Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Jul-07-2010
LORD HOPE These appeals raise the question as to the test which is to be applied when considering whether a gay person who is claiming asylum under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951, as applied by the 1967 Protocol ("the Convention") has a well-founded fear of persecution in the country of his or her nationality based on membership of that particular social group. The need for reliable guidance on this issue is growing day by day. Persecution for reasons of homosexuality was not perceived as a problem by the High Contracting Parties when the Convention was being drafted. For many years the risk of persecution in countries where it now exists seemed remote. It was the practice for leaders in these countries simply to insist that homosexuality did not exist. This was manifest nonsense, but at least it avoided the evil of persecution. More recently, fanned by misguided but vigorous religious doctrine, the situation has changed dramatically. The ultra-conservative in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-25-2010
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The present petition by Prempal (Petitioner No. 1), his wife, Munni Devi (Petitioner No. 2) and his four children (Petitioners 3 to 6) claims compensation for the undue harassment that Prempal and his family have been subject to at the hands of the Delhi Police.The judgment of the learned ASJ2. The basis for the claim is a judgment dated 28th September 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), New Delhi in SC No. 29 of 2002 (State v. Prempal) acquitting the Petitioner of the offence under Section 376 IPC. In the process, the learned ASJ observed:This case is a glaring example that the poor in this country have no say and if they cry for justice, their cries fall on deaf ears. They are made to suffer and pay by their life and liberty, when they complain against police officials.3. After narrating the long history of the suffering undergone by Prempal, at the hands of the police for about 15 years in a number of false cases, including the one in which he was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-26-2010
Reported in : [2010]99SCL268(Mad)
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed for mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to be accompanied by an advocate of his choice when he appears before the respondent in pursuant of the summons issued to them under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) and recording of statement, though the advocate will be present beyond the hearing distance, if need be.2. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in W.P. No. 23110 of 2009, in nutshell is set out hereunder:(i) The petitioner is a businessman and has a jewellery shop under the name of Sri Vasavi Gold & Bullion (P.) Ltd., at N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai. He is assessed to Sales tax and Income-tax. All of a sudden, the officers of the respondent conducted a search in his shop on 23-10-2009. They did not recover any document or any other incriminating material. However, they forcibly took him to the office of the Enforcement Directorate at S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-03-2010
1. These Appeals assail the composite Judgment dated 6.8.1996 of the learned Single Judge deciding Probate Case Nos.24/1973 and 32/1978 refusing the prayer of the Petitioners to grant probate of the propounded Wills of Late Kundan Singh and Late Polo Singh respectively.2. Probate Case No.24/1973 was filed for grant of probate of Will of Late Kundan Singh and Probate Case No.32/1978 was filed seeking probate of the Will of Late Polo Singh, who was the brother of Late Kundan Singh. The Petitioners in both the cases are common namely S/Shri Hari Singh, Pritam Singh and Amar Singh, however, in Appeal only S/Shri Hari Singh and Pritam Singh are before us as Shri Amar Singh had died on 4.7.1995. An application under Order XXII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) was moved by the surviving Petitioners which was allowed without any opposition from the other side.3. Objections were filed in Probate Case No.24/1973 by the daughter of Late Kundan Singh, namely, Smt. Gurbax...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-05-2010
1. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court is whether the application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for making a reference to the Court was maintainable and the High Court committed an error by quashing the proceedings of O.P. No.31 of 2000 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli (hereinafter referred to as `the Reference Court').2. The land of the appellant (20 acres 11 guntas) was acquired by the State Government in 1985 as a part of acquisition of large tract of land for mining operations to be undertaken by respondent No.1 - Singareni Collieries Company Pvt. Ltd. By an award dated 3.8.1987, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value of the acquired land at Rs.7,000/- per acre for dry land under cultivation (category I) and Rs.6,000/- per acre for dry land which was kept fallow (category II).3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-09-2010
1.Leave granted.2.This appeal, by special leave, filed by the State of Maharashtra and its functionaries, arises out of the judgment dated 26th April, 2007 delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.1721 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, passed in an application under Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short "the Code") read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has set aside and quashed notification dated 20th December, 2006, issued in the name of Governor of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Code, directing forfeiture of every copy of the book captioned as "Shivaji - Hindu King in Islamic India" written by one Prof. James W. Laine.3.The three writ petitioners, who are respondents No.1, 2 and 3 herein, are respectively stated to be a well known lawyer and a public activist in the Ambedkarite movement, intended to mobilize the deprived sections of the society;...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-25-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides.2. W.P. Nos. 25915 to 25919 of 2009 are filed by the petitioners who are the employees of the Food Corporation of India. Incidentally, they are also members of the Food Corporation of India (South Zone) Employees Co-operative Society which is registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioners in these five writ petitions challenge a communication dated 24.11.2009 issued by the second respondent, General Manager, Regional Office of the Food Corporation of India, Chennai and another proceedings of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India dated 25.11.2009. The first order is an internal communication of the Food Corporation of India and the second order is not addressed to the petitioners and did not pertain to them.3. These writ petitions were admitted on 15.12.2009. Pending the writ petitions, in M.P. No. 3 of 2009, an interim stay was granted staying all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders. In M.P. No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-12-2010
Reported in : 166(2010)DLT305; 2010(1)KarLJ472
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2nd September, 2009 of the learned single Judge (S. Ravindra Bhat, J) in the writ petition filed by the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, 'the CPIO') nominated under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, 'the Act') questioning correctness and legality of the order dated 6th January, 2009 of the Central Information Commission (hereinafter, 'the CIC') whereby the request of the respondent No. 1 (a public person) for supply of information concerning declaration of personal assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court was upheld.PREFACE2. The subject matter at hand involves questions of great importance concerning balance of rights of individuals and equities against the backdrop of paradigm changes brought about by the legislature through the Act ushering in an era of transparency, probity and accountability as also the increasing expectation of the civil society tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-07-2010
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This common order will dispose of all the pending applications, show cause notices and Chairman' reports.2. The background in which the present proceedings have emanated can be briefly mentioned as follows: The unsecured creditors of M/s. Europlast India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `E' for the sake of brevity) passed resolution on 14th October, 2000 which read thus:.Resolved that subject to floor price for sale of the assets of the `E' company i.e. Land and factory building at Khopoli is fixed at Rs. 3.60 Crores. Creditors are voting for the following Scheme.The amount will be paid to the creditors through the Hon'ble Court within three months from the date of receipt of the entire consideration in proportionate after incorporating the additional names of creditors, if any, not later than three months from today after proper verification from the Books of Accounts of the Applicant company and rest of the claim is given up by the creditors.Provided that the Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-24-2010
S. Muralidhar, J.1. Interesting questions of law concerning powers and jurisdiction of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (I RDA), Respondent No. 2 herein under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 (hereafter 'Insurance Act') and the powers of the Central Government, Respondent No. 1 herein, as the Appellate Authority under Section 110H of the Insurance Act, arise for consideration in the present writ petition.Background Facts2. The Respondent No. 3 M/s J.P. Exports, having its place of business in Renigunta at Andhra Pradesh, is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of Red Sanders Wood. Respondent No. 3 took a Fire Policy from the Petitioner for the stock of Red Sanders Wood in its godown at the premises located in Srikalahasti Road, Renigunta, Andhra Pradesh. The fire policy for the period 29th March 1996 to 28th March 1997 covered stocks furniture and fixtures stored at its premises for a sum of Rs. 29.5 crores. The sum ensured was enhanced by 2.25 crores on 4...
Tag this Judgment!