Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-01-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ146
Amar Saran and R.N. Misra, JJ.1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Amit Chaurasia with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding and directing the respondents to register the FIR of the petitioner.2. We have heard Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent State and perused the record.3. It appears from the contents of the writ petition that one Dibyesh Pratap Singh came to the Mobile Repair Shop of the petitioner on 17.7.2008 at about 5 P.M. and abused him over some disputes on the repair of a mobile phone. The petitioner was also beaten by him. In the meantime, Dibyesh's father Devendra Pratap Singh also came there with five or six juniors lawyers and assaulted the petitioner by kicks and fists. He also gave a threat to his life. Whereas the police of Sigra police station registered a case at Crime No. 448 of 2008 under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-31-2008
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR94; 2009(1)BomCR722; (2008)110BOMLR2471; 2009(1)MhLj215
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in Mumbai and claims that he was the President of Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court Bar Association and a social activist, has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present Public Interest Litigation. While referring to the great leaders of the Nation and the freedom struggle during the British rule prior to 1947, it is contended by the Petitioner that during the crisis the U.S.S.R. was the supporter and Pakistan and U.S. could not succeed in dividing India and/or destroying the economy of India. Referring to the present Government at the Centre as a coalition Government, it is averred by the Petitioner that the economy of the country is progressing and however there is complete confusion, insecurity with regard to the existence and continuation of the Government because of nuclear deal with the U.S. which is being opposed by various parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-31-2008
Reported in : AIR2009MP1
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is a reference made to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court in a pending Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The relevant facts for appreciating why the reference has been made to the Full Bench are that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 988 of 1999 as a Public Interest Litigation (for short 'PIL') challenging the grant and payment of pension to Ex-Legislators of the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the vires of the M.P. Vidhan Sabha Sadasya Vetan Tatha Bhatta Tatha Pension Adhiniyam. A Division Bench of this Court hearing the PIL found that the issue raised in the PIL had already been settled by another Division Bench of this Court in Raghu Thakur v. State AIR 1997 MP 223 and the grant and payment of pension to Ex-Legislators had been held as intra vires the Constitution. The Division Bench further held in the order dated 9-9-1999 in W.P. No. 988 of 1999 reported in 2000 (2) M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. The question in this case is whether a local authority can obtain a summary order for possession against an occupier of a site which it owns and has been used for many years as a gipsy and travellers’ caravan site. His licence to occupy the site has come to an end. He has no enforceable right to remain there under English property law. But he claims that his removal would violate his rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The facts 2. The local authority, the respondent, is the freeholder of the site which is known as the Travellers’ Site, Tameside Drive, Castle Vale, Birmingham. The site comprises 16 concrete stands for caravans and four ablution blocks. The appellant was granted a licence by the respondent to station a caravan on plot 12 in September 1987. His licence was extended to include plot 14 in November 1998. He and his family had been resident on the site for about 17 years when on 4 March 2004 the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. This appeal concerns the assessability for non-domestic rating of a group of buildings belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (commonly known as the Mormon Church) in the Borough of Chorley in Lancashire. The largest and most imposing is the Temple, which stands 48m high and has 6306m2 of internal floor space on five floors. It is fully air conditioned and is fitted and finished both externally and internally to the highest standards. In addition, in proximity to the Temple, there are (i) the Stake Centre, a single storey building containing a space of 1227m2 divided by a moveable partition into a chapel and a multi-purpose hall, together with a number of small meeting rooms, an office and a baptistery (ii) the Missionary Training Centre, a three storey building containing class rooms, dormitory rooms, cafeteria and ancillary rooms, as well as the President’s flat, which is subject to council tax (iii) the Patrons’ Services B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. For the reasons given by Patten J and Collins LJ, as well as those of my noble and learned friends Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, I would allow this appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. This appeal raises a very short point of construction of section 18(2) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990. Since my opinion on the point differs from that of a majority of your Lordships it will suffice for me to explain the reasons for my dissent quite shortly. I am enabled to do so because I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinions of my noble and learned friends Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, who, with my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann, constitute the majority, and can gratefully adopt their description of the facts and relevant statutory background. 3. The issue is whether the warehouse in which the respondent, Maco, stores the stock that it purchases from its Austrian parent, Maye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. In these two appeals, heard together, there is a common underlying problem: if the police are alerted to a threat that D may kill or inflict violence on V, and the police take no action to prevent that occurrence, and D does kill or inflict violence on V, may V or his relatives obtain civil redress against the police, and if so, how and in what circumstances? 2. The two appeals arise on different facts and in a different way: (1) In the first (Van Colle) case the threat was made by a man known in the case as Daniel Brougham against Giles Van Colle (“Giles”) and culminated in the murder of Giles by Brougham. In the second (Smith) case, the threat was made against the respondent (Stephen Paul Smith) by his former partner (Gareth Jeffrey) and culminated in the infliction of serious injury on Mr Smith by Jeffrey. (2) In the Van Colle case the claimants are Giles’ parents, suing on behalf of his estate and on their own behalf. In the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. Mr Caldarelli challenges a decision of the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Laws LJ and Tomlinson J: [2007] EWHC 1624 (Admin), [2008] 1 WLR 31) upholding an order that he be surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued on 6 October 2006 by the Court of Naples. He complains that the warrant is bad because it seeks his surrender as an accused person and not (as he claims to be) a convicted person. The Divisional Court has neatly expressed the point to be decided in its certified question: “Where a fugitive has been convicted and sentenced in his absence in the requesting state, but the conviction and sentence are neither final nor enforceable, may his case be treated as an accusation case even though he does not enjoy an unqualified right to a retrial on the merits?” 2. The appellant is said to have been party to the unlawful smuggling of drugs into a Naples prison in which he was incarcerated at the time. On 6 October 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives I would allow the appeal and make the order that he proposes. 2. The exercise which is contemplated by para 4 of Schedule 1 to the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 (1997 SI/1984), as amended by the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) (Amendment) Order 2001 (2001 SI/3561), leaves much to the judgment of the rent officer. But, as its rather complex formula indicates, the area within which that judgment is to be exercised is not unlimited. It follows that, if his decision is challenged, the rent officer must be in a position to show that he has conducted the exercise in the way that is required by the paragraph. 3. The principle of valuation which the rent officer is asked to apply requires him to make an assessment based on a comparison with the rents payable for dw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the benefit of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. I am in complete agreement with it, and would, for the reasons which she gives, allow the Council’s appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond and, for the reasons she gives, with which I am in full agreement, I too would allow this appeal. BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND My Lords, 3. The issue before us is whether a local social services authority is obliged, under section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only needs, other than for a home and subsistence, are for medication prescribed by his doctor and a refrigerator in which to keep it. The answer to that issue turns on the meaning of the...
Tag this Judgment!