Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2005Ker122; 2005(1)KLT507
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These Writ Appeals are preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in a matter arising under the Tea Act. W.A. No. 1202/2004 is filed by the Union of India whereas W.A.No.1334/2004 is filed by one of the promoters. At this stage, all the learned counsel have requested the Court to hear and dispose of the Writ Appeals themselves which lies in a narrow compass. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from W.A.1202/2004.2. Only one argument has been advanced by Sri.V.T.Gopalan, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India pointing out the imposition made by the learned Single Judge in his order of 5th January, 2004 in O.P.No.32613/2002, which is to the following effect: 'If the revival of the functioning of High Range Tea Estates of M/s. Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd., is not possible, then the Union of India shall take over such estates of the said Company as contemplated by law within six months from the said date of judgment'. Mr.V.T.Gopalan submi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1996Delhi172; [1996]85CompCas230(Delhi)
ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J. 1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed chfallenging the order dated 19th December, 1994 of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for short the Appellate Authority) dismissing the two separate appeals of the petitioners by a common judgment; substantially confirming the order dated 6/16 June, 1994 passed by the Board forIndustrial and Financial Reconstruction 'BIFR' for short). Both the authorities, namely, the BIFR and the Appellate Authority, have been constituted under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('SICA' or 'Act', for short) under which proceedings had been held and impugned orders made. The sick industrial company, as defined under clause (o) of Section 3 of the SICA, in the present case is Andhra Cement Limited (ACL). Petition bearing No. 5184/94 has been filed by Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd. and five other petitioners constitutin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)1MLJ228
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Tozhilalar Shemanala Padukappu Union, represented by its President, the petitioner in W.P. No 2756 of 1981, is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in this judgment as they stood arrayed in the writ petition. A dispute arose in 1979 between the second respondent Mills, hereinafter referred to as the Mills, and its workmen on the question of bonus for the year 1978-79. The Mills had paid an advance bonus at 20 per cent. of the earnings to its workmen. A settlement was reached in the course of conciliation on 18th November, 1980 under section. 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act XIV of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, under which it was agreed that the bonus could be only at 12 par cent and the Mills were conferred the right to recover the excess of bonus paid in advance. This settlement was arrived at before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1980Cal282,85CWN8
Banerjee, J.1. These appeals are directed against an order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge making the rule absolute obtained by Pashok Tea Company Limited. The case made out by the petitioner Pashok Tea Company Ltd., is that on 12th October, 1976 two letters were received by the petitioner, each dated the 13th October, 1976, one in respect of the Pashok Tea Estate and the other in respect of Looksan Tea Estate addressed to the Company by the Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd. The said two letters are identical in nature except as to the name of the Tea Garden and the contents of the letters concerning the Pashok Tea Estate are as follows:--'By an order dated 11th October, 1976 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated llth October, 1976 the Government of India has authorised the Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd., of 225-E, Acharya Jagadish Chandra BOMRoad, Calcutta-20 being the authorised person to take over the management of the above unit on the terms and condit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC753Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No.1404 of 2023 Sukanya Shantha Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Contents I. The Writ Petition .................................................................................................. 4 II. Submissions ........................................................................................................ 4 III. Constitutional Interpretation ................................................................................. 6 IV. The Constitution of Emancipation, Equality, and Dignity ...................................... 9 V. The Contours of Article 14 ................................................................................. 17 VI. Non-Discrimination under Article 15 ............................................................... 23 VII. The Ban on Untouchability in Article 17 ...................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC692REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9702 OF2024KUKREJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & OTHERS APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.9703 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9704 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9705 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9706 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9707 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9708 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9709 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9710 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9711 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9712 OF2024Page 1 of 86 JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA, J.These appeals have been filed against three impugned judgments and orders of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, namely, i) Judgment dated 18.12.2018 whereby Writ Petition Nos. 1898/2009, 1823/2012, 839/2015, 2871/2015, 2107/2016, 2170/2016, 384/2017 and 541/2017 were rejected on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petitioners therein/appellants herein have filed an appeal. Writ Petition Nos. 203/2014 and 2262/2010 were allowed and Writ Petition No.1860/2017 was p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC682IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 258-259 OF2021PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SUS ROAD BANER VIKAS MANCH AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 265-266 OF2021JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. These Civil Appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 27th October 2020 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi1 in Original Application2 No.210 of 20203 wherein the Tribunal disposed of the OA preferred by the Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch, 1 Hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal. 2 Hereinafter referred to as OA3Earlier OA No.34 of 2019 (WZ). Initially the OA was preferred before the Tribunal, Western Zone, and was subsequently transferred to the Principal Bench, New Delhi. 1 Respondent No.1 herein, by directing the Pune Municipal Corporation4 to close the Garbage Processing Plant5 operated by Noble Exchange Environment Solution Pune LLP6, at Baner, Pune and to shift the same to an alte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC616IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.16944 of 2022]. MAITREYEE CHAKRABORTY APPELLANT(s) VERSUS THE TRIPURA UNIVERSITY & ORS. RESPONDENT(s) JUDGMENT K.V. Viswanathan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment of the High Court of Tripura at Agartala dated 20.06.2022 in W.A. No.5 of 2020. By virtue of the said judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.12.2019 dismissing the writ petition of the Appellant. 1 Brief facts:3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. One Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra was working as an Associate Professor in Law in the Respondent-University. On 27.11.2015, the Executive Council of the Respondent-University granted a lien for one year to Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra to enable him to join the post of Associate Professor in Law in Sikkim University. On 02.12.2015, Dr. Pra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC607IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 4056-4064 of 1999 Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. Appellants Versus M/S Steel Authority of India & Anr Etc. Respondents With Civil Appeal No.7937 of 2019 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.512 of 2018 With Civil Appeal No.7938 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.7936 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.6221 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.5250 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.729 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1029 of 2019 With Special Leave Petition (C) No.16028 of 2021 With Civil Appeal No.4286 of 2023 With Civil Appeal No.5682 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No.1295 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.874 of 2013 With Page 1 of 22 Civil Appeal Nos. 8269-8271 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8268 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8267 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.6135 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8272 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.9458 of 2013 With Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18600 of 2013 With Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 Reserved on :07. 06.2024 R Pronounced on :09. 08.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE09H DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.7629 OF2024(GM RES) BETWEEN: MR. ATTAR MOHAMMAD SHAFIULLAH @ A. SHAFIULLAH AGED ABOUT54YEARS, S/O LATE MR. ABDUL NABI WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS, KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, KIAL RD DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 300. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE *SMT. KRISHIKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE) AND: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, No.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 032 REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, *Inserted words vide Court order dated 10.09.2024 2 FOR CBI CASES, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION482OF CR.P.C...
Tag this Judgment!