Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal166
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Whatever doubts may have arisen upon the subject of this reference in consequence of recent legislation, it is at least satisfactory that we are all now agreed upon one very material point, namely, that at the time of the passing of the Indian Carriers Act in 1865, the English law relating to common carriers was in force in this country. My brother WILSON and myself, when we referred this case, had some doubt about that point, but, so far as I am concerned, I am glad to say that my doubts have been entirely removed.2. It is obvious that the Carriers Act itself assumes two things: first, that there were a class of persons here at that time, who were recognized as common carriers; and, secondly, that there was some special law, which regulated the duties and responsibilities of those persons. It is difficult to imagine what that law could have been, unless it were the English common law; and it seems only reasonable to suppose that, as common carriers were introduce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1552; 2009(1)ALT18; 2009(1)AWC594(SC); (2009)2SCC377:2009AIRSCW1074
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. Both these appeals are filed by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated April 02, 2004, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1853 of 2003 and 2077 of 2002.3. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present appeals, relevant facts in nutshell may be noted.4. According to the appellant Essco Fabs Pvt. Ltd. (`Essco' for short), the Government of Haryana intended to acquire land for public purpose, viz., for utilization of land as residential, commercial and industrial area in Sector Nos. 11, 12 and 25 Part-II by Haryana Urban Development Authority (`HUDA' for short). For the said purpose, the Government issued a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') on December 15, 1982. The land mentioned in the said notification situated in village Kheri Nangal was sought to be acquired. A final notificati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$- * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:07. 08.2018 Judgment delivered on:12. 10.2018 CRL.A. No.223/2018 THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for State with Mr. Ashray Behura, Advocate with SI Raj Kumar, PS-KM Pur. Mr. Bharat S. Kumar and Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocates for Minor Victim. versus SUMIT KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sundeep Sehgal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal upon grant of leave to assail the judgment dated 15.12.2016 rendered by the learned ASJ-01, (Designated Special Court Under The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)) District South East, New Delhi, Shri Sunil Chaudhary in Case No.1434/16, Sessions Case No.93/13, arising out of FIR No.49/13, CRL.A.No.223/2018 Page 1 of 48 registered at PS Kotla Mubarakpur under Section 376IPC and 6 POCSO Act, 2012 again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1991)IILLJ92Mad
ORDERDr. A.S. Anand, C.J. 1. The short, but meaningful, question which we are called upon to decide at this stage, is regarding the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to deal 'service matters' after the coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Act, for short) with effect from 1st November, 1985 and in particular as to 'who' are the persons who are required to approach only the 'Tribunal' for the adjudication of disputes concerning their services and to whom the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is no longer available for the adjudication of those disputes. The question arises in the following circumstances : 2. A number of writ petitions came to be filed in this Court, which are still pending adjudication, seeking the issue of certiorarified mandamus to quash the letter dated 15th April, 1989 written by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Madras (hereinafter referred t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(1)ALT504
ORDERP.S. Mishra, C.J.1. Writ Appeals 1272 and 1273 of 1996 were posted for admission and with the agreement of the parties they have been taken up for final hearing along with the batch of Writ Petitions, which have been filed questioning the vires of some of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1995 (Act No. 24 of 1995). The Act was preceded by Ordinance called Andhra Pradesh Transplantation of Human Organs Ordinance, 1995. Since the Act has come into force, any reference to the constitutional vires of the provisions of the Ordinance is no longer necessary.2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have alleged that the Act has such provisions which violate Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India and they, for the said reason, are ultra vires to the Constitution of India.3. Before we take up a brief prospecting into the provisions of the Act for appreciation of the objects of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging orders revoking their registration as Multi System Operators. These registrations have been granted under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1944 (for short the Rules?). The petitioners are engaged in the business of securing signals from television channels distributed to them through cable operators to the end users. Since the two petitioners carry on identical business, but the facts leading to the revocation of registration of their case are slightly different, we would set out the facts in Writ Petition No. 58 of 2015 firstly. 3. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and operating from the address mentioned in the cause title. It is engaged, inter-alia, in the business of cable distribution service as Mult...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:09. 05.2018 Judgment delivered on:02. 07.2018 + CRL.A. 334/2018 STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with SI Shailendra Kr. Singh, PS Gokulpuri versus HARGOVIND ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia and Mr. Jatin Teotia, Advocates (DHCLSC) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI JUDGMENT BY THE COURT1 The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 15.09.2016 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -01, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.44750/2015 titled as State vs. Hargovind, arising out of FIR No.36/2013 registered under Section 363/366/376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Gokalpuri, Delhi, whereby the accused/respondent was acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Crl.A.334/2018 Page 1 of 27 2. The facts in brief are th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC760; 1981CriLJ320; (1981)1SCC420; [1981]2SCR311; 1981(13)LC35(SC)
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. To what extent may the citizen's right to be let alone be invaded by the duty of the Police to prevent crime is the problem posed in these two appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. The two appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants seeking the removal of their names from the surveillance register maintained at Police Station 'A' Division, Amritsar City and for a direction that the respondent Police Officers should be restrained from harassing the appellants by calling them to the Police Station frequently without any justification. The appellants Malak Singh and Jaswant Singh are brothers and they claim to be engaged in a business known as 'Continental Electricals' besides owning a hotel named Park Restaurant on Grand Trunk Road Amritsar. They state that they are Income-tax assessees and assert that they are law abiding citizens. They claim that on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC486; 38(1972)CLT1(SC); (1972)1SCC63; [1972]2SCR279
1. The appellant, Chander Sekhar Singh Bhoi, in Civil Appeal No. 854 of 1968, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution (No. O.J.C. 329/1965) in the Orissa High Court, challenging the Orissa Land Reforms Act of 1960. hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act (Act XVI of 1960) as amended by the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1965 (Act XIII of 1965) hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act. He alleged that he owned about 220 acres of self-cultivated land and that he had about 5 acres of Bhagchar land.2. This petition was heard alongwith a number of other petitions by the High Court, and the High Court by its common judgment dated 30th January, 1967 disposed of all these petitions. The High Court came to the conclusion that 'Chapter III of the Amending Act is a valid piece of legislation or in other words, it does not suffer from any invalidity; but Chapter IV of the Amending Act is unconstitutional and invalid and accordingly it is struck down.' The High Court accordingly al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)550; JT1996(8)SC387; 1996(7)SCALE135; (1997)1SCC35; [1996]Supp6SCR584
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. The facts of these cases expose the blatant misuse of public office by Minister of Urban Development, Government of Rajasthan as Chairman of the appellant authority; they, in particular demonstrate the danger involved in entrusting unbridled dual powers in a single individual leading to abuse of office on account of lack of counter check. It would be appropriate to extract from the enquiry report dated November 12, 1992 of the Lokayukta of Rajasthan under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Uplokayukta Act, 1973 as under:In view of what has been stated above, it is prime facie established that Smt. Kamala, the then Hon'ble Minister, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan-cum-Chairman, J.D.A. Jaipur, Shri M.D. Kaurani, IAS, the then Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority and Shri Subhebhan Mitra, the then Zonal Officer, Lal Kothi Scheme, J.D.A. Jaipur have blatantly misused their official position to favour a few influential and hi...
Tag this Judgment!