Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioners have filed the above writ petitions challenging the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'MPLAD Scheme') as ultra vires of the Constitution of India. They also prayed for direction from this Court for scrapping of the MPLAD Scheme and for impartial investigation for the misuse of the funds allocated in the Scheme.2. Though the challenge in the writ petitions and the transferred cases is to the constitutional validity of the MPLAD Scheme, in view of substantial question of interpretation of Articles 275 and 282 of the Constitution of India are involved, particularly, transfer of funds from the Union Government to the Members of Parliament, by reference dated 12th July, 2006 a three-Judge Bench headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India referred the same to a Constitution Bench. In this way, the above matters are heard by this Constitution Bench.3. Brief facts:On 23.12.1993, the then Prime Minister annou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC1,2010(3)LC1203(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. In this batch of civil appeals, we are basically concerned with the doctrine and jurisprudence of delegated legislation.QUESTIONS OF LAW:4. The crucial points that arise for determination are:(i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 ('2003 Act') has jurisdiction under Section 111 to examine the validity of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Fixation of Trading Margin) Regulations, 2006 framed in exercise of power conferred under Section 178 of the 2003 Act? (ii) Whether Parliament has conferred power of judicial review on the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity under Section 121 of the 2003 Act? (iii) Whether capping of trading margins could be done by the CERC ('Central Commission') by making a Regulation in that regard under Section 178 of the 2003 Act?FACTS:5. In this batch of civil appeals, appellants had challenged the vires of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Fixation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE232
1. Permission to file Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18843/2007 and 18846/2007 granted. Delay condoned and leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions. We also condone the delay in filing the applications for substitution and allow the applications for substitution. We also allow the applications for impleadment.2. These Civil Appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 22.12.2006 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in a batch of Writ Petitions in relation to 34 acres and 3 guntas of Inam land in Bangalore District which was allotted by the State Government to an association of teachers for construction of houses and for which the Bangalore Development Authority has sanctioned a lay out plan. The Bangalore Development Authority has filed Civil Appeal No. 3037/2007, the legal representatives of Inamdars have filed Civil Appeal No. 3038/2007, the Teachers' Colony Residents Association has filed Civil Appeal No. 3049/2007 and several owners of the house sites...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2010)228CTR(Kar)1; [2010]186TAXMAN233(Kar)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar 1. This is an appeal of the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') directed against the order dated 31.03.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in ITA No. 863/3ang/2002 on the premise that the following two substantial questions of law which arises out of the order of the Tribunal has been wrongly decided by the Tribunal.Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that interest under Section 234B of the Act cannot be levied against the assessee as the computation of income has been made under Section 115JA of the Act.Whether the Tribunal was correct in taking into consideration irrelevant circumstances like 'bonafides of the assessee', 'whether the default was committed deliberately', in failing to pay advance tax under Section 208 of the Act when Section 234B interest is levied automatically as there is no discretion.2. The assessee is a company, assessment year is 1997-98 and the only dispute between the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 108(2009)CLT842(SC); 162(2009)DLT50(SC); JT2009(11)SC383; 2009(II)OLR(SC)665; 2009(11)SCALE77; (2009)10SCC1
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The Parliament enacted the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') to provide for better organization and development of school education in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT) and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act deals with education at pre-primary stage, primary stage, secondary stage and senior secondary stage.2. The Act contains an interpretion clause defining a large number of words mentioned therein including `aided school', `minority school' and `unaided minority school'.Section 3 of the Act empowers an 'Administrator' to regulate education in schools. Section 5 provides for the scheme of management of every recognized school in terms of the rules framed under the Act. It provides for the mode and manner in which fees and other charges to be levied and collected by the schools.Section 18 provides for a `school fund' known as the 'Recognised Unaided School Fund'; Sub-section (4) whereof mandates that income d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ289
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. In these writ petitions, the challenge is to the amendment brought in by the Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1996 to the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Second Amendment Act, 1994 and a prayer is sought to declare them as ultra vires and unconstitutional.2. Sections 4 to 6 of the Amendment Act reads as follows:Section 4. Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961, as subsequently modified, to have effect subject to modifications.- The principal Act shall, on and from the 6th day of April 1960, have effect, as if, Section 22 had been renumbered as Sub-section (1) of that section and after Sub-section (1) as so renumbered, the following Sub-section had been added, namely:2. For the purpose of Sub-section (1) if any transfer or partition has the effect of reducing the extent of surplus land in excess of the ceiling area, such transfer or partition, whether bona fide or not, shall be construed as defeating the provisions of this Act. Section 5. Validation.- Notwithstanding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(1)BomCR501
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In the above, the following questions have been>referred to us by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice:(1) Whether in the circumstances and seriousness of the problem, the danger posed and the menace caused by the stray dogs, resort can be had to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the relevant provisions of the Bombay Municipalities Act, Maharashtra Municipalities Act and the Goa Municipalities Act and other enactments?(2) Whether inspite of the aforesaid provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and other Acts referred to above, the killing of the stray dogs has to be totally prohibited?2. Before answering the aforesaid two questions a little background would be necessary to understand the same. A Division Bench of this Court by a Judgment and Order dated 5th October, 1998 had laid down various guidelines to deal with the problem of stray dogs. The abo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(3)KLJ699
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Certain questions relating to the grant of recognition to schools in Kerala and the conditions and procedure regulating such grant; and a further issue as to the availability or otherwise of any extra-statutory power for the Government to grant recognition to unrecognized schools, without following the prescribed statutory procedure, arise for decision in these writ petitions. They are therefore bunched, heard and hence, this common judgment.2. Having all the beneficiaries of the impugned decisions on its array, WP(C). 18050/ 2008 is treated as the lead case and exhibits are referred to, as numbered therein.Facts Encapsulated3. the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Kerala Education Rules, 1959; for short, the 'Act' and the 'KER', respectively; contain provisions regulating grant of recognition, including approval to commence schools, Chapter V in KER deals with recognition.4. Acting on the opinion of a Committee appointed as per a Government Order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR366; 2009(1)BomCR179
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Counsel for the respondents waive notice for the concerned respondents. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. During the course of hearing the Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that he would fully support the argument of the petitioners and would pray for transposing respondent No. 2 as petitioner.3. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgement and order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai dated 23rd July, 2008 below Exhibit-1 in Application No. 17 of 2007. The principal application being No. 17/06 has been filed by respondent No. 1 for initiating action under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the named trustees including the petitioners. The Joint Charity Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(6)ALD19(SC); 2008(4)AWC3875(SC); JT2008(9)SC622; RLW2008(4)SC2794; 2008(12)SCALE367; (2008)9SCC552; 2008(6)Supreme402
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. All these appeals are filed by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in various Letters Patent Appeals as also in Writ Petitions. By the said orders, the High Court rejected the prayer of the appellants for quashing proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for acquisition of land being illegal, unlawful, mala fide and in colourable exercise of power by the State.Factual background3. To appreciate the controversy in the present appeals, it is appropriate to refer to the facts in the first matter i.e. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 2239 of 2006 (Sooraram Pratap Reddy and Ors. v. Deputy Collector, Ranga Reddy and Ors.). It was the case of the appellants before the High Court that the Government of Andhra Pradesh sought to acquire a large chunk of land in the name of `public purpose' for the purported development of `Fin...
Tag this Judgment!