Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-05-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Bom268; 2002(3)ALLMR27; 2002(4)BomCR733; (2002)3BOMLR847
R.M. Lodha, J.1 .Whether there is anything wrong in thedecision dated 24th April, 1990 taken by theInstitute of Company Secretaries of India not toallow the Advocates to practise as CompanySecretaries is the principal question in these twoWrit Petitions and,therefore, these Writ Petitionswere heard together and are disposed of by thiscommon judgment.2. In Writ Petition No.398 of 1990Shri T.U.Khatri is the Petitioner. According toShri Khatri he was granted certificate to practiselaw by the Bar Council of Maharashtra on 30thJune, 1973. Shri Khatri claims to have passedfinal examination conducted by the Institute ofCompany Secretaries of India( for short theInstitute) and was admitted as an AssociateMember of the Institute w.e.f. 30th October,1970. Subsequently Shri Khatri was made FellowMember of the Institute w.e.f. 23rd August, 1976.Upon application made by Shri Khatri to theInstitute and upon fulfilment of requisiteconditions including the No Objection from the BarCouncil of Maharasht...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on : Mar-04-2002
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ360CAT
1. The applicant, an orthopaedically handicapped unemployed youth, was sponsored by the Vocational Rehabilitation Centre, Trivandrum (A-1) for selection to the post of unskilled Labourer under the Headquarters, Southern Naval Command, Cochin against 3% quota reserved for the physically handicapped (A-2). The applicant thereafter sent aduly filled and verified attestation form (A-3). The applicant who was given to understand that he was selected, did not get appointment though 2 similarly selected candidates were appointed. He claims to have made enquiries at the Southern Naval Command, Cochin, when he is said to have been informed that he would soon receive appointment orders.Repeated enquiries entailed similar promises but no appointment order was issued according to the applicant. The applicant made a representation A-5 dated 18.6.99 to the 1st respondent. There was no response to that either. The applicant is aggrieved by the respondents' failure to issue appointment order to him a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-01-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2918
J.C. Gupta, J.1. All the four above named appellants have been sentenced to death under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. for committing the murder of Surendra Singh son of Rajvir Singh aged about 26 years. Appellant Rakesh has further been sentenced to two years R.I. and fine of Rs.2000/- for causing injuries to Smt. Krishna Devi, P.W.2, the mother of deceased Surendra Singh.2. As per the prosecution case incident occurred on 13-6-1992 at about 8 p.m. near the house of Amilal in village Mithli within the area of police station Baghpat, which was then in District Meerut. Appellants Ram Kumar, Jai Prakash and Devesh Kumar were said to be armed with country made pistols while appellant Rakesh and co-accused Parvendra with PHARSA and SPEAR respectively. It is alleged that all the accused persons caused as many as 19 injuries to Surendra Singh from their respective weapons. Shrieks and cries of Surendra Singh attracted his mother Smt. Krishna Devi, P.W.2 and brother Udai Singh to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-27-2002
Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn. - 534 U.S. 533 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus RAYGOR ET AL. v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA No. 00-1514. Argued November 26, 200l-Decided February 27, 2002 Petitioners each filed complaints in Federal District Court against respondent university (hereinafter respondent), an arm of the State of Minnesota, alleging a federal cause of action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and a state law discrimination action under the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U. S. C. 1367, which purports to toll the limitations period for supplemental claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed, 1367(d). Respondent's answers included the affirmative defense that the suits were barred by the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity. The District Court subsequently dismissed the claims, and petitioners withdrew their federal appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-26-2002
Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of N. Y., Inc. v. Village of Stratton - 536 U.S. 150 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., ET AL. v. VILLAGE OF STRATTON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1737. Argued February 26, 2002-Decided June 17,2002 Respondent Village of Stratton (Village) promulgated an ordinance that, inter alia, prohibits "canvassers" from "going in and upon" private residential property to promote any "cause" without first obtaining a permit from the mayor's office by completing and signing a registration form. Petitioners, a society and a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses that publish and distribute religious materials, brought this action for injunctive relief, alleging that the ordinance violates their First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion, free speech, and freedom of the press. The District Court upheld most provisions of the ordinance as valid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on : Feb-25-2002
Reported in : (2003)(2)SLJ213CAT
1. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant aggrieved by A-2 order dated 20.4.98 of the first respondent imposing upon him the penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect for six months and A-4 order dated 29.12.98 of the second respondent as Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal and confirming the penalty imposed on him. He sought the following reliefs through this O.A.: (a) call for the records leading upto Annexure A-4 and quash Annexures A-2 and A-4. (b) declare that the applicant is not guilty of charges II and V shown in Annexure A-1. (c) direct the respondents to give promotion to the applicant to HS-I notionally w.e.f. 6.4.1995, with all consequential benefits.2. The applicant was a Mechanic Highly Skilled-II in the Naval Air Craft Yard (NAY for short) under the respondents. He was one of the Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM) IV Level member of HQ. Southern Naval Command. During 1994 he was the Secretary of the NAY Unit Works Committe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-25-2002
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR299]; (2002)IILLJ493Ker
Kurian Joseph, J. 1. Ext. P1 award passed by the Labour Court is under challenge. The issue referred for adjudication is as follows: 'Whether the action of the Management of Base Vitualling Yard, Southern Naval Command, Naval Base, Cochin - 682 004 in terminating the services of Shri. R. Unnikrishna Pillai w.e.f. February 1, 1989 and in re-engaging his juniors is justified If not, what relief he is entitled to and from what date?' In the view I propose to take in the matter it is not necessary for me to go into the variousdetails of the case, though there is a vehement argument on the part of the learned Central Government Standing Counsel Sri. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil that the workman was only casually engaged on (sic) rate of pay. 2. The Labour Court has found as follows: 'Even though there is no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is the management bound to observe provisions contained in Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. But our High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2002
Reported in : 2002VAD(Delhi)148; 97(2002)DLT756; 2003(1)SLJ111b(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1.The petitioner in this case was a Gunner working in the office of respondent No.3. He proceeded on 36 days's annual leave from 26 th January 1992 to 3rd March 1993. The said leave was allegedly sanctioned by the respondent No.3. Allegedly, while availing the said leave, he fell into a 'Khud' in his village on 26 the February 1992, as a consequence whereof, he sustained contusion in his right leg. He was taken to the nearby doctor at Thural, Himachal Pradesh and he was under his treatment from 26 the February 1992 to 9 the March 1992. He allegedly was admitted to the Government Medical College at Thural wherein also he remained under treatment from 10 th March 1992 to 15 th 1992. A purported information to the said effect was sent tot he Commanding Officer of the Unit of the petitioner. The petitioner rejoined his duties on 23rd April 1992 and produced his medical certificate. On 25th April 1992, he was informed that he would be tried by a Summary Court Martial.The cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-20-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3426
..... often used to come to section 18-a, chandigarh. thus witness knew the accused previously. no doubt, both suresh kumar and sewak ram had stated that they could identify the nepali boy if he comes across them. while stating the version as has come in the statement of sitla parshad they had not specifically named the petitioner-accused. admittedly, during the ..... been falsely named in this case on suspicion for the crime mainly on the ground that he was one of the nepali boys who were playing volley ball in the ground near veerka dairy in sector 18-a, chandigarh where other nepali boys were also playing with him. though prosecution had cited three eye-witnesses, namely, sitla parshad, suresh kumar and ram .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-20-2002
Reported in : 2002(2)AWC1090
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. In both these petitions, common questions of law and fact are Involved, they were, as desired by the learned counsel for the parties, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 27585 of 1992 shall be the leading case.2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.6.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, allowing the revision filed by the contesting respondents under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short, 'the Act'.3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the land comprised in Khata No. 150 of village Pagar Tappa Naval. Pargana Nagar Pashchim, Tehsil Harraiya, district Basti, (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in dispute') was recorded in the basic year in the name of Lautoo son of Ramai. ...
Tag this Judgment!