Court : Mumbai
1. These references for confirmation under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code (the Code for short) arise from the separate order of conviction and sentence passed on 26/5/2009 by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2005 and Sessions Case No. 5 of 2005. In the said Sessions Case in all seven accused came to be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364A, 394, 397, 404, 201(I), 201(II), 212, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 5, 6 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 25/5/2009, was pleased to acquit accused nos.4 and 7 on all the charges and on 26/5/2009, he passed an order convicting accused no.1, accused no.2, accused no. 3 and accused no.6 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364A read with Section 120B of IPC for having murdered four members of Mali family i.e. Sanjay Kerubhai Mali, Rajesh Kerubhai Mali, Anita Kerubhai Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1993Raj1
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 25-1 -1991 whereby the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are : that the petitioner-appellant is a practising Advocate in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. He was enrolled as an Advocate on 27-12-1965 under the Advocates Act, 1961. He being a practising Advocate is very much interested in the matter of appointment of Chief Justice and other Judges of High Court and Supreme Court of India. He has submitted that he fulfils the qualification for appointment as Chief Justice or Judge of the Supreme Court, or Chief Justice or Judge of the High Court as laid down by Articles 124(3)(b) and 217(2)(b) of the Constitution. According to him, these appointm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 29.3.2012, Public (Special.A) Department and to quash the same and to consequently quash G.O.Ms.No.311, dated 29.3.2012, Public (Special.A) Department and to direct the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.16, Public (Special.A) Department, dated 5.1.2011 appointing the petitioner as District Judge (Entry Level) in original seniority from the dat of his appointment and to accord such posting to the petitioner. (amended as per order dated 23.4.2012 in M.P.No.2 of 2012 in W.P.(MD) No.739 of 2012).ORDERP.JYOTHIMANI,J.1. It behooves us to give a short prelude to this case. The issue relating to appointment of District Judges (Entry Level) by way of direct recruitment came up for consideration in W.P.Nos.25778 and 26588 of 2010, wherein a notification issued by the Government in respect of the said appointments c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)3GLR1841; (2005)ILLJ592Guj
K.R. Vyas, J.1. This group of petitions has been referred to us in view of different observations of two Division Benches on the point as to whether the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal can order regularisation of services to a local authority which is a public body in which there is no availability of sanctioned set-up as per the provisions of Municipalities Act.1.1 The learned single Judge, while hearing Special Civil Application No. 5646 of 1999 and Special Civil Application No. 5750 of 1999, was shown two different views expressed by Division Bench in the case of Kalol Municipality v. Shantaben, reported in : (1994)IILLJ362Guj and in the case of Halvad Nagarpalika and Ors. v. Jani Dipakbhai Chandravadanbhai and Ors., reported in 2003 (4) GLR 3229 : 2003 (2) GHCJ 397,1.2 In Special Civil Application No. 5746 of 1999, the petitioner Amreli Municipality has challenged the legality and validity of award dated 12-3-1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(2)ALD157; 2004(4)ALT14
G. Yethirajulu, J.Introduction:1. This election petition is filed under Sections 5, 100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ('the Act' for brevity) by an unsuccessful candidate of the Legislative Assembly Elections, 1999 to declare the election of the first respondent as Member of the Legislative Assembly from 8 Naguru (Scheduled Tribe) Assembly Constituency as void, to set aside the same and to declare him as duly elected to the said Assembly Constituency.Pleadings :2. The averments of the petition are briefly as follows:3. The petitioner belongs to Jatapu tribe, which is including in the list of Scheduled Tribes (STs). The election to the 8 Naguru (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency was held on 11-9-1999. It is a reserved constituency for Scheduled Tribes. In the said election, the petitioner and the first respondent contested as Telugu Desam Parry (TDP) and Congress-I Party candidates. The Respondents 2 to 4 contested from other parties. The first respondent was de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR3710; 2005(4)KarLJ481
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These batches of writ petitions are filed by the owners of agricultural and/or converted lands, house sites, residential/farm houses, companies and builders and others questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the acquisition of vast extent of lands for a development scheme called ARKAVATHI LAYOUT. The main features of the layout, as mentioned in the report of the Engineering Department of the BDA, are:(a) Total extent of land required : 2750 acres(b) Proposed residential sites : 28600(c) Civic Amenity sites : 50(d) Commercial sites : 150(e) Total estimation : Rs. 933.47 Crores(f) Total amount received : Rs. 981.36 Crores(g) Saving : Rs. 47.89 Crores(h) No. of villages covered : 16(i) No. of applicants : 2,32,000The details of various dimensions of the residential sites, the extent of land used for various purposes such as residential sites, park and play grounds, civic amenities, roads etc., the amount that would be realised from the sites, the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1043; 2003(2)ALLMR(SC)1091; 2003(2)ALT22(SC); 95(2003)CLT445(SC); [2003]113CompCas536(SC); (2004)1CompLJ321(SC); 2003(1)CTC409; [2003(96)FLR743]; JT2003(1)SC344; R
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The primal question involved in this batch of appeals and the Writ Petitions is the constitutionality of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. Civil Appeals No. 4613 and 4614 of 1999 filed by Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society arise out of a judgment and order dated 18.12.1998 passed by a division bench of the High Court of Karnataka upholding the vires of the Consumer Protection Act, 1985 (the Act). State of Karnataka has filed the Appeal being C.A. No. 9927 of 1996 against the judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court questioning certain observations made therein as regards interpretation of Section 25 of the Act.3. Dr. R.D. Prabhu and Shri. B. Krishna Bhat and others filed the Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India questioning the constitutionality of the said Act.4. The contentions raised on behalf of Appellants Petitioners are as under:(1)(a) The Parliament is not empowered to establish hierar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR3148
ORDERShyamasundar, J. 1. These and other connected Writ Petitions running into two or three thousand in number are directed against four common entities who are arrayed as respondents in these Writ Petitions, their commonness extending even to their itemised positions in the Petitions in that the State is arrayed as the first respondent in all these petitions, the Deputy Commissioners as respondent No. 2, the Administrators as respondent No. 3 and the Mandal Panchayats as respondent No. 4. The common characteristic as aforesaid does not stop just there but spreads even to the factual aspects and the legal issues raised in every one of these Writ Petitions challenging the appointment of Administrators to all the Mandal Panchayats existing in the State of Karnataka numbering in all about 2534 according to information furnished at the hearing of the Writ Petitions.2. The petitioners in all these cases are the Pradhans of the Mandal Panchayats. The office of a Pradhan is an electoral one. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas126(Mad); (1984)IILLJ34Mad
Mohan, J.1. An important question arising in this batch of cases is whether the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Shops Act), is applicable to the Nationalised Banks and to the State Bank of India. 2. We would first note the facts leading to Writ Appeals Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983. They arise out of Writ Petitions Nos. 2013 and 2014 of 1979. Writ Petition No. 2013 of 1979 is for a mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispense of the preliminary objection raised by the Management of the Bank of India, Regional Office, Southern Region, represented by the Assistant General Manger, Madras, in regard to the maintainability of T.S.E. Case No. 49 of 1875, of the file of the Second Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in the appeal preferred by the employee, C. V. Raman, under section 41 of the Act. 3. Writ Petition No. 2014 of 1979 is for prohibition to prohibit the Additional Commissioner from proceeding to take up for pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)BomCR705
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The challenge in all these petitions is to the constitutional validity of Sections 33A and 33B of the Bombay Police Act, as amended by the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005. The bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 21st July, 2005 and by the Legislative Council on 23rd July, 2005 and has now come into force. The Sections under challenge may be gainfully reproduced:33A(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate under sub-section (1) of Section 33 for the area under their respective charges, on and from the date of commencement of the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005,-(a) holding of a performance of dance, of any kind or type, in any eating house, permit room or beer bar is prohibited;(b) all performance licences, issued under the aforesaid rules by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate or any other officer, as the case may be, being the Licensing Authority,...
Tag this Judgment!