Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2677; (2005)4CompLJ283(SC); JT2005(2)SC8; (2005)4SCC649
N. Santosh Hegde, J. 1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of Sinha, J. I regret I cannot persuade myself to agree with the conclusions recorded in the said judgment hence this separate opinion. The Judgment of Sinha, J. has elaborately, dealt with the facts, relevant rules and bye-laws of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (the Board). Hence, I consider it not necessary for me to reproduce the same including the lengthy arguments advanced on behalf of the parties except to make reference to the same to the extent necessary in the course of this judgment.2. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the Board has raised the preliminary issue in regard to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that under Article 32, a petition is not maintainable against the Board since the same is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is this issue which is being considered in this judgment.3. In support of his argumen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1893; [1995(71)FLR102]; (1995)2GLR1550; JT1995(4)SC264; 1995LabIC2207; (1995)IILLJ790SC; 1995(3)SCALE498; (1995)5SCC27; [1995]Supp1SCR173; (1996)1UPLBEC359
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.Leave granted in all the petitions.These four groups of appeals raise common questions of law relating to the abolition of contract system of labour. Civil appeals C.A. No. 5497 & 5504/95 arising out of SLP (c) Nos. 2613 of 1991 and 13520 of 1991 are filed by the managements, viz., Gujarat Electricity Board and M/s. Bihar State Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd. respectively, while civil appeals 5498-02/95, 5503/95 arising out of SLP (c) Nos. 9310-14 of 1991 and 9315 of 1991 are filed by the employees' unions, viz., Delhi Officers and Establishment Employees' Union and New Delhi General Mazdoor Union respectively, both against the same management, viz., Standing Conference of Public Enterprises [SCOPE] and Another.2. For the sake of convenience, we will first deal with the facts in Civil Appeal 5497/95 arising out of SLP [C] No. 2613 of 1991 and the questions of law as they arise therefrom.C.A. 5497/95@SLP [C] No. 2613 of 1991.3. The appellant-Board runs a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR1292; 2008(3)CTC97; [2008(3)JCR176(SC)]; JT2008(5)SC1; (2008)3MLJ1105(SC); 2008(5)SCALE1; (2008)6SCC1; 2008AIRSCW2899; 2008(3)Supreme331; 2008(2)LH(SC)1534
..... improve primary and upper primary education in india. the learned additional solicitor general also contended that the argument advanced by dr. rajeev dhavan is not correct. he relied upon arjun sen gupta's report7 wherein it is stated:.education can be a liberating capability but access to it is made difficult, if not impossible, by such inherited characteristics as lower social .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2147; 1980CriLJ1440; (1981)1SCC107; [1981]1SCR1196
..... or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sen-tenced.433. the appropriate government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute--(a) a sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the indian penal code; (b .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3226; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)1030; 2005(5)ALT1(SC); 2005(4)AWC3864B(SC); 2005(5)BomCR859; 2005(4)CTC81; 2005(3)ESC373; [2005(4)JCR164(SC)]; JT2005(7)SC313; 2005(5)KarLJ16; 2005(6)SCC537
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.Preliminary1. Leave granted in all SLPs.2. A Coram of 11 Judges, not a common feature in the Supreme Court of India, sat to hear and decide T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka : AIR2003SC355, (hereinafter 'Pai Foundation', for short). It was expected that the authoritative pronouncement by a Bench of such strength on the issues arising before it would draw a final curtain on those controversies. The subsequent events tell a different story. A learned academician observes that the 11-Judge Bench decision in Pai Foundation is a partial response to some of the challenges posed by the impact of Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalization (LPG); but the question whether that is a satisfactory response, is indeed debatable. It was further pointed out that 'the decision raises more questions than it has answered' (see : Annual Survey of Indian Law, 2002 at p.251, 254). The Survey goes on to observe 'the principles laid down by the majority in Pai Foundation are so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2288; JT1998(4)SC58; (1998)IIIMLJ100(SC); 1998(3)SCALE482; (1998)5SCC643; [1998]3SCR206
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted. This group of appeals arises from a judgement of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court dated 9.3.1994 in a group of writ petitions filed by the teaching and non-teaching staff of various Sanskrit Schools in the State of Bihar. These Sanskrit Schools were private schools. They were said to have been taken over by the State of Bihar under Ordinance 32 of 1989. The teachers and staff of these schools claimed that as a result, they had become Government servants. They filed before the High Court petitions for payment of salary and other emoluments on the basis that they were Government servants with effect from coming in into force of Ordinance 32 of 1989 and they continue to be so thereafter, although the last of the series of Ordinances expired by lapse of time on 30th of April, 1992.2. The High Court has held that the petitioners before it would be entitled to get their salary which they were getting prior to the promulgation of the Ordinances...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(7)SC608; 1995(1)KLT172(SC); 1994(5)SCALE1; 1995Supp(2)SCC187; [1994]Supp5SCR526
K. Ramaswamy, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.Ps. No. 10248, 9079, 13769/94 and S.L.P.No....(CC No. 25558/94). 2. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, by its common judgment dated December 10, 1993 in OP. No. 4637/89 and batch since upheld the constitutionality of Sections 57A and 57B inserted by the Abkari (Amendment) Act 21 of 1984 in the Amendment Act into the Abkari Act I of 1077 (for short 'the Act'), the correctness of that judgment is questioned in this appeal. 3. The facts lie in a short compass: 4. The appellants are licencees of arrack or Indian made foreign liquor retail shops or their employees. They have been charged for offences punishable under one or other Sub-sections.(1) to (3) of Section 57A for having mixed or permitted mixing or noxious substance with liquor or for having failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent such mixing or for being in possession of liquor in which such a noxious substance has been mixed with the knowledge that arrack or Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(2)SC296; 1991(1)SCALE187; (1991)2SCC716; [1991]1SCR773
K. Ramaswamy, J. 1. We have heard the learned Counsel on either side and grant special leave to appeal in all the cases.2. The quest for just result to save the precious academic years to the students while maintaining the unsullied examination process is the core problem which the facts have presented for solution.3. The appeals arise from the common judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2646 of 1990 and batch. The appellant for short 'the Board' conducted secondary examinations in the month of March 1990, whereat the marks awarded, after the formalities of valuation by the examiners of the answer-sheets in each subject; the random counter check by the moderators and further recounting at the Board, Moderators' mark-sheets sent to Pune for feeding the computer to declare the results were found tampered with the appellant. Thereon, admittedly, it was found that monderators' mark-sheets relating to 283 examinees which include 53 respondents in these ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC24; 19831SCR145;
..... leave petition of harbans singh on 16th october, 1978. harbans singh applied for review of this decision, but the review petition was dismissed by sarkaria, j. and a.p. sen, j. on 9th may 1980. it appears that though the registry of this court had mentioned in its office report that kashmira singh's death sentence was already commuted, that ..... majority consisting of krishna iyer, j. and desai, j. took the view that the death sentence imposed on dalbir singh should be commuted to life imprisonment while a.p. sen, j. struck to the original view taken by him in rajendra prasad's case and was inclined to confirm the death sentence. it will thus be seen that the exercise ..... 1979. in this case, the death sentence imposed on rajendra prasad was commuted to life imprisonment by a majority consisting of krishna iyer, j. and desai, j. a.p. sen, j. dissented and was of the view that the death sentence should be confirmed. similarly in one of the cases before us, namely, bachan singh v. state of punjab .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC561; (1981)ILLJ280SC; 1980Supp(1)SCC524; [1981]1SCR1024; 1981(2)SLJ67(SC)
..... the independence of the judiciary is not in any manner violated thereby. judicial independence, says the counsel, means freedom from executive interference, not freedom from laws.38. shri a. k. sen, shri s.n. kackkar, dr. y.s. chitale, shri f.s. nariman and shri b. r. tuli supported the argument of shri tarkunde by citing various decisions of this court .....
Tag this Judgment!