Court : Supreme Court of India
"REPORTABLE" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2485-2490 OF2010Dhole Govind Sahebrao & others ... Appellants versus Union of India & others ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2491-2503 OF2010Union of India & others ... Appellants versus A. Karunanithi ... Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2577 OF2010Union of India & others ... Appellants versus Awadhesh Kumar & others ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.10386 OF2013Union of India & others ... Appellants versus Issac Varghese & others ... Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. The present controversy is yet another seniority dispute amongst employees of the Customs and Central Excise Department. The controversy herein has emerged on account of a reconstitution of cadres. In the first instance, a separate cadre was constituted, out of the existing ministerial cadre, for discharging electronic data processing responsibilities. This was necessitated by the decision of the department to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[pic].REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL/CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.167 OF2012SHREYA SINGHAL ... PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ... RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.21 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.23 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.97 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.199 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.217 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.222 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.225 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.758 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.196 OF2014JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J.1. This batch of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raises very important and far-reaching questions relatable primarily to the fundamental right of free speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The immediate cause for concern in these petitions is Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000. This Section was not in the Act as originally enacted, but came into force by v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :08. 09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.671 of 2014 Meharraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1) The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by Secretary to Government, Home (Prison IV) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2) The Additional Director General of Police, Egmore, Chennai-600 0085. 3) The Superintendent of Central Prison, Madurai. 4) Mr.Palani, The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy. 5) Mr.Senthil Kumar, The Additional Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to transfer the husband of the petitioner namely, Mohammed Hanifa aged about 34 years from Trichy Central Prison to Madurai Central Prison or Palayamkottai Central Prison and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against respondents 4 and 5 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.77 OF2014Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq Petitioner Versus The Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.137 OF2010C. Muniappan & Others Petitioners Versus The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.52 OF2011B.A. Umesh Petitioner Versus Registrar, Supreme Court of India Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.39 OF2013Sundar @ Sundarrajan Petitioner Versus State by Inspector of Police & Others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.108 OF2014Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Petitioner Versus Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Others Respondents AND WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.117 OF2014Sonu Sardar Petitioner Versus Union of India & Others Respondents JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J.1. I have had the privilege of reading the draft judgment prepared by my esteemed brother Rohinton Fali Narima...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Crl. Rev. No.443/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.3071/2010 Date of Decision:12. h August, 2014 DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE ..Petitioner Through : Mr. V. Madhukar, Mr. Paritosh Anil, Mr. Jayendra, Mr. V. Bhatt, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. appointed as Amicus Curiae VERSUS UOI & ANR. Through: ....Respondents Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State. Mr. Amit Chadha, Adv. for applicant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL GITA MITTAL, J It is highly deplorable and heart-rending to note that many poverty stricken children and girls in the prime of youth are taken to 'flesh market' and forcibly pushed into the 'flesh trade' which is being carried on in utter violation of all cannons of morality, decency and dignity of humankind. There cannot be two opinionsindeed there is nonethat this obnoxious and abominable crime Crl Rev.No.443/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.3071/2010 1 committed with all kinds of unthinkable vulgarity should be eradicated at all levels by dras...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. F.A.O. No.1620 of 2014 Date of Decision :30. 06.2014 M/s Best on Health Ltd. and others ..Appellant (s) Versus M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent(s) II. F.A.O. No.2383 of 2014 M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. .....Appellant (s) Versus M/s Best on Health Ltd. and others .....Respondent(s) III. Civil Revision No.2837 of 2014 M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner (s) Versus M/s Best on Health Ltd. and others .....Respondent(s) CORAM : HONBLE MrJUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present : Mr.Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with Dr.Lalit Bhasin, Advocate, Ms.Nina Gupta, Advocate, Mr.Ranjan Jha, Advocate, Mr.Vibhav Jain, Advocate Kumar Paritosh for the appellant(s). 2014.07.02 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.1620 of 2014 and 2 connected cases 2 Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Vij, Advocate & Mr.Mukal Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent(s).1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?. Yes 2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5387 OF2014(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11686 of 2007) Animal Welfare Board of India . Appellant Versus A. Nagaraja & Ors. . Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5388 OF2014(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10281 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5389-5390 OF2014(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.18804-18805 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL No.5391 OF2014(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13199 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.5392 OF2014(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13200 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.5393 OF2014(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4598 of 2013) CIVIL APPEAL No.5394 OF2014(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12789 of 2014) (@ SLP(C) CC4268 of 2013) WRIT PETITION (C) NO.145 OF2011AND T.C. (C) Nos.84, 85, 86, 97, 98 and 127 of 2013 K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are, in these cases, concerned with an issue of seminal importance with regard to the Rights of Animals under our Const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) No.416 OF2012Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust ® & Ors. Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (C) No.152 OF2013 WRIT PETITION (C) No.1081 OF2013 WRIT PETITION (C) No.60 OF2014 WRIT PETITION (C) No.95 OF2014 WRIT PETITION (C) No.106 OF2014 WRIT PETITION (C) No.128 OF2014 WRIT PETITION (C) No.144 OF2014 WRIT PETITION (C) No.145 OF2014 WRIT PETITION (C) No.160 OF2014 AND WRIT PETITION (C) No.136 OF2014JUDGMENT A. K. PATNAIK, J.This is a reference made by a three-Judge Bench of this Court by order dated 06.09.2010 in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC102 to a Constitution Bench. As per the aforesaid order dated 06.09.2010, we are called upon to decide on the validity of clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution inserted by the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 with effect from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
SBCWP No.5988/2006 Manohar Singh vs. Union of India & ors. Judgment dt;30/4/2014 1/42 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT Manohar Singh vs. Union of India & Others. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5988/2006 DATE OF JUDGMENT :30. h April, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Anil Bhandari, for the petitioner. Mr.Jagdish Vyas, for the National Insurance Company. BY THE COURT:1. Whether it was resignation. from service or retirement. voluntarily taken by the petitioner from his employer, National Insurance Company, is the question involved in the present case.2. The petitioner Manohar Singh, was appointed as a Development Inspector on 09 August 1979 and since then he continuously served the respondent Insurance Company till 2006 for 27 years. On 18 January 2006, due to some unavoidable family SBCWP No.5988/2006 Manohar Singh vs. Union of India & ors. Judgment dt;30/4/2014 2/42 circumstances, the petitioner informed the Deputy General Manager of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. These two appeals are disposed of by a common order as they raise the same issue and are in respect of the very same assessee. 2. The relevant facts, after filtering out unnecessary details appellant herein registered themselves with the service tax department on 23.01.2003 as a cargo handling agent and discharging the service tax on the value of stevedoring, unloading and loading charges. An investigation was carried out and various statements were recorded and on scrutiny of the documents which were resumed, it was noticed that appellant have not paid service tax on the entire charges collected by them for various several services like lighterage and local transportation within the port and they have not paid service tax on stevedoring, unloading / loading of cargo in relation to export cargo. Coming to such a conclusion, that services of lighterage of cargo from ship to the berth and transportation of goods and in port area as rendered by the appellant are in r...
Tag this Judgment!