Court : Patna
Reported in : 2010(58)BLJR337
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard the parties.2. These three writ petitions have been taken up and heard at length for its final disposal at this stage itself, as they raise a common issue. It relates to Madhubani Nagar Parishad constituted under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.3. Counter affidavits have been filed and with consent of parties the writ petition has been heard for final disposal at this stage itself.4. Madhubani Nagar Parishad has an elected Chief Councillor and Deputy Chief Councillor and consists of 30 elected members. On two years expiring 18 members filed a requisition for convening a special meeting of the Nagar Parishad for considering vote of no confidence as against the Chief Councillor and the Deputy Chief Councillor. Upon notice being given, the Chief Councillor fixed 16.07.2009 as the date for convening the special meeting and noticed the Counselors. On 09th of July, 2009 the in-charge Additional Collector by his memo No. 944 of the said date i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.1. The above & many more petitions arisen out of the proceedings pending before the Trial Courts under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (N.I. Act) are pending before this Court. It is seen that the High Court is being flooded with petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaints under section 138 N.I. Act on the ground that learned MMs cannot recall their own orders of summoning and it is the High Court that should consider that the complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act was not maintainable against the petitioners. Reliance is placed on Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and Others; (2004) 7 SCC 338 to press the point that the petitioners have no other alternative but to approach the High Court. While Adalat Prasad case (supra) laid down that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the order should be reported in Digest? YesORDER1. The background to the petition is that Respondent No. 10 who is the wife of Petitioner No.1, and daughter-in-law of Petitioners 2 and 3, filed a complaint on 15th March 2008 with the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi alleging commission of acts of cruelty by them attracting the provision of S.498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. On 28th March 2008 she also filed a complaint with the National Commission of Women (NCW), Respondent No.3 herein. The Petitioners state that on receiving a telephonic summons from the Project Coordinator, Respondent No. 8, on 31st March 2008 they went to the office of the NCW on 1 st April 2008 where, they allege, they were spoken to rudely by Respondent No.8. On 8th April 2008, as Petitioner No.1 was on his way to Dubai, he was "off-loaded at the IGI Airport, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?1. Vide these applications, the applicant is seeking recall of the order dated 21st January, 2010 whereby the criminal complaints filed by it, to the extent they pertained to the petitioner Hardeep Singh Nagra, were dismissed. Criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed by the applicant/complainant M/s Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. against Routes Car Rental Pvt. Ltd. and 3 others, including the petitioner Hardeep Singh Nagra, who was impleaded as Accused No.4 in the complaint. It was alleged in para 3 of the complaint that Accused Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Sukhdev Dhillon and Syed Akthar Arshad were the directors of Accused No.1 company and were officers engaged in day to day affairs of the company. As regards, the petitioner/accused No.4 Hardeep Singh Nagra, it was alleged in para 4 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.By the order passed by us on April 1, 2011, we had allowed this appeal. We had, further, observed that we will indicate our reasons by a separate judgment. We do so herein.2. The Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, like other Municipal Acts, provides for the election of the Municipal Councillors, the Mayor or Chief Councillor and the Deputy Mayor/Deputy Chief Councillor. It also provides for an Empowered Standing Committee to exercise the executive power of the Municipality. This committee is supposed to consist of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and seven other Councillors nominated by the Mayor/Chief Councillor under section 21 (3) of this Act. Section 27 of this Act provides that the term of office of the Mayor/Chief Councillor and the members of the Empowered Standing Committee shall be co-terminous with the duration of members of the Municipality. The Act provides for the removal of the Mayor/Chief Councillor and the Deputy Mayor/Deputy Chief Councillor under section 25 (4) of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition Nos.12882, 12890, 13019, 13037, 13038, 13227, 13293, 13296, 13345, 13381, 13390, 13547 of 2011 and W.P.(M.D.) No.6143/2011 whereby the High Court has struck down Section 3 of The Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education (Amendment) Act, 2011 (hereinafter called the Amendment Act 2011) and issued directions to the State Authorities to implement the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education Act, 2010 (hereinafter called the Act 2010), i.e. to implement the common syllabus, distribute the textbooks printed under the uniform system of education and commence the classes on or before 22.7.2011. The Contempt Petitions have been filed for non-implementing the directions given by this Court vide order dated 14.6.2011. 2. FACTS: A. In the State of Tamil Nadu, there had been different Boards imparting basic education to st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The petitioner Cox and Kings India Ltd. (for short as C&K) has filed the present petition praying, inter alia, seeking stay of the operation of the respondent's letter dated 12.08.2011 seeking to terminate the joint venture agreement between the petitioner and the respondent and also from interfering or preventing the petitioner and the JV Company, i.e. Royale Indian Rail Tours Limited from operating the Luxury Tourist Train "Maharaja Express" and from obstructing the petitioner in operation of the JV Company and as a consequence from operating the bank accounts dealing with venders, suppliers and any third parties for smooth functioning of the luxury tourist train. 2. Few relevant facts are that the respondent floated an Expression of Interest for a joint venture partner for a luxury train project and to operate, manage and run the luxury tourist train on a Pan India Route within India in December, 2006. In June/July, 2007, Ministry of Railways (Rail Mantralaya), Railway Board,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2011(4)KLT129(SN); 2012(1)SCC10; 2012(1)SCC(Cr)1; AIR2012SCW594; AIR2012SC1594
1. All the above appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 864-DB of 2005, 2062-SB of 2005, 2073-SB of 2005, 2074-SB of 2005, 2075-SB of 2005 and order dated 16.10.2007 in Crl. R.P. No. 323 of 2006, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeals of the appellants filed against the conviction and sentences awarded to them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in Sessions Case No. 49-T of 9.5.1998/30.11.2001 vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2005, whereby he had convicted Jaspal Singh, DSP - appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 528 of 2009 and one Amarjit Singh, ASI, under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as `IPC'), and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter called `RI') for five months....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.8741 and 9385 of 2011 have been filed by the first and second accused in Crime No.203 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal.2.The averments in the petitions are as follows:(i) The case has been registered against the petitioners/A1 & A2 and others under Crime No.203 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 387 and 420 I.P.C.(ii) The property bearing D.No.41/67, Welwyn inn Cottage, Kodaikanal town, Dindigul District, is originally belongs to one John Tapp and he bequeathed the property to his legal heirs by a will dated 09.10.1939 and the same was probated vide order dated 16.12.1941 in O.P.No.58 of 1941 on the file of the District Judge, Madurai.(iii) On 24.04.1989, the said property has been purchased by Bhagchand Uttamchand Galada/A1 and his other family members from the legal heirs of John Tapp vide registered sale deeds. The patta is also stands in their names.(iv) In the above said property, there were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Writ Petition (MD).No.4364/2009 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent made in D.Dis.R.P.35/2008 D2 dated 3.4.2009 which was delivered to the petitioner on 12.5.2009 confirming that part of the order of the 2nd respondent permitting the 3rd respondent to file an application under Section 64(1) of the H.R.&C.E. Act made in R.C.8881/2007/B1/20.6.2008 and quash the same.Writ Petition (MD).No.4365/2009 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent made in R.Dis.A.P.34 of 2008 D2 dated 3.4.2009 which was delivered to the petitioner on 12.5.2009 reversing the order of the 2nd respondent, directing the 3rd respondent to approach the Civil Court made in R.C.8881/2007/B1/dated 20.6.2008 and quash the same.ORDER1. Both these Writ Petitions...
Tag this Judgment!