Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1998Cal139
ORDERShyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. In the instant Election Petition the petitioner has challenged election of the respondent No. 1 and has also prayed that the said election be declared void and the petitioner be declared elected having received majority of valid votes polled. The respondent No. 1 has filed written statement. Thereafter, on 8-10-96 issues were framed and following issues' were settled :--'1. Is the Election Petition liable to be dismissed for non-service of the correct copy of the petition and for non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 of the present petition?2. Are the allegations of corrupt practices are made in paragraphs 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 29 of the petition and different sub-paragraphs thereof correct?3. Does the Election Petition disclose any cause of action?4. Is the Election Petitioner entitled to a declaration that the election of the respondent No. 1 of 212 Ramnagar Legislative Assembly Constituency void?5. Is the el...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(3)ALT324
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment in W.P. No. 7412/92. Petitioner is the appellant. She assailed her transfer 'on religious grounds' from the posts of Principal & Correspondent of St. Ann's Degree and Post Graduate Colleges and Correspondent of St. Ann's Junior College for Girls, Mehdipatnam to the Generalate of St.Ann's Society at Guntur. The transfer was made by the 7th respondent who is the Superior General of the Society of St. Ann, Guntur. She replaced the petitioner by appointing respondent No. 5 as the Correspondent of the three colleges and as Principal of the Degree College and Post Graduate Centre and the 6th respondent as Principal of the Junior College. Petitioner assailed the order as devoid of jurisdiction, vitiated by malafides and as violative of the principles of natural justice. Those grounds did not appeal to the learned single judge. He therefore dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal.2. The pleadings in this appeal are voluminous. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:27. 04.2015 W.P.(C) 2913/2014 & CM No.6035/2014 ONIKA MEHROTRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & CM No.6377/2014 NARENDER JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3051/2014 & CM No.6381/2014 SURENDER SOLANKI & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Petitioners : Mr A.S. Chandihok, Sr. Advocate with Mr Anil Amrit and Mr N. Tripathi in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Amit Gupta and Mr Anant A. Pavgi in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & W.P.(C) 3051/2014. For the Respondents : Mr Subodh Kumar with Dr Kanchan Chawla for R- 1 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Laliet Kumar and Mr Vipin Malik for R-2 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Gaurang Kanth, Advocate with Mr Biji Rajesh, Mr Rajeev Yadav, Mr Anchit Sharma, Mr Abhay Pratap Singh for MCD in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:27. 04.2015 W.P.(C) 2913/2014 & CM No.6035/2014 ONIKA MEHROTRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & CM No.6377/2014 NARENDER JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3051/2014 & CM No.6381/2014 SURENDER SOLANKI & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Petitioners : Mr A.S. Chandihok, Sr. Advocate with Mr Anil Amrit and Mr N. Tripathi in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Amit Gupta and Mr Anant A. Pavgi in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & W.P.(C) 3051/2014. For the Respondents : Mr Subodh Kumar with Dr Kanchan Chawla for R- 1 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Laliet Kumar and Mr Vipin Malik for R-2 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Gaurang Kanth, Advocate with Mr Biji Rajesh, Mr Rajeev Yadav, Mr Anchit Sharma, Mr Abhay Pratap Singh for MCD in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:27. 04.2015 W.P.(C) 2913/2014 & CM No.6035/2014 ONIKA MEHROTRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & CM No.6377/2014 NARENDER JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3051/2014 & CM No.6381/2014 SURENDER SOLANKI & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Petitioners : Mr A.S. Chandihok, Sr. Advocate with Mr Anil Amrit and Mr N. Tripathi in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Amit Gupta and Mr Anant A. Pavgi in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & W.P.(C) 3051/2014. For the Respondents : Mr Subodh Kumar with Dr Kanchan Chawla for R- 1 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Laliet Kumar and Mr Vipin Malik for R-2 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Gaurang Kanth, Advocate with Mr Biji Rajesh, Mr Rajeev Yadav, Mr Anchit Sharma, Mr Abhay Pratap Singh for MCD in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(3)AWC1714
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 13.11.1995 passed by respondent No. 2 directing for the inspection and recounting of votes and declaring respondent No. 3 as duly elected Pradhan of the village as well as order dated 23.1.1996 passed by the District Judge, Bahraich dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 13.11.1995.2. Facts of the case as set out in the writ petition, in brief are that the petitioner contested the election for the post of Pradhan of village Thailiya, Pargana Phakharpur, Tahsil Mahsi, district Bahraich. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were also candidates for aforesaid post and in the said election. The election was held on 16.4.1995, and votes were counted on 19.4.1995. Petitioner having secured highest number of votes, i.e., 502 votes as agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1970)72BOMLR630; 1971MhLJ61
Chandrachud, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges an order dated September 12, 1967 passed by respondent No. 2, the State of Maharashtra, confirming in appeal an order dated September 28, 1966 passed by respondent No. 1 the Competent Authority, under Section 53A of the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 (Act LXIX of 1948) hereinafter called 'the Act.'2. By a letter dated February 10, 1961, the Estate Manager of the Maharashtra Housing Board informed the petitioner, a hutment dweller, that it was decided to allot to him a two-room tenement at Motilal Nagar, Goregaon Colony, under the Slum Dwellers Rehabilitation Scheme. The petitioner executed a tenancy agreement in favour of the Chairman of the Board and gave the necessary undertakings in the prescribed form. Clause 17 of the agreement provides that the tenancy would be terminable by one calendar month's notice on either side. Clause 20 provides that the tenancy shall be subject to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3197/2010 MOHD. NAFEES Through : .....Petitioner Mr.S.D.Ansari and Mr.I.Ahmed, Advs. versus MOHD. IMRAN ISMAIL Through: % ..... Respondent Mr.P.D.Gupta and Mr.Atul Gupta, Advs. Pronounced on :14. 03.2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J1 Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of Criminal Revision No.22/2009 vide order dated 23.01.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge affirming the order dated 11.09.2009 passed by learned MM in CC No.1987/2008, the Petitioner has filed this Crl.M.C. No.3197/2010 praying for quashing of the orders dated 11.09.2009 and 23.01.2010.2. Briefly stating, the facts of the present case are that the Petitioner herein filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC praying for summoning of Respondent for committing the offences complained of. As per the accusations made in the complaint, the Respondent, while submitting his Nomination Form before the Election Commissioner for contesting the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT459
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J. 1. This Original Petition is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 456 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Cherthala.'(i) To set aside the process issued and orders passed in the suit. (ii) To declare that the statutory authorities under the Abkari Act are competent to decide the question whether a toddy shop is located within the prohibited distance from aTemple, and (iii) To declare that the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted in matters coming under the provisions of the Abkari Act and that the civil suit filed by the plaintiff is notmaintainable.' The petitioner is the licence holder of Shop No. 10 of Kuthiathodu Range in Alappuzha District. He was granted Ext. P2 licence under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act after completing all formalities laid down under the Act and Rules made thereunder and depositing a huge amount. When the petitioner started functioning of the toddy shop the first respondent filed O.S. No. 456 of 2002 before the Munsi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)2GLR1558
Akshay H. Mehta, J. 1. At the stage of admission hearing, we have been informed by learned Counsels appearing for the parties that the pleadings in this petition are complete and looking to the controversies that are involved in it, the petition is required to be finally decided. Hence, Rule. Mr. Amit Kotak, the learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent No. 1-State and Mr. K. M. Patel, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (G.M.D.C.) waive service of the rule. The petition is heard fully and now it is being disposed of by this C.A.V. judgment.2. This petition is filed for claiming reliefs to declare that the acquisition of the petitioners' lands without prescribing for an adequate Scheme for rehabilitation and resettlement is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(d), (e) and 21 read with Articles 39, 39(b), 39A and 46 of the Constitution of India, and to direct the respondents by issuing appropriate writ, order or...
Tag this Judgment!