Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-23-2008
1. By this OA, applicant has challenged order dated 18.10.2002 (page 21) whereby applicant was compulsorily retired from service and order dated 30.11.2006 whereby his appeal was rejected. He has also sought directions to the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was appointed as a labourer w.e.f. 11.01.1990. On 01.03.2001 he was served with a show cause notice (page 27) calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him as he has remained absent from duty without prior permission w.e.f. 4.12.2000 till date.3. Applicant replied he was sick due to psychological problems for which he is taking treatment from RML shall resume duty as soon as declared fit (page 28). He joined the duties yet memorandum dated 29.11.2001 was served on him on three charges: That the said Shri Ravi Kumar while functioning as Lab in Yard Group of CVD Delhi Cantt during the period from Dec 2000 to Mar 2001 rema...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-23-2008
Virginia v. Moore - 06-1082 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 VIRGINIA V. MOORE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGINIA v . MOORE certiorari to the supreme court virginia No. 061082.Argued January 14, 2008Decided April 23, 2008 Rather than issuing the summons required by Virginia law, police arrested respondent Moore for the misdemeanor of driving on a suspended license. A search incident to the arrest yielded crack cocaine, and Moore was tried on drug charges. The trial court declined to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. Moore was convicted. Ultimately, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed, reasoning that the search violated the Fourth Amendment because the arresting officers should have issued a citation under state law, and the Fourth Amendment does not permit search incident to citation. Held: The police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they made an arrest that was based on probable cause but prohibited by state law, or when they performed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Decided on : Apr-23-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ872
ORDERDharam Veer, J.1. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 25-11-1987 passed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, U.P. (East) Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 1981, dismissing the appeal arising out of Criminal Case No. 201 of 1980, decided by Special Magistrate C.B.I./S.P.E., 1st Class. Dehradun on 11-12-1981 convicting the revisionist Nirmal Singh Under Section 14 of The Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 (Act No. II of 1930)(hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and sentencing him to two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months' further S.I. was awarded.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that an information was conveyed to the CBI through National Crime Bureau, Netherlands who reported arrest of one Armand Bertrand Alphonse Van Ghyschen, a Belgium National in Netherlands whil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-23-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)ShimLC91
Surjit Singh, J.1. The case has a chequered history. Respondent Bhupesh Kumar was challaned, under Sections 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code, for allegedly murdering Poonam Sharma and making an attempt on the lives of two other persons named Vivek and Raj Kumar.2. It appears that when the case was filed in the Magisterial Court, a question was raised that the respondent was not capable of defending himself owing to un-soundness of mind. The Magistrate, without making inquiry into the question in accordance with the provision of Section 328 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court charged the accused-respondent with the aforesaid offences and examined the witnesses produced by the prosecution. When the respondent was sought to be examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he gave answers (to the questions put by the Court) which were irrelevant. The Sessions Court then made an observation that the respondent appeared...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-21-2008
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT292
S.C. Parija, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 23.07.2007 which has been registered as Mahila P.S. Case No. 129 of 2007 under Sections 376/420/379/506 IPC.2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the Writ Petition is that the Petitioner who was working as an instructor in 'Art of Living Courses' in Ravi Sankar Vidyamandir at Plot No. 2.103, IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, persuaded informant (Opp. Party No. 2) to assist him in the programme after she had completed the same course.3. On 4th January, 2004 Petitioner persuaded her (informant) to stay back at Ravi Sankar Vidyamandir after 8 P.M. after classes were over. Thereafter, Petitioner expressed his desire to marry her by divorcing his wife and Petitioner also promised the Opposite Party No. 2 to send her abroad for conducting 'Art of Living' programme to make a fixed deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs) in her name. In this pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-19-2008
Reported in : (2008)3PLR133
Ranjit Singh, J.1. The petitioner has impugned an order of his eviction from shop portion of S.C.F. 49, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh. Respondent, Dr. Davinder Mohan, who is owner and landlord of the demised premises, has filed this petition for eviction of the petitioner. Petitioner is a tenant in a shop at monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/- besides water and electricity charges. His eviction is sought on the ground that he has not paid the rent, not tendered the arrears of rent from 1.9.1995 despite repeated requests and that the said premises is required for use and occupation of Dr. Vivek Mohan, M.B.B.S. and Dr. Vandana Mohan, who are son and daughter-in-law of the respondent-landlord. It is pleaded that son of the respondent is practicing doctor in Homeopathy and his daughter in law is serving in the Haryana Government. They both intend to start practice after leaving the Government job and that is how the demised premises is needed for their use and occupation. It is further claimed that at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-16-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC3148; 2008(3)ALD147(SC); 2008(56)BLJR1811; 148(2008)DLT705(SC); JT2008(5)SC376; 2008(6)SCALE325; (2008)5SCC287; 2008(3)ICC326; 2008(3)Supreme37; 2008AIRSCW3324; 2008AIRSCW3324; 2008(3)ICC326; 2008(3)Supreme37
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Whether Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the 1958 Act') is ultra vires the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India is the question which arises for determination in these appeals. 2. For the sake of convenience, we have noted the facts from Civil Appeal No. 1897 of 2003:(i) On August 18, 1953, Delhi Improvement Trust leased out a plot of land measuring 184 sq. yards situated at Basti Reghar, Block 'R', Khasra Nos.2942/1820 to 2943/1820 to Shri Jagat Singh son of Pt. Ram Kishan. In terms of Clause 4(c) of the lease deed, the lessee was prohibited from using the land and building (to be constructed over it) for any purpose other than residence, with a stipulation that in case of breach of this condition, the lease shall become void.(ii) After constructing the building, the lessee inducted Shri Jai Narain Sharma and Dr. Ms. Tara Motihar, as tenants in two portions of the building, who started using the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Apr-16-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. In 2000, Newnham College decided to build a new library at a cost of about 7.5m. As an educational institution, Newnham makes exempt supplies for the purpose of VAT. Making exempt supplies is all very well for the recipients, because they pay no VAT. It is less attractive if you are the supplier, because you are not credited with the input tax on the goods and services on which you have been charged VAT. For a famously poor women’s college, the VAT on the cost of the library was a large sum of money. 2. The college therefore took advice on a scheme which would enable it to recover the VAT. The first step was to acquire a shelf company and call it Newnham College Library Company Ltd (“the company”). The college held all the shares and members of the college formed the board of directors. On the completion of the new library, the college leased it to the company for a term of 11 years at a reviewable rent of 165,000 a year. That in itself woul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Apr-16-2008
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. Like him, I can find no merit in any of the grounds on which the decision of the Extra Division was challenged. I would dismiss the appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the opportunity of reading a draft of the opinion on this appeal prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury and I am in complete and respectful agreement with the reasons he has given for dismissing this appeal. There is nothing I can usefully add and so I too, for the same reasons, would dismiss the appeal. LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY My Lords, 3. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech which is to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I am in full agreement with it and, for the reasons he gives, I too would dismiss the appeal. LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE My Lords, 4. I have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Apr-16-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. This appeal arises out of an application to quash a permit issued on 12 August 2003 by the Environment Agency (“the Agency”) to Rugby Ltd for the operation of a cement works in Lawford Road, Rugby. The chief grounds are that the Agency did not disclose enough information about the environmental impact of the plant to satisfy its statutory and common law duties of public consultation. Rugby Ltd has since been taken over by the Mexican multinational Cemex and is called Cemex UK Cement Ltd, but I shall for convenience refer to it as “the company". The PPC Regulations 2. Cement has been made at Rugby since the time of Dr Arnold. But the Lawford Road plant was built less than 10 years ago. It represents the latest technology in cement making. When it was built, the manufacture of cement required authorisation under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Authorisation was granted in 1999 and the plant began commissioning in the following...
Tag this Judgment!