Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal raises a short but important question relating to the implementation of the 27% reservation for other backward classes (for short `OBCs') in Central Educational Institutions under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (Act No.5 of 2007) (for short `CEI Act'). The question relates to the meaning of the words cut-off marks used in the clarificatory order dated 14.10.2008 in P.V. Indiresan & Ors. v. Union of India - (2009) 7 SCC 300, in regard to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India - (2008) 6 SCC 1. Background 3. The constitutional validity of the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 as also the constitutional validity of CEI Act were considered and upheld by a Constitution Bench of this Court on 10.4.2008 reported in Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India (for short `A.K. Thakur'). Four separate opinions were rendered in the said decision by the learned Chief Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. This is a petition under Section 439 read with Section 436A of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in respect of FIR no.RC1(S) 98/STF/CBI registered by P.S. CBI/STF Delhi in respect of which trial is pending before Sh.K.S.Mohi, ASJ- 3, Saket, New Delhi.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a Helicopter Model Bell 47 G5-VT EAP belonging to M/s Pushak Aviation Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Mumbai was transferred in the name of Sh.H.Suresh Rao on 19.9.94. He got the helicopter made air-worthy and was leasing it on hire for various purposes including spray on the fields, electioneering, etc.3. In February, 1996, Sh.H.Suresh Rao came in contact with the petitioner/Romesh Sharma at Delhi, a resident of C- 30, Mayfair Garden, New Delhi who was also having a farm house in Chattarpur, Delhi. It is alleged that Romesh Sharma, the real brother of the accused Harish Mishra, induced H.Suresh Rao to enter into a pre-dated MOU for sale of the Helicopter in favour of his sole proprietorship conce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Civil revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18/1960 as amended by Act 23/1973 as against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2008 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Erode in R.C.A.No.6 of 2007 confirming the order and decree dated 12.04.2007 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Erode in RCOP No.25 of 2005.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2008 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Erode in R.C.A.No.6 of 2007 confirming the order and decree dated 12.04.2007 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Erode in RCOP No.25 of 2005, this revision is focussed by the tenants.2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller.3. Broadly but briefly, narratively...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G. S. Singhvi, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby he allowed the review petition filed by respondent No.1, recalled order dated 6.1.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.22021/2011 and issued direction for listing of the same before the Division Bench.3. The appellant was established under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Avam Sanchalan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act’) as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Avam Sanchalan) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2011. In terms of Section 9(2) of the Act, the appellant is deemed to have been incorporated with effect from 4.5.2011 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act was published in the official gazette.4. After its establishment and incorporation, the appellant framed the First Statutes under Section 26 and the First Ordinances under Section 28 of the Act and submitte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted.2. The present appeal by special leave has been preferred assailing the legal defensibility of the order dated 26.04.2012 passed in Criminal Application No. 28461 of 2011 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and praying for quashment of the same, and further to cancel the grant of bail to the accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) in respect of offences punishable under Sections 365/506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’).3. The facts material for adjudication of this appeal are that an FIR was lodged by the present appellant on 29.05.2011 alleging that while he was going to his in-laws’ place in village Samadia, P.S. Patwai along with Bihari Lal near canal of Milk Road from Patwai which leads to Samdia Khurd, two persons came on a motorcycle and after inquiring about the identity of Bihari Lal told him that they had been asked by Lalla Babu @ Shiv Raj Singh to compel him to accompany t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. None has appeared for the parties. Perused the records.2. On a complaint filed by Smt. Basabi Nath, alleging commission of offence under Sections 498A, 494, 496/34 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, a complaint case being CR No. 2618C/98 was registered. Vide the order dated 1.9.1998 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused person. This is an application for quashing of the said complaint.3. The case of the complainant is that she was married with the petitioner accused person on 8.5.1997 and thereafter lived as husband and wife for sometime but the marital bliss was shattered by the constant demand for dowry by the petitioner-husband and for the failure to meet the demand the respondent-wife was tortured. During the subsistence of the marriage the accused husband pursuant to a criminal conspiracy contacted a second marriage. On examination of the complaint the trial court took cognizance of the offence against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1951]20ITR160(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. In this reference we are concerned with a lease executed by the assessee on the 30th May, 1940, by which he gave a rent farming contract to a particular party and under that contract he received a sum of Rs. 14,000 per month in respect of the various properties covered by the rent farming contract. The question that the Tribunal has raise don this reference is whether the assessee is entitled to claim the sum paid as municipal property tax under Section 9(1)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act and the sums paid as urban property tax under either Section 9(1) (iv) or Section 9(1)(v) of the Act 2. Now this Court has taken the view that these amounts are not permissible deductions under Section 9 of the Act. The Supreme Court took a different view and came to the conclusion that they were permissible deductions. Therefore, if nothing more had happened and if the judgment of the Supreme Court had stood, we would have been bound to answer this question in favour of the assessee....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1953]24ITR229(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Tendolkar who dismissed the petition preferred by the appellants for an order upon the Income-tax Tribunal to make a reference to the High Court under section 66 (I) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. The petitioners are a company incorporated in Baroda and they were assessed to income-tax in Baroda under the Baroda State Income-tax Act on 30th May, 1949, for the assessment year 1947-48, which corresponded to the accounting year 1946. The petitioners then filed an appeal in the Court of the Huzur Adalat, which right of appeal was given to them under the Baroda law. In March, 1949, the State of Baroda merged with India, and on 31st December, 1949, the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States and Amendment) Act, 1949, was passed. Under this Act, by section 3 of the Act, the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 was brought into operation and extended to all the merged States as from 1st April 1949. By section 7 of the Act it was prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1958Bom137; (1957)59BOMLR828; ILR1958Bom165
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a Judgment of Mr. Justice Coyajee who dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the preliminary issue of limitation.2. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the defendants employed him as their commission agent to enter into transactions in various commodities in the Samvat Year 1993-1994 (i.e. 1936-37) and that he acted as their commission agent upto 1938-39. The accounts between the plaintiff and the defendants upto Samvat Year 1994 were according to the plaintiff made up and adjusted on the 4th August, 1937. There were further transactions between the parties and the suit is in respect both of the adjustment and the subsequent transactions.3. Now, there is no dispute that prima facie the suit is barred. The suit was filed on the 24th January, 1953 in respect of transactions which were completed in 1939. The plaintiff sought to bring the suit within time by relying on Section 13 of the Limitation Act and his averment in para 9 or the plaint was that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1951Bom438; (1951)53BOMLR590; ILR1952Bom590
Chagla, C.J. 1. In this reference we are concerned with a lease executed by the assessee on 30-5-1940, by which he gave a rent-farming contract to a particular party & under that contract he received a sum of Rs. 14,000 per month in respect of the various properties covered by the rent-farming contract. The question that the Tribunal has raised on this reference is whether the assessee is entitled to claim the sums paid as municipal property tax under Section 9 (1) (iv), Income-tax Act & the sums paid as urban property tax under either Section 9 (1) (iv) or Section 9 (1)(v) of the Act 2. Now this Court has taken the view that these amounts are not permissible deductions under Section 9 of the Act, New Piece Goods Bazar Co., Ltd. Bombay v. Commr. of Income-tax 49 Bom. L. R. 620. The Supreme Court took a different view & came to the conclusion that they were permissible deductions : New Piece Goods Bazar Go Ltd., v. Gommr. of Income-tax, Bombay 52 Bom. L. R. 764. Therefore, if nothing mo...
Tag this Judgment!