Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-12-2012
Reported in : 2012(3)MLJ993; 2012(3)KantLJ177; 2012(6)SCC1; 2012(2)KCCR50SN; 2012(4)SCJ318
S.H. KAPADIA, CJI.1. We have had the benefit of carefully considering the erudite judgment delivered by our esteemed and learned Brother Radhakrishnan, J. Regretfully, we find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to disagree with the views expressed therein concerning the non-applicability of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short "the 2009 Act") to the unaided non-minority schools.2. The judgment of Brother Radhakrishnan, J. fully sets out the various provisions of the 2009 Act as well as the issues which arise for determination, the core issue concerns the constitutional validity of the 2009 Act.Introduction3. To say that "a thing is constitutional is not to say that it is desirable" [see Dennis v. United States, (1950) 341 US 494].4. A fundamental principle for the interpretation of a written Constitution has been spelt out in R. v. Burah [reported in (1878) 5 I.A. 178] which reads as under:"The established Courts of Justice, when a que...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-03-2012
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.1. Leave granted.2. The sole question for consideration in these appeals is whether on a complaint made to the Copyright Board under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the said Board under Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) can pass an interim order in the pending complaint. Since, we shall be dealing with the said section throughout this judgment, the same is extracted here in below : "31. Compulsory licence in works withheld from public.(1) If at any time during the term of copyright in any Indian work which has been published or performed in public, a complaint is made to the Copyright Board that the owner of copyright in the work-(a) has refused to republish or allow the re-publication of the work or has refused to allow the performance in public of the work, and by reason of such refusal the work is withheld from the public; or(b) has refused to allow communication to the public by [broadcast], of such work or in the case of a [sound recording] the work recorded in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-27-2012
DIPAK MISRA ; RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.In exercise of powers conferred under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India, the President of India has on 12th April, 2012, madethe present Reference. The full text of the Reference (sans the annexures)is as follows: "WHEREAS in 1994, the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India ("GOI"), issued 8 Cellular Mobile Telephone Services Licenses ("CMTS Licenses"), 2 in each of the four Metro cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai for a period of 10 years (the "1994 Licenses"). The 1994 licensees were selected based on rankings achieved by them on the technical and financial evaluation based on parameters set out by the GoI in the tender and were required to pay a fixed licence fee for initial three years and subsequently based on number of subscribers subject to minimum commitment mentioned in the tender document and licence agreement.The 1994 Licenses issued by GoI mentioned that a cumulative maximum of upto 4.5 MHz in the 900 MH...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-28-2012
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The expanding need for international arbitration and divergent schools of thought, have provided new dimensions to the arbitration jurisprudence in the international field. The present case is an ideal example of invocation of arbitral reference in multiple, multi- party agreements with intrinsically interlinked causes of action, more so, where performance of ancillary agreements is substantially dependent upon effective execution of the principal agreement. The distinguished learned counsel appearing for the parties have raised critical questions of law relatable to the facts of the present case which in the opinion of the Court are as follows :(1) What is the ambit and scope of Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the 1996 Act’)?(2) Whether the principles enunciated in the case of Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya [(2003) 5 SCC 531], is the correct exposition of law?(3) Whether in a case w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-09-2012
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Unlike natural calamities that are beyond human control, avoidable disasters resulting from human error/negligence prove more tragic and completely imbalance the inter-generational equity and cause irretrievable damage to the health and environment for generations to come. Such tragedy may occur from pure negligence, contributory negligence or even failure to take necessary precautions in carrying on certain industrial activities. More often than not, the affected parties have to face avoidable damage and adversity that results from such disasters. The magnitude and extent of adverse impact on the financial soundness, social health and upbringing of younger generation, including progenies, may have been beyond human expectations. In such situations and where the laws are silent or are inadequate, the courts have unexceptionally stepped in to bridge the gaps, to provide for appropriate directions and guidelines to ensure that fundamentals of Article 21 of the Const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-18-2012
Reported in : JT2012(10)SC393
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 7th March, 2011 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). The operative part of the order reads as under :"In view of all the aforesaid and particularly for the reasons that the writ petition No.111 (H/C) of 2011 was filed on the instructions of Kishor Samrite (who has also sworn the affidavit in support of the writ petition) which contained wild allegations/insinuation against Shri Rahul Gandhi and questions the virtue and modesty of a young girl of 22 years Km. Kirti Singh, we dismiss this writ petition with a cost of Rs.50,00,000/- (Fifty lacs). Out of the cost amount, Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty five lacs) shall be paid to Km. Kirti Singh and Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty lacs) to Shri Rahul Gandhi, opposite part no.6. The cost amount shall be deposited within a period of one month with the Registrar of this Court, failing which the Registrar shall take necessary action fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-04-2012
1. By judgment and order dated 5/12/2011, this Court disposed of Civil Appeal No.10535 of 2011 and issued following directions:"a. That banking or nursing homes or any other commercial activity is not permitted in Sector 19 and for that matter, in any sector, in the development area earmarked for "residential use".b. That the 21 banks and the nursing homes, which are operating in Sector 19 or any other residential sector, shall close their activity forthwith, stop misuse and put the premises to residential use alone, within two months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.c. That lessees of the plots shall ensure that the occupant banks, nursing homes, companies or persons carrying on any commercial activity in the residential sector should stop such activity and shift the same to the appropriate sectors i.e. commercial, commercial pockets in industrial/institutional area and specified pockets for commercial use within the residential sector, strictly earmarked for that activ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-30-2012
1. The present appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2002 and 07.03.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 341 of 1997 and Review Application No. 38861 of 2002 respectively. The facts as uncurtained in the two appeals are that the appellant as plaintiff initiated a civil action forming subject matter of suit No. 501 of 1995 against the respondent and others for permanent injunction. In the suit, the parties entered into a compromise and on the basis of the compromise, a decree was drawn up on 06.09.1996. The terms and conditions of the compromise were made a part of the decree. Be it noted, the compromise between the parties stipulated certain conditions and one such condition was that within a span of six months' time, the defendant would pay a certain sum to the plaintiff. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the said clause of the compromise is reproduced hereunder:- Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-05-2012
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.1. The Petitioner herein was a candidate in the Presidential elections held on 19th July, 2012, the results whereof were declared on 22nd July, 2012. The Petitioner and the Respondent were the only two duly nominated candidates. The Respondent received votes of the value of 7,13,763 and was declared elected to the Office of the President of India. On the other hand, the Petitioner received votes of the value of 3,15,987.2. The Petitioner has challenged the election of the Respondent as President of India on the ground that he was not eligible to contest the Presidential election in view of the provisions of Article 58 of the Constitution of India, which is extracted hereinbelow :-"58. Qualifications for election as President.- (1) No person shall be eligible for election as President unless he –(a) is a citizen of India,(b) has completed the age of thirty-five years, and(c) is qualified for election as a member of the House of the People.2) A person shall not b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-31-2012
R.M. Lodha, J.1. We are called upon to decide in this appeal the issue on reference by a two-Judge Bench, whether the matter requires to be remanded for a de novo trial in accordance with law or not?2. The above question arises in this way. On 30.12.1997 at about 6.20 p.m. one Blueline Bus No. DL-1P-3088 carrying passengers on its route to Nangloi from Ajmeri Gate stopped at Rampura Bus Stand at Rohtak Road for passengers to disembark. The moment the bus stopped, an explosion took place inside the bus. The incident resulted in death of four persons and injury to twenty-four persons. The FIR of the incident was registered and investigation into the crime commenced. On completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against four accused persons – one of them being the present appellant, a national of Pakistan – for the commission of offences under Sections 302/307/120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Subs...
Tag this Judgment!