Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2007)(2)SLJ172CAT
1. The applicant in this O. A. is presently working as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-Ill), Kochi. He has challenged the following Office Memoranda: (a) Annexure A-4 Memorandum dated 21.5.02 issued by order and in the name of the President by the 2nd respondent, namely, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT, New Delhi stating that the President was proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The charges levelled against him were the following: Article-I: That the said Shri S.K. Mitra, while working as DCIT, Central Range-7, Bombay, failed to effectively monitor the search case of Shri T.S. Makkar for the A.Y. 1990-91 and ensure that assessment in this case was properly framed by this ACIT, Shri K.R. Lakshminarayanan. Considering that a perusal of the relevant. assessment records brings out lapses both the investigation of facts and the manner of completing the assessment, there was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10084 of 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.9132 OF2015 HIRAL P. HARSORA AND ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA AND ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 25.9.2014 of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. It raises an important question as to the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the 2005 Act).3. On 3.4.2007, Kusum Narottam Harsora and her mother Pushpa Narottam Harsora filed a complaint under the 2005 Act against Pradeep, the brother/son, and his wife, and two sisters/daughters, alleging various acts of violence against them. The said complaint was withdrawn on 27.6.2007 with liberty to file a fresh complaint.4. Nothing happened for over three years till the same duo of mother and daughter filed two separate compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD358; 2004(2)ALT128
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, a common question of law arises for consideration since the services of all the petitioners are sought to be terminated by invoking inter alia the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994), which has come into force with effect from 25-11-1993.2. According to the petitioners, Act 2 of 1994 has no application to the societies constituted and registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'APCS Act'). Thus, the only question that arises for consideration of this Court is :Whether Act 2 of 1994 is applicable to the Co-operative institutions registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 or not ?3. The petitioners, in all these cases, have been working in various capacities in the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies/Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC350; (1980)1SCC340; [1980]2SCR260; 1980(12)LC272(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The perennial, nagging problem of delegated legislation and the so-called Henry VIII clause have again come up for decision in this appeal by the State of Kerala. Section 60 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act 1932 and a notification issued under that provision were struck down by the High Court of Kerala on the ground of unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Certain consequential directions were issued by the High Court. Those directions have long since worked themselves out and so the party who invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constituution has no longer any surviving interest. The State of Kerala is, however, interested in sustaining the validity of Section 60 and has filed this appeal.2. Lawyers and judges have never ceased to be interested in the question of delegated legislation and since the Delhi Laws Act case, we have been blessed(?) by an abundance of authority, the blessing not necessarily unmixed. W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J.ORDER:1. This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2008 on the file of Yemmiganur Town Police Station, Kurnool District/the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, insofar as the petitioners-A1 to A3 (for short A1 to A3) are concerned. The case is registered for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C.2. Whereas the petitioners are A1 to A3, the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant in the criminal case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the criminal case.3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:The defacto complainant purchased an extent of Ac.2.67 cents of land in Sy.No.388-B from one Ch.Veeraswamy under a registered sale deed No.1195 dated 13.06.1978 and thus acquired absolute rights over the said property. Dhanunjaya (A-2) and his brothers are interfering with his right...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2012(3)KLT163; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)176; 2012(3)KLJ291
1. The petitioner is the father of an unfortunate young boy, who was arrested by the Police. The sequence of events started from the date when one girl went missing. Her parents lodged a complaint before the police. A man - missing case was registered by the police. The girl returned after four days. It was found that the girl was in the company of the petitioner’s son and three of his friends. Thereafter, as requested by the police, the parents of the girl and the girl went to the police station and gave statements to the police. The girl submitted that she had not been in any way harmed by the youths. The girl was referred for medical examination, in which it was proved that she was not subjected to any kind of sexual intercourse. The girl and her parents had no complaint against the petitioner’s son and the other youths, in whose company the girl had been. It appears that the girl had some difference of opinion with her parents, which was the reason for her to leave her ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA R KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE24H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.205398/2019 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SRI SANJEEV KUMAR S/O ZHARANAPPA AGE43YEARS, OCC: PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NOW AT SULEPET, TQ:CHINCHOLI, DIST: KALABURAGI 585 306. .PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. 22. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU 560 001. .RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.ARCHANA P TIWARI, AGA FO R1; SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED0310.2019 (VIDE ANNEXURE D) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, KALABURAGI, BENCH IN APPLICAT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1961)IILLJ486Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, Sri T.N. Subramania Iyer, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to have the order of respondent 1, Ex.P. 1, dated 20 October 1960 quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order. 2. The order Ex.P. 1 itself is to the effect that investigations conducted into allegations against the three officers mentioned therein, one of whom is the petitioner, have disclosed prima facie that the officers have committed the two irregularities stated therein. Ex.P. 1 also states that the allegations referred to therein, for which there is prima facie evidence are of a serious nature warranting disciplinary action and the Government consider that the case against the three officers mentioned therein should be proceeded with and enquired into under the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960 and the Government order accordingly. 3. Ex.P. 1 is also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.38 OF1997Dr. Subramanian Swamy Petitioner Versus Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.21 OF2004Centre for Public Interest Litigation Petitioner Versus Union of India Respondent JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, CJI. Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short, the DSPE Act), which was inserted by Act 45 of 2003, reads as under:Section 6-A. Approval of Central Government to conduct inquiry or investigation.- (1) The Delhi Special Police Establishment shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) except with the previous approval of the Central Government where such allegation relates to- (a) the employees of the Central Government of the Level of Joint Secretary and above; and (b) such officers as are appointed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL/CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.120 OF2012Manohar Lal Sharma .Petitioner Versus The Principal Secretary and Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.463 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.429 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.498 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.515 OF2012AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.283 OF2013ORDER R.M. LODHA, J.The question for the purposes of this order really resolves itself into this: whether the approval of the Central Government is necessary under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act for short) in a matter where the inquiry/investigation into the crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act for short) is being monitored by the Court. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail, suffice, however, to say that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered preliminary enquiries (PEs) against unknown public servants...
Tag this Judgment!