both of them. it does not, therefore, become necessary for me to reproduce them in this judgment.69. whether ..... -up proceeding has to be spelt out from the preamble and articles 38 and 43-a of the constitution and from the general principles of natural justice.amarendra nath sen, j.67. i have read the judgment of my learned brother bhagwati, j. and also the judgment of my learned brother venkataramiah, j. i cannot persuade .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1527; [1987(54)FLR750]; JT1987(2)SC529; (1987)IILLJ414SC; 1987(1)SCALE975; 1988Supp(1)SCC1; [1987]3SCR180; 1987(2)LC681(SC)
..... regards the age of superannuation and those employees who came from companies where there was no rule similar to clause (b) as regards the age of superannuation. in manindra chandra sen v. union of india and ors., : air1973cal385 sabyasachi mukharji j., has upheld the said classification of railway employees into two categories viz. those who joined on or before 31.3 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All257
..... having no particular ground, for claiming such performance, will not be sufficient grounds for granting a mandamus. [r. v. london city assessment committee, (1907) 2 k.b. 764; jatindra mohan sen v. h.e. a. cotton : air1925cal48 .459. not only must it appear that the applicant is himself a person having a real interest in the performance of the duty sought .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)84BOMLR608
P.B. Sawant, J.1. This is a group of petitions seeking to challenge the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as a said Act) and the Scheme viz. the Private Security Guards, (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Scheme, 1981, deemed to have been prepared by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act. The petitions are filed both by the agencies or agents who hitherto carried on the business of supplying security guards to various employers and also by the employers who engage the security guards on contract basis through such agencies or agents. Petitions Nos. 1204 of 1981, 136(1 of 1981, 1393 of 1981, 1692 of 1981, 1882 of 1981, 75 of 1982, 89 of 1982 and 195 of 1982 are filed by the agencies and Petitions Nos. 420 of 1982, 422 of 1982, 1205 of 1981, 1386 of 1981, 1408 of 1981, 1499 of 1981, 1884 of 1981 and 816 of 1982 are filed by the employers. Som...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.113 OF2016KAUSHAL KISHOR PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION @ (DIARY) No.34629 OF2017JUDGMENT V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.PRELUDE Said the Tamil PoetPhilosopher Tiruvalluvar of the Tamil Sangam age (31, BCE) in his classic Tirukkural. Emphasizing the importance of sweet speech, he said that the scar left behind by a burn injury may heal, but not the one left behind by an offensive 1 speech. The translation of this verse by G.U. Pope in English reads thus: In flesh by fire inflamed, nature may thoroughly heal the sore; In soul by tongue inflamed, the ulcer healeth never more. A Sanskrit Text contains a piece of advice on what to speak and how to speak. satyam bryt priya bryn na bryt satyam apriyam | priya ca nnta bryd ea dharma santana || The meaning of this verse is: Speak what is true; sp...
Tag this Judgment!