Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Jul-29-2008
1. In this OA applicant has challenged recovery of penal rent from his gratuity for overstaying in the quarter unauthorisedly on the ground that without following the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, no recovery could have been made.2. He has further sought 18% interest on delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment.3. It is stated by the applicant that he was allotted Quarter No. 9C/1, NPL Colony, New Delhi while working as Technical Officer 'C'. He retired on 31.1.2001 and was allowed to retain the said quarter up to 31.5.2001. As his wife was very sick, he sought further extension vide letters dated 24.5.2001, 4.11.2003 and 29.4.2004 but no reply was given. They asked him to vacate and filed OA No. 3046/2002 seeking direction to the applicant herein to vacate the premises and for recovery of dues. The said OA was dismissed on 21.10.2003 (page 37) for want of jurisdiction.4. Grievance of applicant is that respondents have deducted pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-16-2008
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2124
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Two nephews of Babu (deceased) viz. Dharmendra Singh and Nepal Singh, appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bharatpur on the allegation of committing murder of Babu. Learned Judge vide judgment dated April 18, 2003 convicted and sentenced them under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.2. Brief facts necessary of this appeal are as follows:Siya Ram had four sons namely Chet Ram, Babu, Biri Singh and Balbir. Since whereabouts of Biri Singh were not known for the last 20 years, agricultural land belonging to Siya Ram was divided in three parts and Chet Ram, Babu and Balbir each had a share of 13 bighas of land. Babu remained unmarried throughout. Chet Ram and Balbir had three and four sons respectively. About six years back Babu adopted Chet Ram's son Rajendra Singh, who used to plough 13 bighas of land of Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Dec-10-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I too would dismiss these appeals. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 2. On 10 January 2003 Shaun Riley was working in the course of his employment with the first appellant, Chargot Ltd, at Heskin Hall Farm, near Chorley in Lancashire. Extensive works were being carried out on the farm, which was owned by the Ruttle Group of companies. The second appellant, Ruttle Contracting Ltd, a member of the group, was the principal contractor. The third appellant, George Henry Ruttle, was a director of the first appellant. He was also the second appellant’s managing director. The works included the construction of a car park. This required the excavation from the site of a quantity of topsoil. A dumper truck was then used to move the spoil over a distance of about 500 yards to a depression in a field, beside whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jun-25-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I am in full agreement with it and would, for the reasons he gives, make the order he proposes. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I agree with it, and for the reason he gives I would allow the appeal and make the order he proposes. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 3. I, too, have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. The reasons given by my noble and learned friend for allowing the appeal are, in my opinion, wholly persuasive and I am in full agreement with them. I would make the order that he proposes. BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND My Lords, 4. I am in full agreement with the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Brow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Nov-26-2008
LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, Introduction 1. The facts of this case raise issues of public importance as to the ambit of section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986. It is unfortunate that both before the Court of Appeal and this House the appellant was content to found his case on one narrow issue that is fact specific and much less significant than the wider issues. Those wider issues were canvassed in argument, though Mr Pannick QC for the respondent made the point that he had not come prepared to deal with them. Your Lordships will on this appeal resolve the narrow issue. I propose however to make some provisional observations on the wider issues so that the effect of the decision in this case is not misconstrued. 2. The appellant is an environmental educator and performing artist who is a regular participant in the monthly Critical Mass Cycle Ride (“Critical Mass”). The nature of Critical Mass is central to both the narrow and the wider issues. It has been a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Nov-12-2008
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. By the Treaty on Accession that was signed in Athens on 16 April 2003 an agreement was entered into for the accession on 1 May 2004 of 10 new member states to the European Union, including the Republic of Poland. The European Union (Accessions) Act 2003 made provision for the Accession Treaty to be implemented into domestic law. One of the issues that the Accession Treaty addressed in the case of the acceding member states other than Cyprus and Malta (“the A8 states”) was the freedom of movement for workers which is guaranteed by article 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (“article 39EC”). The accession of Cyprus and Malta, on account of their small size, was not seen as being likely to overload the labour markets of the 15 existing member states. But it was decided as an integral part of the Treaty to lay down conditions as to access to their labour markets by nationals of the A8 states. 2. Part 2 of Annex ...
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!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Nov-12-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the privilege of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Carswell. I agree with it and, as he has dealt fully with the facts and the law, I shall not detain your Lordships by covering the same ground. For the reasons he gives, I would dismiss the appeal. 2. It may however be of some assistance in future cases if I comment on the intervention by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. In recent years the House has frequently been assisted by the submissions of statutory bodies and non-governmental organisations on questions of general public importance. Leave is given to such bodies to intervene and make submissions, usually in writing but sometimes orally from the bar, in the expectation that their fund of knowledge or particular point of view will enable them to provide the House with a more rounded picture than it would otherwise obtain. The House is grateful to such bodies for their help. 3. An intervention is howe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Feb-06-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. On 23 April 1997 in the Crown Court at Worcester each of the appellants was convicted by a jury of causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. For that offence each was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. The first appellant received a concurrent sentence for another offence and the second appellant received a consecutive sentence of 2 years’ for other offences, making a total sentence in his case of 14 years’. For the purposes of this appeal, referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, it is accepted that when the trial of the appellants began in April 1997, although leave to prefer voluntary bills had previously been given on two occasions, there was no signed indictment before the Crown Court. The evidence at the trial ended on Friday 18 April. On Monday 21 April 1997 the appellants were arraigned on an additional (but alternative) co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Feb-06-2008
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches of my noble and learned friends, Lord Scott of Foscote and Baroness Hale of Richmond. I am grateful to Lord Scott for setting out the facts and the procedural history and to Baroness Hale for her explanation of the wider context in which the legislation that we are concerned with needs to be viewed. For the reasons Baroness Hale gives I would allow the appeal and make the order that she proposes. 2. The question is whether the phrase “the whole or a substantial part of any premises in which the flat is contained” in section 47(2)(b)(ii) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 enables the landlord, unconstrained by their existing state, to identify the premises by drawing his own line around the tenant’s flat in support of his counter-notice or whether it refers to the existing and objectively recognisable state of the premises. No direct assistance can...
Tag this Judgment!