Court : Supreme Court of India
..... university were approved by the state government.19. thereafter on 30th may 2017, the state government promulgated an ordinance thereby repealing the 2016 act. the impugned act came to be passed by punjab vidhan sabha, which received the assent of the hon ble governor on 12 4th july 2017 and ..... the complaints received that an institution of national importance was suffering 16 (2004) 1 scc712:2003. insc66742 from mismanagement and maladministration. the central government acted on such findings. circumstances warranting an emergent action satisfied the president of india, resulting in his promulgating ordinances which earlier could not culminate in ..... department of higher education, government of punjab, that they have enacted the statutes of the khalsa university in consonance with the 2010 policy, the 2016 act and university grants commission5 guidelines. 3.7. on 6th april 2017, the superintendent of higher education department, government of punjab, communicated to khalsa university .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... with the respondents complainants for the units in question.3. the respondents complainants filed the complaints before the `state commission under section 17 of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the present appellants and respondent no.2 seeking inter alia the declaration that the present appellants and the respondent no.2 were jointly and severally involved ..... by the letter of revocation dated 12-8-2014, coupled with public notice of the same date and hence the appellants could not be held liable for any act done by respondent no.2, who had allegedly entered into agreements with the complainants. he also submitted that the complaints as such are not 6 maintainable under the ..... letter of revocation dated 12-8-2014, submitted that even as per the said letter, the appellants had stated that they could not be liable for the acts of the respondent no.2 henceforth meaning thereby after the said letter, however, the respondent no.2 had entered into the agreement with the complainants i.e .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... . page 11 of 260 rules , for the sake of convenience), which have been framed under sections 6, 8 and 25 of the environment (protection) act, 1986 ( ep act, 1986 , for short) in consonance with articles 14, 19, 21, 38, 47, 48, 48a read with article 51-a(g) of the constitution ..... in original, as notified for the purpose. morphological characters using distinctiveness, uniformity and stability (dus) descriptors as per protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act, (ppvfra) guidelines for the hybrids. source of germplasm/ pedigree and biotech traits must be provided with self-declaration by the applicant. affidavit on the ownership ..... protects the right to a safe and healthy environment. precautionary principle:31. the essence of the precautionary principle lies in the notion that decision makers should act in advance of scientific certainty to protect the environment. [source: andrew jordan and timothy o riordan, the precautionary principle in contemporary environmental politics (1995) .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... part of her statement recorded under section 161 of crpc. the witness ought to have been confronted with her prior statement in accordance with section 145 of the indian evidence act. however, in the cross- examination made by the public prosecutor, the witness accepted the suggestion given by the public prosecutor that the appellant came to her house at 7 p ..... his mother s hair, the appellant took her towards the pond. at that time, one lakhan came there and tried to tell the appellant that he should not do such acts with his mother. the appellant abused him and forced him to leave. it is pertinent to note that pw-2 bisoha did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... purchaser cannot challenge the validity of the notification or the irregularity in taking possession of the land.45. we may also refer to the delhi lands (restrictions on transfers) act, 1972 ( 1972 act , hereafter) which imposes certain restrictions on transfer of lands which have been acquired. section 3 prohibits the transfer of any land acquired by the central government under the ..... listing in the week commencing 22nd july, 2024: a) dda vs. gita sabharwal [diary no.21746/2022].; b) dda vs. narendar kumar [diary no.674/2023, ma].; c) dda vs. bal kishan [diary no.5711/2023, ma].; d) dda vs. ishaaq [diary no.1713/2023, ma].; e) dda vs. abhishek jain [diary no.40951/2022, ma].; f) dda vs. m ..... 1. dda vs. gita sabharwal11has been issued either on [diary no.21746/2022]. delay or on merits 2. dda vs. narendar kumar [diary no.674/2023, ma].3. dda vs. bal kishan [diary no.5711/2023, ma].4. dda vs. ishaaq [diary no.1713/2023, ma].5. dda vs. abhishek jain [diary no.40951/2022, ma].6. dda vs. m .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... presiding officer of the court and so also of the complainant ashok kumar pathak. three more witnesses, namely, head constables mohan lal and surender kumar and inspector bal kishan were also examined on oath in proceedings under section 299 crpc.29. in this background, the fervent submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that ..... under section 299 crpc was rightly relied upon as admissible and reliable piece of evidence. the non-examination of ashok kumar pathak during trial is not a deliberate act of prosecution, rather, the witness could not be examined during regular trial after apprehension of the accused appellant. the witness could not be traced by the ..... by showing him to be an absconder. as per the prosecution case, the complainant ashok kumar pathak, head constables mohan lal and surender kumar and inspector bal kishan were examined on oath in proceedings under section 299 crpc and the file was consigned to the record room.10. the accused appellant could be apprehended .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... hearing. it clearly appears from the above facts of the case that selection of the petitioners has been made contrary to the provisions of madhya pradesh panchayat raj act, 1993 and principles prescribed for the selection. in the above situation, the order dated 02.06.1999 passed by the collector, chhatarpur is not liable to ..... religious, linguistic, regional, caste or sectional diversities; or (iii) the dignity of women; or (b)gross negligence in the discharge of the duties under this act; [(c) the use of position or influence directly or indirectly to secure employment for any relative in the panchayat or any action for extending any pecuniary benefits to ..... duties under the above section and in such circumstances, if it is done, then office bearers of the panchayat could be terminated. in section 100 of the act, acquisition of any interest by any member office bearer or employee directly or indirectly in any contract or any employment made is strictly prohibited. in the present .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... of discovery of mistake and, therefore, stands excluded, by operation of section 17(1)(c) of the limitation act, 1963 (act 21 of 1963) and that section 78-b has no application to the facts in this case. in consequence ..... the present case is one of overcharge or illegal charge ?. .... 76 a. applicability of section 106(3) of the railways act, 1989. .................. 76 b. whether the chargeable distance of 444 km was correct or not?. ........... 82 g. conclusion........................................................................................ 941 ..... of 95 f. analysis .............................................................................................. 22 i. relevant statutory scheme and provisions .............................................. 22 ii. scope of section 106 of the railways act, 1989 ........................................ 29 a. what is meant by an overcharge ?. ....................................................... 35 b. concept of an overcharge and an illegal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... of the grievances redressal mechanism relating to sexual harassment at workplace. the 2006 standing order is reproduced below: - page 49 of 104 directorate general, sashastra seema bal (ssb), r.k. puram, new delhi-110066 2006 standing order12006 sub: grievances redressal mechanism : to redress grievances of women / sexual harassment at work ..... on hyper-technical interpretations of the applicable service rules. for instance, the sexual harassment of women at workplace (prevention, prohibition, and redressal) act 2013 penalizes several misconducts of a sexual nature and imposes a mandate on all public and private organizations to create adequate mechanisms for redressal. however, ..... (c) as regards private employers steps should be taken to include the aforesaid prohibitions in the standing orders under the industrial employment (standing orders) act, 1946. (d) appropriate work conditions should be provided in respect of work, leisure, health and hygiene to further ensure that there is no .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... of proof and presumptions: conceptual underpinnings 29. there are two senses in which the phrase burden of proof is used in the indian evidence act, 1872 (evidence act, hereinafter). one 18 is the burden of proof arising as a matter of pleading and the other is the one which deals with the ..... can be made between discretionary presumptions ( may presume ) and compulsive or compulsory presumptions ( shall presume ). [g. vasu v. syed yaseen (supra)].33. the evidence act provides for presumptions, which fit within one of three forms: 'may presume' (rebuttable presumptions of fact), 'shall presume' (rebuttable presumption of law) and conclusive presumptions ( ..... respondent judgment aravind kumar, j.1. leave granted.2. the respondent-accused was tried for the offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (for short ni act ). the trial court acquitted1 him. the high court dismissed the appellant s- complainant's appeal and upheld the order of acquittal2. challenging the .....
Tag this Judgment!