Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003(II)OLR1
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Criminal Misc. Case No. 306 of 2003 has been filed :(a) To quash the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer (Vigilance Cell), Bhubaneswar in V.G.R. Case No. 17 of 2001 pending in the Court of Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar;(b) To quash the order taking cognizance dated 9.12.2002 wherein learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 468/471/420 of the Penal Code.Criminal Misc. Case No. 149 of 2003 has been filed challenging the order dated 18.1.2003- passed by the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance). Bhubaneswar rejecting the petition filed by the petition under Section 205, of the Cr.P.C. to dispense with his personal attendance in Court.Criminal Misc. Case No. 141 of 2003 has been filed challenging the order dated 18.1.2003 passed by the Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in the aforesaid V.G.R. Case rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to recall the order dated 2 1.12.2002 wherein non-bailable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2288; JT1998(4)SC58; (1998)IIIMLJ100(SC); 1998(3)SCALE482; (1998)5SCC643; [1998]3SCR206
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted. This group of appeals arises from a judgement of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court dated 9.3.1994 in a group of writ petitions filed by the teaching and non-teaching staff of various Sanskrit Schools in the State of Bihar. These Sanskrit Schools were private schools. They were said to have been taken over by the State of Bihar under Ordinance 32 of 1989. The teachers and staff of these schools claimed that as a result, they had become Government servants. They filed before the High Court petitions for payment of salary and other emoluments on the basis that they were Government servants with effect from coming in into force of Ordinance 32 of 1989 and they continue to be so thereafter, although the last of the series of Ordinances expired by lapse of time on 30th of April, 1992.2. The High Court has held that the petitioners before it would be entitled to get their salary which they were getting prior to the promulgation of the Ordinances...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)IIMLJ367
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. Broadly stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith. It is only in W.P. No. 6447 of 1993, a prayer is made for declaration that Sections 10(1)(b) and (c), 13(3), (4) and (5), 14(1)(c), 16(1)(b), 20(1)(b) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable. In all the other Writ Petitions the prayer is for either issue of Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaint or for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the Consumer Forum on specified complaints. 2. The petitions can be classified into three groups :- A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC591
1. These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Original No. 3/95, dated 29-12-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi.Following are the particulars of the appellants :______________________________________________________________Appeal No. Name of the appellant Referred to asE/ 209/ 96- A M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. ITCE/210/96-A J.N. Sapru -E/211/96-A J. Narayan -E/288/96-A M/s. Asia Tobacco Ltd. ATCE/289/96-A M/s. Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette HDCF Factory Ltd.E/290/96-A M/s. Lakshmi Tobacco Co. LTCE/291/96-A M/s. Reliable Cigarettes RCTI and Tobacco IndustriesE/292/96-A M/s. Master Tobacco Co. MTCE/293/96 M/s. Crown Tobacco Co. CTCE/294/96-A R. Bhoothalingam 2. The particulars of demand of duty proposed in the show cause notice for the period 1-3-1983 to 28-2-1987 and demand confirmed and penalty imposed on the assessees are as follows :-_____________________________________________________________Concern Duty proposed Duty confirmed Penalty Penalty (in rupees) (in rupees) in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE19H DAY OF MARCH201528TH PHALGUNA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 2429 of 2013 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST41162011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,NEDUMANGAD ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. SHANTANU KHOSLE (MANUFACTURER) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO PROCTER AND GAMBLE & HOME PRODUCTS LIMITED P AN G PLAZA, CARDINAL GRACIAS ROAD, CHAKALA ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400099.2. BHARAT PATEL NON-EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN PROCTER AND GAMBLE & HOME PRODUCTS LIMITED P AN G PLAZA, CARDINAL GRACIAS ROAD, CHAKALA ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400099.3. M/S.PROCTER AND GAMBLE & HOME PRODUCTS LIMITED P AND G PLAZA, CARDINAL GRACIAS ROAD, CHAKALA ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400099. BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)2MLJ367
Srinivasan, J.1. Broadly stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith. It is only in W.P. No. 6447 of 1993 a prayer is made for declaration that Sections 10(1)(b) and (c), 13(3), (4) and (5), 14(1)(c), 16(1)(b), 20(1)(b)) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable. In all the other writ petitions the prayer is for either issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaints or for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the Consumer Forum on specified complaints.2. The petitions can be classified into three Groups:A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Institutions:...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-790-MA-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 18, 2013 **** M/S.Tata Steel LTD.. . Petitioners versus M/S.Atma Tube Products LTD.& ORS.. . Respondents **** CRM-A-547-MA-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 18, 2013 **** Kesar Singh . . Petitioner versus Dheeraj Kumar . . Respondent **** CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HONBLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH HONBLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. **** Present: Mr.HL Tikku, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate; Mr.Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate (in CRM-790-MA-2010) Mr.PS Ahluwalia and Mr.Arjun Sheoran, Advocates (CRM-A-547-MA-2011) for the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Mr.Pardeep S. Poonia, Additional AG Haryana; Mr.Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana; Mr.Saurabh Mohunta, DAG Haryana; and Mr.Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana Mr.Amit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(2)ALLMR110; 2007(1)BomCR329
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The creative judicial interpretation of Article 21 by our constitutional Courts, has broadened our vision, in understanding the expression 'right to life'. Preventing degradation of our ecology and protection of our environment, including the right to clean drinking water and pollutant free atmosphere are some of its facets. Ecological factors as judicially understood, indisputably are relevant considerations in Town and Country Planning Statutes. Courts to preserve the environment and ecology of 'Earth' our home for the present and future generations whilst interpreting environmental laws, lean in favour of protection. The questions raised by the petitioners and which fall for our consideration, give rise to a host of legal issues. Can the State, citing its financial inability to provide housing to encroachers on public and private lands residing in structures which came up before 1-1-1995 to whom it has granted protection from eviction or its inability to free RG a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(4)BomCR719
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. All ten writ petitions, together with four surviving civil applications therein, are being considered together, for disposal. Common factor in all these matters, is Godavari Dudhna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. at and post office Dev Nandra, Taluka Pathri, District Parbhani (henceforth, referred to as 'the sick factory'). The sick factory has come to grinding halt, so far as its business of production of sugar is concerned. After interim order of liquidation under Section 102 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ('MCS Act' for brevity's sake) dated 14.3.2002, finally, liquidation of the said sick factory, which is a specified cooperative society under Section 73-G of the MCS Act; is ordered on 15.5.2002. During the period the sick factory is under liquidation, there had been oscillation of decisions by the authorities under the MCS Act, regarding fate of the sick factory, whether to run it by granting lease or to effect sale of the same for satisfying...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2002]109CompCas18(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The notices of motion in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 seek to challenge the legality and validity of substantial acquisitions of shares by defendants Nos. 1 to 11 in defendant No. 12-company allegedly in violation of the provisions of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994, and pray for the annulment thereof, particularly in the context of the breaches of regulations 9 and 10 which require a public announcement of the intention to acquire substantial shares in certain circumstances. Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 on the other hand, dispute the right of third parties like the plaintiffs to challenge such acquisitions, the rights of plaintiffs claimed to be based in common law and/or statute and as to whether the voting rights flowing from such shares can be injuncted by filing a suit in the context of the relevant provisions of the Companies Act. Consequently, the questions pertaining to balance of convenience and appropriate orders to be passe...
Tag this Judgment!