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 : Chennai
Reported in : (1977)IILLJ214Mad
1. These three appeals have been filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation against the common judgment of Venkataraman, J., in C.M.A. Nos. 260, 26l and 262 of 1968 The respondents in each of the appeals before us are different, but the question raised is the same. It arises in the following circumstances2. The respondents are textile mills in Combater District They had constructed their factories some time ago. Ever since then, they have been engaged in the production of yarn. Recently each of these mills proceeded to put up additional factory buildings for installing extra spindles and for expanding production. Construction workers were, naturally, employed to do the work of actual construction of these additional buildings 3. The question arose whether these construction workers were employees within the meaning of the Employees' Mate Insurance Act, 1948. If they were, then the respondents were under a statutory obligation to pay the contribution to the Employees' State Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(1)SC31; 1994(5)SCALE107; (1995)1SCC428; [1994]Supp6SCR316
J.S. Verma, J.1. The above appeal by special leave is against the order dated 11,4.1994 passed under Section 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the one member Tribunal comprising of B.M. Lal, J., a Judge of the Allahabad High Court constituted under Section 5 of the Act, confirming the declaration made by the Central Government in the notification dated 10 12.1992 issued under Sub-section (1) of' Section 3 of the Act that Jamaat-E-Islami-Hind is an 'unlawful association' as defined in the said Act. The above writ petition has been filed in addition to the said appeal, in the alternative, for a declaration that the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder arc unconstitutional and ultra vires some of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India.2. The broad submission of Shri Soli J. Sorabjee on behalf of the said association is, that in the event a construction is made of the provisions of the...
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
Reported in : JT1991(3)SC198; (1992)IILLJ53bSC; 1991(2)SCALE150; (1991)3SCC655; [1991]3SCR189a
Ray, J.; [Concurring]1. I have had the advantage of deciphering the two draft judgments prepared by my learned brothers Shetty and Verma, JJ. I agree with the conclusions arrived at by my learned brother Shetty, J. Yet considering the great importance of the questions involved in this matter, I deem it just and proper to consider the same and to express my own views.2. Three very important questions fall for decision in this case. First of all whether a Judge of the Supreme Court or a Judge of a High Court is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act interprets a public servant as meaning a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. Act 45 of 1860. Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code states that a public servant denotes a person falling under any of the description mentioned therein:Third-Every Judge including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(79)ECC51
1. In these groups of matters, we are concerned with 3 Appeals and one Cross Objection. 2 appeals viz. Appeals Nos. 496/99-Mum and E/1424/2000-Mum have been filed by the assessee and Appeal No.E/195/01-Mum has been filed by the Department by means Central Board of Excise & Customs Review Order dated 6.11.2000. The above Appeals Nos.E/1424/00-Mum and E/195/01-Mum have been filed against Order-in-Original dated 10.1.2000 whereas Appeal No. 496/99-Mum has been filed against Order-in-Original dtd. 3.11.98. Memorandum of Cross Objection No. E/CO-39/01-Mum has been filed by the assessee in Appeal No. E/195/01-Mum filed by the Department.2. By Orders-in-Original dated 12.11.98 and 10.1.2000 the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai VI has held that the assessee who is a manufacturer of synthetic detergents and who is registered as Co-operative Women Society and also registered under Khadi & Village Industries Act 1956, is not entitled to exemption claimed under Notification No. 88/8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1972LabIC627; (1972)ILLJ1SC; (1972)4SCC618; [1972]2SCR218; 1972(4)LC126(SC)
1. This is an appeal by Special Leave filed by the Union of India from the judgment in appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of the Delhi High Court confirming the decision of a learned Single Judge allowing Civil Writ No. 716-D of 1964 filed by the Respondent by quashing the order made by the President on 23rd April, 1963 compulsorily retiring the Respondent from service.2. The Respondent, Shri Sardar Bahadur, was employed as a Section Officer in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in the Steel & Cement Section (B) which along with other sections like Industries Act and Industrial Policy etc. was under the control of Shri P. S. Sundaram, Deputy Secretary in that Ministry at that time.3. In April, 1956, the Ministry invited applications for grant of licences to set up steel re-rolling mills.4. On June 14, 1956, one Shri Nand Kumar representing Messrs Ram Sarup Mam Chand and Messrs Mam Chand and Company of Calcutta applied for five licences to set up steel re-rolling mills. He also...
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. 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!