Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-04-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Kant338; ILR2003KAR1724
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The complaint in this case is that the doors of Temple of justice is closed to the poor agriculturists courtesy Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1958 under Section 7(2)(d).2. The facts in W.P. No. 38076/1992 are as under :Mahadev Narayan Naik is in possession of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. No. 22/1 for more than 50 years. The said land belongs to Hanumanth Tippayya Naik and his family. Adverse possession is claimed. The 2nd respondent Hanumanth Tippayya Naik obstructed the enjoyment of the suit lands and hence the petitioner was compelled to file a suit for in O.S. No. 47/90. The petitioner has paid the Court-fee in terms of Section 7(2)(a). The respondent-defendant entered appearance and contested the matter. They raised an issue with regard to Court-fee in terms of Section 7(2)(d) and not in terms of Section 7(2)(a). The Trial Judge accepted the contention of the defendant. An unsuccessful petition was filed in this Court by the petitioner. In the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-02-2002
Reported in : (2004)2CALLT503(HC),2002(4)CHN68
A. Chakrabarti, J.1. The petitioner herein is an assistant teacher having been appointed long back in October, 1978. When a memorandum dated December 21, 2001 (annexure P-3 to the writ petition) was issued prohibiting private tuition by the assistant teachers and making an obligation for each teacher to submit declaration every three months declaring that he/she is not engaged in private tuition of students of any school or any other institution had not engaged in any kind of business or trade and not acting as any agent of any company/corporation, the same has been challenged by the petitioner contending that such action of the respondents calling upon the petitioner to file such a declaration affects the dignity of the petitioner. Therefore, compelling the petitioner to file such declaration and in default withholding grant resulting in non payment of salary to the petitioner affects the petitioner's right to life and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, such pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-27-2002
Reported in : (2003)IILLJ293Cal
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyav, J.1. The petitioner bank filed this writ petition challenging the validity and/or legality of the award dated December 20, 1999 passed by the learned Judge of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta. By the said award, the learned Judge of the Tribunal held that the respondent Shri Chhabi Ghosh comes within the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the action of the management of the petitioner bank in terminating the service of said Shri Chhabi Ghosh was bad, illegal, inoperative and void ab initio. Accordingly, the learned Judge directed the petitioner bank to reinstate said Shri Chhabi Ghosh forthwith in service with full back wages from the date of termination along with all consequential benefits.2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the facts of the matter are shortly narrated hereinafter.3. Shri Chhabi Ghosh, the respondent No. 3 herein was initially appointed as a clerical staff by the then M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-22-2002
Reported in : 2002(3)AWC2072; [2002(92)FLR213]
Jagdish Bhalla and Bhanwar Singh, JJ. 1. Certain issues create a platform on which someone can just rise and emerges into instant limelight. This practice of indulging into sensitive and important matters should be checked and curbed with a firm will so that the habit of sensationalisation is put to an end. 2. The dispute regarding Ram Janam Bhumi and Babri Masjid is one of such matters, accordingly petitions are being filed before this Court. Writ Petition No. 1197 (M/B) of 2002, Sushil Vidyarthi v. Union of India and Ors., was filed before this Court by a journalist only few days ago. Now instead of journalist, a member of the Bar from Ajmer, Rajasthan has come before this Court with a prayer that a direction be issued for the construction of Babri Masjid at Ayodhya on the disputed site. It has been further prayed that 'Ram Chabutra' and 'Kaushalya Rasoi' be also constructed where the same were situated and after the construction of such Masjid, an arrangement for security be made an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-20-2002
Reported in : AIR2002MP196; 2002(2)MPHT353
Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this writ petition it is imperative to bestow our anxious consideration on the long debate and deliberation that took place consuming quite a speck of time relating to contentious issues which took us in the time machine as the subject related to the past, creating defiant walls and artificial palisade and some times brought us to the present in capitivative fascination having an ineffaceable sense and purpose of modernity and progressiveness which, at times generated a feeling of puzzlement but definitely the incrassation and intenseness of proponements cannot be surveyed with disposition of a disregardant. We are deliberating and articulating about the 'vedas' the 'Apaurusheya'. The Vedas, as has been said, are the means for attaining knowledge, happiness through wisdom and self realisation which are beyond the sphere of perception or inference. So it is said :'PRATYAKSHYEANNU MANENA YASTU POYO NA ENAM BIDANTI VEDANA TASHMAD VEDASYA VEDATA'Possibly, for this rea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-2002
Reported in : 2002IVAD(Delhi)477; 2002(3)Crimes370; 97(2002)DLT594; 2002(62)DRJ578
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. The petitioner is the main accused in case, commonly known as 'Jessica Lal Murder Case'. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had fired two bullet shots, one of which hit the deceased Jessica Lal resulting in her death. Shri Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate, while pressing for regular bail to the petitioner, has pointed out that all the three alleged eye-witnesses have failed to support the prosecution case and as such, there is no evidence whatsoever against the petitioner to connect him with the offence. He also contends that the prosecution case suffers from an inherent infirmity inasmuch as according to one of their own experts, the two bullets alleged to have been fired at the spot were fired by two weapons and not one, as alleged by the prosecution. According to him, the prosecution is merely flogging a dead horse knowing fully well that the petitioner is not likely to be convicted and as such, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. 2. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-19-2002
Reported in : (2002)3GLR869
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. P. Hasurkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Board and Mr. A. K. Clerk, learned Advocate for respondent-workman. 2. The petitioner-Board has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference No. 795 of 1995 dated 3rd March, 2001, wherein the labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages of the interim period. On date 7th November, 2001, this Court has issued notices to the respondent and granted ad-interim relief in terms of Para 6(B) subject to provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, this matter is taken up for final hearing on admission stage. Hence, Rule. Learned Advocate Mr. A. K. Clerk waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-workman. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Hasurkar on behalf of the petitioner-Board has submitted that the labour Court has committed error in coming to the conclusion that inquiry was not initiated before terminating...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-14-2002
Reported in : 2002(3)WLC432
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal by accused appellant Mohd. Nazim has been preferred against the judgment and order dated September 29, 2000 passed by the Special Judge (Communal Riots Cases), Tonk by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 304(I) I.P.C. and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month.2. Succinctly stated the contextual facts of the case are, that on 12.8.1998, PW 1 Ahmed Khan, complainant lodged a written report, Ex. P1 at Police Station Kotwali, Tonk alleging therein that while his grand son Kafil along with PW 5 Irfan and PW 14 Arif was on way to market, appellant Mohd. Nazim called all of them at his shop and asked Kafil (since deceased) as to where the goat has eaten his male organ, where the stitches were put and that why he was defaming him. There-upon, some altercation took place between accused Nazim and deceased...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-14-2002
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj70
Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal by accused appellant Mohd. Nazim has been preferred against the judgment and order dated September 29, 2000 passed by the Special Judge (Communal Riotes Cases), Tonk by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 304(1) I.P.C. and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month.2. Succinctly stated that contextual facts of the case are, that on 12.8.1998 PW-1 Ahmed Khan, complainant lodged a written report, Ex.P1 at Police Station Kotwali, Tonk alleging therein that while his grand son Kafil along with PW-5 Irfan and PW-14 Arif was on way to market, appellant Mohd. Nazim called all of them at his shop and asked Kafil (since deceased) as to where the goat has eaten his male organ, where the stitches were put and that why he was defaming him. There-upon, some altercation look place between accused Nazim and deceased Kafil. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-14-2002
Reported in : 2002(150)ELT71(Del)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This writ petition is directed against Orders dated 29.05.2001 and 14.09.2001 passed by the Customs, & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal') 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm. It is engaged in manufacture of shoes. During the relevant year, namely, 12.08.1991 to 31.03.1994, the petitioner firm was having two units; unit No. 1 located at 4/33, Reshham Katra, Tajganj, Agra and unit No. 2 at 4/37, First, Reshham Katra Tajganj, Agra. The distance between the two premises was only 2000 feet. 3. Shoes used to be manufactured with the aid of power in unit No. 2, whereas the same was done without the aid of power in unit No. 1. According to the petitioner, the position inter-changed. 4. Footwear 'in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried with the aid of power'is classifiable in sub-heading 6401.11 of the Central Excise Tariff ( in short, 'the Tariff'). It is thus liable for central...
Tag this Judgment!