Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... services to any of them, after the commencement of the pre-natal diagnostic techniques (regulation and prevention of misuse) amendment act, 2002 unless such centre, laboratory or clinic is duly registered under the act.] (2) every application for registration under sub-section (1), shall be made to the appropriate authority in such ..... carrying out genetic counselling may set up a genetic counselling centre and get it registered as a genetic counselling centre." "rule 13 (prior to the amendment as on 22/06/2011):-intimation of changes in employees, place or equipment :every genetic counselling centre, genetic laboratory, genetic clinic, ultrasound clinic and ..... be achieved by displaying the certificate at a conspicuous place as noted above. 17. it is noteworthy that rule 13 of the rules of 1996 before amendment mandated every genetic counselling centre, genetic laboratory, genetic centre, ultrasound clinic and imaging centre to intimate every change of employee, place, address and equipment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... and 227 of the constitution. (2) interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the high court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the cpc amendment act no. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the high court. (3) certiorari, under ..... process of reasoning. where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) the power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial ..... on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) a patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... the 42nd amendment, the second right was altered. the right to show cause on the quantum of punishment was taken away and the right to show cause on the findings of the enquiry ..... ecil, hyderabad vs. b.karunakar, air 1994 sc 1074 = (1993) 4 scc 727, has dealt with the aspect of the right of a workman in disciplinary proceedings. the 15th amendment to the constitution gave the workman / employee a right to show cause on the charge sheet and then the second right to show cause on the quantum of punishment. by ..... high court it would have been termed, properly speaking, as a writ of prohibition. a writ of prohibition is issued only when patent lack of jurisdiction is made out. it is true that a high court acting under article 226 is not bound by the technical rules applying to the issuance of prerogative writs like certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... and 227 of the constitution. (2) interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the high court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the cpc amendment act no. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the high court. (3) certiorari, under ..... process of reasoning. where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) the power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial ..... on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) a patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... and 227 of the constitution. (2) interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the high court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the cpc amendment act no. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the high court. (3) certiorari, under ..... process of reasoning. where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) the power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial ..... on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) a patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... and 227 of the constitution. (2) interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the high court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the cpc amendment act no. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the high court. (3) certiorari, under ..... process of reasoning. where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) the power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial ..... on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) a patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... 227 of the constitution. (2) interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the high court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the cpc amendment act no. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the high court. (3) certiorari, ..... reasoning. where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) the power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial ..... on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) a patent error is an error which is selfevident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a longdrawn process of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... and 227 of the constitution. (2) interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the high court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the cpc amendment act no. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the high court. (3) certiorari, under ..... process of reasoning. where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) the power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial ..... on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) a patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... :- 17. thus, rule 17 provides that the person who has submitted notice of the motion shall move the motion in the meeting. rule 20 deals with how amendments to the motion can be proposed. rule 21 deals with how a person who wants to speak on a motion has to address. what should be the duration of ..... 18. the judgment of the learned single judge, dated 26th july, 2011 in writ petition no.167 of 2011 and other writ petitions, was challenged by filing letters patent appeal and the decision is rendered in the case of vishnu (supra). after considering the full bench decision of this court in the case of viswas pandurang mokal (supra ..... 2013, passed by the additional collector, nanded, in dispute styled as an appeal preferred by him under section 35 (3-b) of the maharashtra village panchayats act, 1958 (for short act). by that order, the additional collector dismissed the dispute referred by the petitioner, challenging the proceedings and the resolution passed in the special meeting dated 25th march, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... contends that the divisional commissioner had rejected the objections filed by the petitioner. the petitioner filed a revision application under section 15-a of the land acquisition act (maharashtra amendment). in stead of deciding the revision petition by the state government, the commissioner wrongly and illegally dealt with the revision petition and dismissed the same.11) ..... preferred second appeal no.134 of 1992. the petitioner contends that initially the stay was refused in the proceedings of the second appeal but in the letters patent appeal stamp no. 17574 of 1992 stay was granted in favour of the respondent no.3 company. from the proceedings of lpa it is gathered that ..... locality which is a mandatory provision and violation of the same would make the notification bad in law. hindustan petroleum corporation ltd. v. darius shapur chenai, 2005 (9) srj 106.the counsel submitted that there has to be a reasoned order if the objections filed by the owner is to be rejected. ramrao pralhadrao .....
Tag this Judgment!