Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1970)1MLJ300
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. These writ proceedings involve, essentially, the validity of a scheme said to have been framed and promulgated by the first respondent, namely, the Madras State transport undertaking, here represented by its Director, Mr. T.V. Venkataraman, under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Chapter IV-A). The writs seek to restrain both the first respondent and the State of Madras (second respondent), from proceeding further with this promulgated scheme, under the relevant sections of the law, on the grounds exhibited in the writ petitions. As is well known, and I do not think that it is necessary, for this purpose, to proceed into the history of the prerogative writ of prohibition in the United Kingdom, a writ of prohibition issues ex debito justitiae, where absence of jurisdiction can be demonstrated ; it is not the power to nationalise the road transport service which is in issue, nor the scheme of the relevant sections ; what is claimed is that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1980)2MLJ489
Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Ramanujam, J., dated 20th November, 1975 rendered in Writ Petition No. 2956 of 1972. The learned Judge disposed of two writ petitions, one W.P. No 9255 of 1972 filed by the appellant herein and the other filed (K.V. Paramasivam Pillai v. Angalammai Ammal and 2 Ors. W.P. No. 4576 of 1975, by the fourth respondent herein, by a common judgment. For the purpose of understanding the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to refer to certain facts.2. The appellant was the original owner of Survey Nos. 163/1 and 163/3 of an extent of 3.20 and 0.20 acres respectively in Ariyamangalam village, Diruchirapalli taluk. She had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,600 on 21st October, 1957 from the Government for the installation of a pump set in the well situated in those lands under Taluk L. O. No. 22 of 1967. She had earlier borrowed two loans from two creditors on the security of her lands. One of the creditors filed O.S. No. 660 of 1958 on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1887)ILR14Cal67
Wilson, J.1. The lands to which this suit relates are a part of Chur Mohun Sureswar, and are included within a permanently-settled estate of the plaintiffs. At the time when the first survey map was made, the whole chur had become diluviated ; when a second survey map was made under Act IX of 1847, the part of the chur now in question bad re-formed on the old site. The Revenue Authorities have assessed the land with land revenue under Act IX of 1847. This suit was brought to establish the plaintiffs right to hold the land as part of their permanently-settled estate, free from liability to any such additional assessment as has been imposed upon it. The first Court gave the plaintiffs a decree, the lower appellate Court reversed it. Against that reversal the present appeal has been brought, and the case has been referred to us by the Division Bench. The questions which we have to decide are substantially two: (1) Has a Civil Court jurisdiction to inquire whether the lands in question wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
(1) Cr.Ref.No.1/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR (AFR) Division Bench: Hon'ble Justice Shri Rakesh Saksena Hon'ble Justice Shri T.K.Kaushal CRIMINAL REFERENCE NO.1/2012 In reference Received from: Presiding Officer,Children's Court & Sessions Judge, East-Nimar Khandwa (M.P.) -Versus- Vinot S/o Kishanlal Gawli, aged 22 years R/o Khalwa, Khandwa. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.D.Jain, Senior Advocate/Advocate General for the State. Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing:26. 07/2012 Date of Order :07. 08/2012 ********** ORDER Per: Rakesh Saksena,J.Sessions Judge, East-Nimar, Khandwa acting under section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') has made this reference under the following circumstances:- Judi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.416 OF2018(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.5661 of 2017) DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN Appellant VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. Respondents JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 5th May, 2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No.1015 of 2016.2. this Court:- On 20th November, 2017 the following order was passed by Heard learned counsel for the parties. Certain adverse remarks were recorded against respondent No.2-Bhaskar Karbhari Gaidwad by the Principal and Head of the Department of the College of Pharmacy where respondent No.2 was employed. Respondent No.2 sought 1 sanction for his prosecution under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for certain other connected offences. The said matter was dealt with by the petitioner a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3134-3135 OF2023[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO(S).8708-8709/2019 ]. THE SUB REGISTRAR, AMUDALAVALASA & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S DANKUNI STEELS LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. By order dated 13.06.2002, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh ordered M/s. Midwest Iron & Steel company Ltd. (which is Respondent No.3 in the appeals) to be wound up. Though pursuant to order dated 22.09.2003, efforts were made to sell the property of respondent no.3 in three lots, finally, based on an auction for a consolidated sale, the 1 second respondent herein, namely, M/s. SMC Marketing Private Ltd. who figured as the highest bidder, became the successful auction purchaser. It bid for the property which consisted of land, building, civil works, plant & machinery and current assets, etc. The amount for which the second respondent was declared the highest bidder was Rs.8.35 crore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(1)ALD810; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)298; 1998(1)ALT329
ORDER1. The third respondent a women Organisation called Prerana Woman's Welfare Organisation, Hyderabad proposedto hold a beauty contest called 'Miss Andhra Personality Contest' (in short, beauty contest) on 10-8-1997 at Bharathi Vidya Bhavan, Hyderabad which was opposed by the other organisations called A.P. Mahila Samakhya, Hyderabad, All India Mahila Samskrithika Sangam (AIMSS), Progressive Organisation for Women (POW), and one Maharaja Sir Kishen Pershad Foundation, Hyderabad by sending petitions to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court, based upon which this public interest litigation (PIL) was registered as a taken up matter and the organisations were treated as the petitioners whereas the Respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Respondent No.2, the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Respondent No.3 Prerana Women s Organisation, Hyderabad were called upon to answer the petitioners. Subsequently, the other respondents were added among whom Respondent 4 is one...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALT661
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The relief prayed for by the writ petitioner, Nimmaka Jayaraju, is for a writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the District Collector -Respondent No. 5 to initiate prosecution against respondent No. 7, and direct respondent No. 2 to recover pay and allowances paid to respondent No. 7 while he represented as Member of Lok Sabha and also direct respondent No. 4 to recover pay and allowances paid to respondent No. 7 during the periods he represented as member, legislative Assembly and pass such other suitable orders.2. The interim relief prayed for is for a direction to respondent No1 to dismiss respondent No. 7 as Cabinet Minister of the Government of Andhra Pradesh during the pendancy of the writ petition and pass such other suitable orders.3. This Court ordered notice before admission on 9-6-2006 and the learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department had taken notice and requested time to file cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(4)AWC3281
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Controversy relates to interpretation of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether against an order issuing notice to defendants on an application for temporary injunction filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be maintainable is the question involved in the present writ petition?2. Plaintiffs opposite parties No. 2 to 6 had filed a Regular Suit No. 129 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Lucknow for permanent injunction. According to plaintiffs they are migrants from Pakistan and settled in this country during the partition years. The Government of India had rehabilitated them in various parts of the country. According to plaintiff respondents, the Cantonment Board had allotted to plaintiffs family the shops in question. They have got certain gumties on Nehru Road near Sadar Bazar Chauraha, Cantonment Lucknow, alleged to be allotted to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3127; JT1997(6)SC637; 1997(5)SCALE90; (1997)8SCC522; [1997]Supp2SCR507
K. RAMASWAMY, J. (dissenting) 1. Application/s for impleadment allowed. 2. These appeals and transfer cases are wrapped up of complex facts interwoven with diverse principles in service jurisprudence, compounded by legislative intervention impinging upon judicial review by enacting Act 20 of 1995 to regulate the conditions of service of persons appointed to the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department Buildings and Roads Branch, Public Health Branch and Irrigation Branch respectively. The said Act 20 of 1995 (for short the Act) came into force with effect from 13-11-1995. It amended and repealed the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Buildings and Roads Branch), (Public Health Branch) and (Irrigation Branch) Rules, Irrigation Branch by Ordinance 6 of 1995. The latter repealed the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Buildings and Roads Branch), (Public Health Branch) Rules, 1960 and (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1961 (sic 1964) issued under proviso to...
Tag this Judgment!