Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR(SC)925; [2007(4)JCR46(SC)]; (2007)5MLJ870(SC); 2007(9)SCALE36
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Leave granted.2. When the Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal challenging the orders of the High Court came up for admission, the contesting respondents appeared to oppose them. So, with the consent of parties and taking note of the limited issue that is before this Court, we are disposing of these matters finally here and now. 3. The suit out of which these appeals arise is one filed by Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta, the appellant, in the two appeals arising out of Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal - CC Nos. 5818 and 5819 of 2007. The dispute relates to the administration of a trust named Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust governed by The Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The suit challenged a notice dated 27.4.2006 issued for convening a meeting of the trustees on 29.4.2006 to resolve certain disputes and sought a declaration that the resolution allegedly adopted by that meeting was illegal and void and other incidental reliefs. By an order of this Court da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(2)SC1; (2007)3SCC184
ORDER OF EXPULSION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW374. The history of relationship between Parliament and Courts at Westminister is also marked with conflict and controversy. Sir Erskine May rightly comments; 'After some three and a half centuries, the boundary between the competence of the law courts and the jurisdiction of the either House in matters of privilege is still not entirely determined'. According to the learned author, the earliest conflicts between Parliament and the Courts were about the relationship between the lex parliamenti and the common law of England. Both Houses argued that under the former, they alone were the judges of the extent and application of their own privileges, not examinable by any court or subject to any appeal. The courts, on the other hand, professed judicial ignorance of the lex parliamenti. After some time, however, they recognized it, but as a part of the Law of England and, therefore, wholly within the judicial notice. In the middle of the nineteenth centu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)109BOMLR2453
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The above confirmation case has been filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking confirmation of death penalty imposed upon the original Accused Nos.1 to 3 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar, by his judgment and order dated 8th September, 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Over and above, the accused have also been convicted for 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition the accused have been convicted for 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 452 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Original Accused Nos.1 & 3 have challenged the above judgment and sentence by their Appeal Nos.1086/2006, and the original Accused No.2 has separately filed an Appeal No.156/2007 challenging the same. 3. The brief facts are that one Prabhu and Sushma fe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(1)ALLMR29; 2006(6)BomCR502; 2007(1)MhLj588
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 23-8-2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Application (MRTU) No. 11 of 2004. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', for being registered as the recognised Union in place of the petitioner-Union. 3. The challenge to the impugned order is firstly on the ground that the impugned order is a non-speaking order in the sense that it does not disclose any reasons for the conclusions arrived at, secondly, that the conclusions are contrary to the materials which were placed before the Industrial Court and, thirdly, the application filed by the respondent No. 2 was not in compliance with the requirements of law in as much...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2264; 2007(4)BomCR77; JT2007(9)SC127; 2007(8)SCALE529; (2007)10SCC201; 2007AIRSCW3946; AIR2007SC2264; 2007(8)Scale529; 2007(3)KCCRSN172
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The common judgment and order dated 23.6.2006 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 887 of 2006 and connected cases is under challenge in this appeal by special leave. The appeal relate to the interpretation of Regulation 12(2)& (4) of 'Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997' framed by Medical Council of India (for short 'MCI Regulations'). The description of appellant is permitted to be corrected by showing the Deputy Registrar as representing the Appellant University, instead of the Deputy Registrar of the Appellant University being shown as the appellant.2. The appellant-University (referred as 'the University') was established under the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998. The private respondents ('students' for short) are prosecuting MBBS course in different Medical Colleges affiliated to the University. They appeared for the III MBBS Part II examination conducted by the University in December, 2005. The subjects were Gener...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2599; 2007(6)ALLMR(SC)447; 2007(2)BLJR2218; JT2007(7)SC127; 2007(7)SCALE278; (2007)10SCC306
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P.2. Constitutionality and/ or applicability of the provisions of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (for short 'the Central Act') is in question herein.3. Before, however, embarking on the questions involved, we may at the outset notice that the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 11880 of 2006 arises out of a judgment and order dated 26.04.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Writ Petition No. 4619 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein in regard to the applicability of Section 30 of the Central Act was dismissed. In the said writ petition, the following prayers were made:(a) the declaration that the non-graduate Veterinary Practitioners who are registered under the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971 (for short to be referred as 'the State Veterinary Act') are eligible to practice Veterinary medicine in the same manner an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2074; 2007CriLJ2959; JT2007(5)SC335; 2007(5)SCALE445; (2007)5SCC1; 2007AIRSCW3189; (2007)2SCC(Cri)417; (2007)2Crimes228(SC); JT2007(5)SC335; 2007LawHerald(SC)1508; 2007(2)KCCRSN82; 2007(4)AIRKarR310(SC)
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Leave granted.2. Manzar Sayeed Khan and Vinod Hansraj Goyal have filed these two appeals against the common order dated 06.05.2004 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 280 of 2004 and 370 of 2004. By the impugned order, the High Court vacated the interim order granted on 23.02.2004 and directed the Crime Branch of the State of Maharashtra to complete the investigation in FIR No.10 of 2004 registered at the Deccan Police Station, Pune, against the appellants and author of the book titled 'Shivaji Hindu King in Islamic India' under Sections 153, 153A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short `IPC'].3. The brief facts in both these appeals are practically identical.Manzar Sayeed Khan, appellant herein, is a constituted Attorney of the Oxford University Press India, having been appointed on 21.06.2001 for a period of three years or for so long as he is employed as the Managing Director of the Oxford Univers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2334; 2007(3)CTC574; 139(2007)DLT506(SC); JT2007(6)SC25; 2007(5)MhLj545; (2007)4MLJ660(SC); 2007MPLJ205(SC); RLW2007(3)SC2325; 2007(5)SCALE236; (2007)5SCC231; 2007AIRSCW4040; 2007(3)KCCRSN181
B.P. Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. In the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6093 of 2003; 6095 of 2003 and 6384 of 2003 the appellants have impugned the common judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated February 13, 2003 disposing of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2672 of 1996; 1851 of 1986 and 2003 of 1986. In the appeal arising out SLP ) No. 8574 of 2003, M/s. Punjab Potteries has assailed the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 2168 of 2003 dated 26th March, 2003. The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions preferred by the appellants herein. 3. A few broad facts may be noticed at the threshold to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the parties in these appeals.A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on January 23, 1965 for acquisition of lands measuring 6241 bighas 12 biswas in village Mahipalpur which was required for a public p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)AWC2091(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN222; JT2007(4)SC362; 2007(4)SCALE265; (2007)5SCC189; [2007]75SCL193(SC); 2007AIRSCW1865; 2007(4)CivilLJ390; 2007(3)KCCR1666(SC).
S.B. SINHA, J : Leave granted. INTRODUCTION : Interpretation of Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (for short, 'the Act') is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 06.02.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in APOT No. 584 of 2005, affirming a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the said Court. BACKGROUND FACTS : M/s Dunlop India Ltd. (for short, 'the Company') is an existing company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(ii) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company floated a Fund known as 'Dunlop Executive Staff Pension Fund' for providing pension and annuities to the members of the executive management staff of the Company. Clause (3) of the said deed reads as under : "These presents shall constitute a trust upon and subject to the Rules and to the law for the time being in force in India relating to Pension Funds which trust irrevocable and no moneys belonging to the Fund in hand of the trustees shall be recoverable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2007]8STT33; (2007)7VST323(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair J.1. The constitutional validity of Sub-section (16A) of Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the sustainability of two circulars issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under the said provision are the points, that arise for decision in these writ petitions. Since same points arise for decision in all these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. W.P. (C) No. 2844 of 2007 is treated as the main case.W.P. (C) No. 2844 of 2007:2. The petitioner, which is a firm, is a dealer in glass sheets. It is an asses-see on the files of the third respondent, Sales Tax Officer, Manjeri, under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The fourth respondent, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued Circular No. 50 of 2006, in exercise of his powers under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 read with Sub-section (16A) of Section 47 of the KVAT A...
Tag this Judgment!