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 : 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
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 : Guwahati
A.H. Saikia, J.1. None appears for the petitioner when the matter is taken up for hearing, despite the names of the learned counsel being shown in the related cause list, has been pending since 1995. Considering the importance of the issue involved in this revision petition, this Court has requested Mr. B.C. Das, learned counsel to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.2. In this criminal revision, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23-6-1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hallari in CR. No. 552/97 under Section 304(A), I.P.C.3. For better appreciation of the question raised in this revision, it is apt and necessary to refer the impugned order dated 23-6-1995 which may be extracted as under :--'Accused present, judgment is deferred as I find that two materials witnesses are not examined. One is Nandi Barman and another some Deka Store Keeper of that time. Therefore, issue summon to them to appear before the Court as Court witness fixing 27-7-1995.'From th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972MP87; 1972MPLJ274
Naik, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution whereby the petitioner a private limited transport company, operating stage carriages, challenges its liability, under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) to pay to the State Government, the passengers tax collected by it, for the period 1-2-1961 to 6-5-1962 and which it had failed to deposit into the Government treasury in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. 2. The only question that arises for consideration is whether a tax payable by a stage carriage operator under Section 6 of the Act in accordance with, the return submitted by It under Section 5 of the Act, which he had failed to deposit into a Government treasury within the time prescribed or ever could be recovered from it under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. 3. The question has been answered in the affir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)2GLR1234; (1994)IILLJ1234Guj
1. The only question which arises in these three petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the constitution of India filed by the Industrial Company is whether the Labour court had committed an error of law or jurisdiction by committing procedural irregularity in calling upon the employer to produce documentary and oral evidence in three reference cases relating to dismissal of the three workmen. The petitioner in all the three petitions is the same. Originally thirty-three references were made to the Labour court, Rajkot, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act relating to dismissal of thirty-three workmen, but thirty disputes came to be settled or disposed of in accordance with law. 2(a) The workman Mahavirsinh Shivubha was a gardener in the garden department of the petitioner's factory and his services were terminated with effect from 25.1.1982, hence the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in Reference (LC) No. 958 of 1984. 2(b) The workman Raghu Arjan who was serving as T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR378; 1978MhLJ611
Jahagirdar, J.1. Despite the fact that there is a somewhat long history of litigation between the parties, it would be enough for the purpose of the disposal of this petition to narrate only few facts. The petition arises out of the proceedings under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act'). The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of the suit premises which are one Gala in House No. 85 at village Bhaindar, in Thana taluka of Thana District. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner is the son-in-law of the respondent but his wife is dead for some years. Originally there was an agitation about the character of the holding of the petitioner as to whether it was a licence or a lease. That controversy no longer survives and the parties have now proceeded on the basis that the petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of the suit premises.2. The respondent filed a suit, b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1983Bom291
ORDER1. Madangopal Zumbarlal Chaudhari Agarwal of Achalpur city, taluka Achalpur, district Amravati obtained a preliminary decree against defendants Bhagwant and his two sons Prabhakar and Madhukar for foreclosure on the basis of a mortgage for Rupees 5,510.82 Possession and defendant having failed to pay the amount, applied on 19-2-1968 by Exempted. 1, application for making the decree final. Defendants filed an application under Section 24 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act claiming in statements. It was registered as M. J. C. No. 34 of 1968 (at places this is referred as M. J. C. No. 134/1968). This application was filed on 13-10-1968 (at some places this date is indicated as 4-11-1968). On 15-10-1968 defendants filed an application under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act, 1956 (for short, referred to hereinafter as M. P. Act), praying of postponement of final decree proceedings in terms of the said Act, Say of plaintiffs was filed on 25...
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
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!