Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC320; JT1991(6)SC184; 1991(2)SCALE844; (1991)4SCC699; [1991]Supp2SCR1
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.These writ petitions raise certain constitutional issues of quite some importance bearing on the construction of Articles 121 and 124 of the Constitution of India and of the 'The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968' even as they in the context in which they are brought, are somewhat unfortunate.Notice was given by 108 members of the 9th Lok Sabha, the term of which came to an end upon its dissolution, of a Motion for presenting an Address to the President for the removal of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of this Court. On 12th March, 1991, the motion was admitted by the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha who also proceeded to constitute a Committee consisting of Mr. Justice P.B. Sawant, a sitting Judge of this Court, Mr. Justice P.D. Desai, Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay, and Mr. Justice O. Chinappa Reddy, a distinguished jurist in terms of Section 3(2) of The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.The occasion for such controversy as is raised in these proceedings is the refusal of the Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1407; JT1992(5)SC92; 1992(1)SCALE484; (1992)4SCC605; [1992]Supp1SCR53
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. Both these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment since they involve for decision substantially the same points. In Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992, the petitioner M. Krishna Swami is a member of the Tenth Lok Sabha from Tamil Nadu while in Writ Petition No. 140 of 1992, the petitioner Raj Kanwar is an advocate of District Karnal in Haryana. Both these petitions are stated to have been filed in public interest and relate to the proceedings for the removal from office of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court of India initiated by the notice of motion given to the Speaker by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha. It is unnecessary to state further facts herein and it would suffice to say that both these petitions are a sequel to the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1992SC320 - and were filed prior to Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992-Mrs. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2219; JT1992(5)SC1; 1992(2)SCALE257; (1992)4SCC506; [1992]Supp1SCR108
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. The person entitled to seek judicial review and the stage at which it is available against the findings of the Inquiry Committee constituted under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in accordance with the law declared in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountably v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1992SC320 -is the question for decision in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the remedy of judicial review is available to the concerned Judge against the finding, if any, by the Inquiry Committee that the learned Judge is 'guilty' of misbehavior only prior to submission of the report of the Committee to the Speaker in accordance with Section 4(2) of the Act or latest till it is laid before the Parliament as required by Section 4(3) of the Act, but not thereafter. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that a copy of the report should be furnished to the concerned Judge before it is submitted to the Speaker, to preser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This petition is directed against order dated 24.4.2011 passed by the Committee constituted by the Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) (for short, `the Chairman') under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (for short, “the Act”) rejecting the petitioner's prayer for supply of the details and documents enumerated in paragraph 4(a) to (m) of application dated 19.4.2011 and objections raised by him to the jurisdiction of the Committee to frame certain charges. 2. Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for removal of the petitioner, who was then posted as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India. The acts of misbehaviour allegedly committed by the petitioner were enumerated in the notice, which was accompanied by an explanatory note and documents in support of the allegations. For the sake of convenient ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Although, the prayers made in this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution are for quashing order dated 24.4.2011 passed by the Committee constituted by the Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (for short, the Act ) and for grant of a declaration that the proceedings conducted by the Committee on 24.4.2011 are null and void, the tenor of the grounds on which these prayers are founded shows that the petitioner is also aggrieved by the inclusion of respondent No.3-Shri P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India in the Committee under Section 3(2)(c) of the Act. 2. Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for removal of the petitioner, who was then posted as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India. The notice enumerated the acts of misbehaviour allegedly comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi714
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by (1) The General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Calcutta, and (2) The Secretary, Railway Board, New Delhi, against the judgment of Jagjit Singh, J. dated February 3, 1971, whereby the learned Judge allowed Civil Writ Petition No. 699-D of 1963, quashed an order of the General Manager, dated July 25, 1957, and an order of the Railway Board, dated December 24, 1962, and directed the General Manager and the Secretary, Railway Board, respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition (appellants herein), to reinstate the respondent herein, Ajit Kumar Bhattacharjee, in case he had not already attained the age of superannuation. (2) The respondent herein, Ajit Kumar Bhattacharjee, filed the aforesaid Civil Writ Petition in the following circumstances. He started his service on November 28, 1942, as a temporary Assistant Station Master in the then Bengal Nagpur Railway Company. He was confirmed on that post with effect from December ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 70(1997)DLT671
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) The petitions, six in number, raise a common question, which can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. Petitioners in each of the petitions have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of india for setting aside the impugned order, Annexure F, dated 4.8.1995 passed by the Liber han Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry (for short 'the Commission') and for quashing of notice, Annexure C, dated 28.4.1995 issued under Section 8-B of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Act No. 60 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Sections of the Act, after forming an opinion that it was necessary to appoint a Commission for the purpose of making an inquiry into a definite matter of public importance, namely, destruction of Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid Structure at Ayodhya (for short 'the Structure') on 6.12.1992, appointed Justice Shri Manmohan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1958All234
Desai, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from a decree of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut, for Rs. 5,135/11/- on account of damages for loss of goods. On 10-8-1942 a consignment of 37 bales of gunny bags was booked from Jogbani railway station on the Bengal and Assam Railway to Ghaziabad on the East Indian Railway under railway risk note H by the Biratnagar Jute Mills Ltd. The consignee was the Jute Mills Ltd. itself and the railway receipt was assigned by it to the respondent, who thereupon became entitled to take delivery of the goods at Gaziabad.The consignment was placed in wagon No. 15317 and the train left Jogbani on the the same day and reached Katihar Junction on 11-8-1942. At Katihar the wagon was detached from the train and handed over to the appellant, which was then known as the Bengal North Western Railway, for conveyance to Bara Banki from where it was to be carried by the East Indian Railway to the destination, Ghaziabad. The appellant took charge of the wagon at Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1902)ILR29Cal73
Banerjee, J.1. Is there any conflict2. The question, has not been referred to the Full Bench in a limited form.Maclean, C.J.3. There can be a Full Bench reference only when there is a conflict of judicial opinion on the point.4. I submit that the whole question' has been referred to the Full Bench, i. e., whether a suit lies to set aside the sale.5. Held by Maclean C.J. and Prinsep and Ameer Ali JJ. (Banerjee and Rampini JJ. dissenting) that it was not open to the learned pleader to argue his first point.6. My second point is that the suit was barred by Section 3127. [Babu Lalmohan Das, for the respondents: I contend that the second point also did not arise on the reference.]8. [Maclean C. J. I think you must confine your argument to the question arising on Section 2 of Bengal Act VII of 1868. If we hold that section is no bar, you can argue the other points when the case goes back to the Division Bench.]9. Then I submit that Section 2 of Bengal Act VII of 1868 does not apply to the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD111
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. This appeal arises out of O.P. No. 718 of 1988 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram.2. This appeal is filed by the claimant having not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. His case was that he was working as a driver on a passenger bus bearing No. AP 35 T 3337, which was given on hire to A.P.S.R.T.C. On 21.6.1997 while the bus was going with passengers at about 6.00 a.m., a lorry bearing No. AP 31 T 7074 came in the opposite direction at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus near Dwarapudi Junction. As a result of the accident, the claimant (i.e.,) driver of the bus under hire to A.P.S.R.T.C. and the passengers travelling in his bus received injuries. As far as the claimant is concerned, he received fracture of femur on the right thigh and other simple injuries. Hence, he filed M.V.CP.No. 718 of 1998 claiming compensation of Rupees two lakhs by impleading the owner of the lorry, its insurer, owner of t...
Tag this Judgment!