Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :25. 04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.21814 of 2013 Miss.Aheli Bal .. Petitioner -vs- 1. The Director JIPMER Puducherry 605 086 2. Medical Council of India represented by its Secretary Sector 8 New Delhi .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to treat the marks secured by the petitioner in the second semester of the M.B.B.S. Course in the subject of Anatomy as a pass. For Petitioner :: Ms.R.Vaigai for Mr.R.Syed Mustafa For Respondents :: Mr.Mohan Parasaran Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.M.T.Arunan for R1 Mr.V.P.Raman for R2 ORDER Ms.Aheli Bal has come to this Court seeking a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the first respondent-JIPMER, Puducherry to treat the marks secured by her in the second semester of the M.B.B.S. Course in the subject of Anatomy as a pass and to pass further ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1390 of 2022 Union of India & Anr. ....Appellants Versus M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Through Director .... Respondent WITH C.A. No.1390/2022 With C.A. No.1394/2022 With C.A. No.1417/2022 With C.A. No.1419/2022 With C.A. No.1445/2022 With C.A. No.1414/2022 With C.A. No.1402/2022 With C.A. No.1412/2022 With C.A. No.1411/2022 With 1 C.A. No.1413/2022 With C.A. No.1415/2022 With C.A. No.1418/2022 With C.A. No.1420/2022 With C.A. No.1446/2022 With C.A. No.1447/2022 With C.A. No.1409/2022 With C.A. No.1416/2022 With C.A. No.1395/2022 With C.A. No.1407/2022 With C.A. No.1406/2022 With C.A. No.1398/2022 With C.A. No.1401/2022 With C.A. No.1391/2022 With C.A. No.1403/2022 With C.A. No.1393/2022 With C.A. No.1410/2022 With C.A. No.1405/2022 With C.A. No.1397/2022 With C.A. No.1404/2022 With C.A. No.1400/2022 With C.A. No.1396/2022 2 With C.A. No.1408/2022 With C.A. No.1399/2022 And With C.A. No.1392/2022 3 JUD...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE19H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.47707/2014 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: MRS.SWATHI.B, W/O.ASHIK KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT27YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.14-4-407, OPP.JOY ALUKKAS, NEAR VISHNU ENTERPRISES, FALNIR, MANGALORE-575001, (DK), PRESENTLY R/AT341-375, II FLOOR, B.P.R. HOUSE, PLOT NO.14, LAKSHMINAGAR COLONY, AOC MAIN ROAD, PICKET, NEAR GHANASHYAM SUPER MARKET, SECUNDARBAD-500026 (A.P). (BY SRI M SUDHAKAR PAI, ADV.) AND:1. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580025. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION), ... PETITIONER S.D.M.LAW COLLEGE AND CENTRE FOR POST GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH IN LAW, M.G.ROAD, MANGALORE-575003 (DK), REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL & CHAIRMAN.2. 2 3. MRS U.SUPRIYA, W/O. MITHUN BHAT.K., AGED ABOUT27YEARS, R/AT "SIRI". 7TH CROSS, BIJAI NEW ROAD, MANGALORE-575004, (DK).4. MRS.SRIDEVI D.SHET, W/O. ANOOP.K.V., AGED ABOUT30YEARS, R/AT "KAILASAM", PLOT NO.5, TELECO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC918REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.320 OF2023MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA & ORS. Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. The petitioners, practicing Advocates, have filed the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a declaration that the designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) as well as under Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, creating a special class of Advocates with special rights, privileges and status not available to ordinary Advocates is unconstitutional being violative of the mandate of equality under Artilce14 and Right to Practice any Profession under Article 19 as well as Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is their say that such designation has created a class of Advocates with special rights...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Quash The Revised Rank List Of LL.M, Issued By R-1 (Vide Annex-K To This W.P.) In So Far As It Relates To June 2012-B and T And Nani.A.Palkhivala Memorial Gold Medal For The Year 2012 (Which Two Tables Are Found At Ink Page 27 Of Annex-K Of Writ Papers.) 1. Though notice on respondents No. 5 and 6 is not served and petition is listed to await service on them, considering the fact that the University and the students concerned are represented, the petition is taken up for consideration and disposed of by this order. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking that the Revised Rank List of LL.M. at Annexure-K to the petition be quashed insofar as it relates to the assignment of rank for "Business and Trade' ('B and T') of June, 2012 and award the Nani A. Palkhivala Memorial God Medal for the year 2012. The petitioner is seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the first respondent to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. In the present intra-Court appeal the challenge is to the order dated 24th May, 2011 dismissing W.P.(C) No.914/2011 filed by Vikas Gachli, the appellant, against the Competition Commission of India, the respondent herein. 2. By an advertisement dated 11th November, 2009, the respondent had invited applications for appointment to 13 posts of Deputy Director (Law) including one post in the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. The appellant appeared in the written test and cleared the same and was called for interview, but appointment letter was not issued to him on the ground that he had secured 55.25% marks in aggregate. Appointment letters were issued to candidates, who had secured at least 65% or 70% marks in the reserved category and unreserved category, respectively. 3. The contentions of the appellant can be divided into three. Firstly, the criteria that only candidates with 65/70% marks in aggregate would be appointed, imposes or fixes a new term or criteria for selection and is thus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR2545
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The history leading to the initiation of the contempt proceedings against K.K. Jha 'Kamal' a lawyer practicing in this Court as well as against his client Ashok Kumar Gupta, the contemners is a chequered one. The details are as follows:(a) A title suit was filed by the respondent 3 against Ashok Kumar Gupta, the second contemner, the Secretary, Tanzeem-e-Sufia, in the year 1983. Ultimately, this suit was decreed. The said decree was put in execution in Execution Case No. 12 of 1984 in the Court of Sub Judge-I, Giridih.(b) One Ram Lakhan Prasad, an advocate, respondent 2 continued to appear on behalf of the decree holders. An objection was raised in execution petition on behalf of the said Ashok Kumar Gupta, Secretary that the entire decree and the orders passed in Execution Proceeding was a nullity, because the said Shri Ram Lakhan Prasad did not file any vakalatnama before pleading the case on behalf of the respondent-decree holders.(c) The said objection ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : AIR2007Jhar67; [2007(3)JCR193(Jhr)]
ORDERM. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. The history leading to the initiation of the contempt proceedings against K.K. Jha 'Kamal' a lawyer practicing in this Court as well as against his client Ashok Kumar Gupta, the contemners is a chequered one. The details are as follows:(a) A title suit was filed by the respondent 3 against Ashok Kumar Gupta, the second contemner, the Secretary, Tanzeem-e-Sufia, in the year 1983. Ultimately, this suit was decreed. The said decree was put in execution in Execution Case No. 12 of 1984 in the Court of Sub Judge-I, Giridih.(b) One Ram Lakhan Prasad, an advocate, respondent 2 continued to appear on behalf of the decree holders. An objection was raised in execution petition on behalf of the said Ashok Kumar Gupta, Secretary that the entire decree and the orders passed in Execution Proceeding was a nullity, because the said Shri Ram Lakhan Prasad did not file any vakalatnama before pleading the case on behalf of the respondent-decree holders.(c) The said objec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2348; 1995(1)ALT(Cri)674; 1995CriLJ3994; (1995)2GLR992; JT1995(2)SC587; 1995(2)SCALE200; (1995)2SCC584; [1995]2SCR638; 1995(2)LC93(SC)
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. On 10th March, 1994; Justice S.K. Keshote of the Allahabad High Court addressed a letter to the Acting Chief Justice of that Court as follows :No. SKK/ALL/8/94 10.3.94Dear brother Actg. Chief Justice,Though on 9.3.94 itself I orally narrated about the misbehavior of Sh. B.C. Misra with me in the Court but I thought it advisable to give you same in writing also.On 9.3.94 I was sitting with Justice Anshuman Singh in Court No. 38. In the list of fresh cases of 9.3.94 at Sr. No. 5 FAFO Record No. 22793 M/s. Bansal Forgings Ltd. v. U.P.F. Corp. filed by Smt. S.V. Misra was listed. Sh. B.C. Misra appeared in this case when the case was called.Brief facts of that caseM/s. Bansal Forgings Ltd. took loan from U.P. Financial Corporation and it made default in payment of instalment of the same. Corporation proceeded against the Company Under Section 29 of the U.P. Financial Corporation Act. The company filed a Civil Suit against the Corporation and it has also field an appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Govt. of NCT of Delh...
Tag this Judgment!